5 ms·

Q&A – EU Parliament's vote in favour of modernised rules fit for digital age

2 points by sanqui 8y ago

ziddoap 8y ago
Whoever spun this into "modernised rules fit for a digital age" instead of "Rules you're unable to comply with" is a marketing genious.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  If you read it, it basically entirely discredits everything opponents have claimed: - "Internet users will continue to be able to share content on social media and link to websites and newspapers (acts of hyperlinking), just as it is the case today." - "It sets strong safeguards for users, making clear that everywhere in Europe the use of existing works for purposes of quotation, criticism, review, caricature as well as parody are explicitly allowed. This means that memes and similar parody creations can be used freely." - "The new rules do not impose uploading of filters nor do they require user-uploaded platforms to apply any specific technology to recognise illegal content."
  - ziddoap 8y ago
    I didn't, because the link just says "this has moved". However, "discredit" is way too strong of a word if those quotes are supposedly "discredting". - Dont require upload filters? How else are you supposed to comply at scale? Experts, MEP's, and EU countries have all admitted that the rules, from a practical standpoint, will require filters. Regardless if filters are mandated or not in the legislation, they are required from a technical standpoint. - What strong safeguards are in place for users? I have yet to see anything other than hand-wavy promises. - Who and how, without filters, would be sifting through content prior to approval? Even a tiny website with say 200 pictures uploaded a day - who is checking for infringing content without a filter? Either way (filter or no), its expensive and rewards companies already entrenched while hindering up-and-coming websites. The BIG thing is - it's not what is written in the legislation. It's how the legislation is implemented. You say I can quote, criticize, review and parody. Great. Thanks. What do I do when these inevitably get caught in the crossfire? Either by filters or by companies over-complying? One look at the YouTube system and how error prone it is should be evidence enough that you can say "this is allowed" yet effectively it is not.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      - Upload filters will not be adequate. It is possible that compliance with the law is not possible at scale, and that's okay. Just jamming content on the Internet at scale and trusting automated systems to manage it has caused... a lot of problems for society as a whole. If Article 13 kills YouTube, that's a feature, not a bug. - The strong safeguard is that the law enshrines that those are protected reasons to share things built on copyrighted content. i.e. "fair use". When these "inevitably get caught in the crossfire", that is what courts are for. To sort it out fairly and justly, rather than you being abused by a YouTube algorithm.
      - ziddoap 8y ago
        If Article 13 kills YouTube, thats a feature? Okay.... I'd love an explanation. I'm sure millions of other creators who got started on YouTube, and all of the websites/jobs/consumers of YouTube would also love a bit more thorough explanation of that. The law is already unsatisfactory for current copyright claims. Now they have to add hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of additional claims. How does that make things better? So, for every time my video or whatever is caught in the crossfire, I'm expected to hire a lawyer and go to court? What do you expect the wait times to be? Where are all the judges, courtrooms, etc. coming from? In my country at least, we are already 4-6 months wait for non-critical cases. Sometimes even longer. Now we have to add potentially millions of copyright claims to the mix? That seems awfully unrealistic. And what about the stuff where it's brand-building instead of revenue-generating? I have to pay for a lawyer to resolve something over a few months which I wont make money for? Not to mention, if thats what the courts are for... Why do we need this legislation? If someones infringing your content just go to the courts yeah? No need to implement any of these laws, because the courts are working just fine for copyright. Are you some shill for Article 13 or lobbyist? Give this a read https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-disastrous-internet-law-what-happens-next https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-d...
        ocdtrekkie 8y ago
        You may wish to consult the HN rules and guidelines regarding baselessly accusing people of being shills because they disagree with you. And no, I'm not. I work in IT in the US, and do not have any financial or political ties to either big tech companies or media companies. :) It's likely if YouTube were to disappear, a multitude of other, smaller platforms would crop up offering different revenue models, more options, and less automation. People who used them would be more discoverable, since they would be in a smaller sea instead of a big ocean. The default assumption that any shared video would be on that single site would disappear, but I sincerely doubt it would significantly change the ability for people to create Internet content. If anything, video creation is going to continue to explode into the future, if regular jobs increasingly become replaced by automation. But it'd be a good idea to ensure that one company doesn't control all of it. Bear in mind, any burden of fighting a copyright claim comes with an equal burden for the plaintiff. It's not like a given music studio can afford to actually participate in millions of copyright claims at a time. The reality of it is that media companies go after large infringers who cause significant financial harm. Those are whom it's worth paying a lawyer to chase down.

2 points by sanqui 8y ago

Whoever spun this into "modernised rules fit for a digital age" instead of "Rules you're unable to comply with" is a marketing genious.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
If you read it, it basically entirely discredits everything opponents have claimed: - "Internet users will continue to be able to share content on social media and link to websites and newspapers (acts of hyperlinking), just as it is the case today." - "It sets strong safeguards for users, making clear that everywhere in Europe the use of existing works for purposes of quotation, criticism, review, caricature as well as parody are explicitly allowed. This means that memes and similar parody creations can be used freely." - "The new rules do not impose uploading of filters nor do they require user-uploaded platforms to apply any specific technology to recognise illegal content."
- ziddoap 8y ago
  I didn't, because the link just says "this has moved". However, "discredit" is way too strong of a word if those quotes are supposedly "discredting". - Dont require upload filters? How else are you supposed to comply at scale? Experts, MEP's, and EU countries have all admitted that the rules, from a practical standpoint, will require filters. Regardless if filters are mandated or not in the legislation, they are required from a technical standpoint. - What strong safeguards are in place for users? I have yet to see anything other than hand-wavy promises. - Who and how, without filters, would be sifting through content prior to approval? Even a tiny website with say 200 pictures uploaded a day - who is checking for infringing content without a filter? Either way (filter or no), its expensive and rewards companies already entrenched while hindering up-and-coming websites. The BIG thing is - it's not what is written in the legislation. It's how the legislation is implemented. You say I can quote, criticize, review and parody. Great. Thanks. What do I do when these inevitably get caught in the crossfire? Either by filters or by companies over-complying? One look at the YouTube system and how error prone it is should be evidence enough that you can say "this is allowed" yet effectively it is not.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    - Upload filters will not be adequate. It is possible that compliance with the law is not possible at scale, and that's okay. Just jamming content on the Internet at scale and trusting automated systems to manage it has caused... a lot of problems for society as a whole. If Article 13 kills YouTube, that's a feature, not a bug. - The strong safeguard is that the law enshrines that those are protected reasons to share things built on copyrighted content. i.e. "fair use". When these "inevitably get caught in the crossfire", that is what courts are for. To sort it out fairly and justly, rather than you being abused by a YouTube algorithm.
    - ziddoap 8y ago
      If Article 13 kills YouTube, thats a feature? Okay.... I'd love an explanation. I'm sure millions of other creators who got started on YouTube, and all of the websites/jobs/consumers of YouTube would also love a bit more thorough explanation of that. The law is already unsatisfactory for current copyright claims. Now they have to add hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of additional claims. How does that make things better? So, for every time my video or whatever is caught in the crossfire, I'm expected to hire a lawyer and go to court? What do you expect the wait times to be? Where are all the judges, courtrooms, etc. coming from? In my country at least, we are already 4-6 months wait for non-critical cases. Sometimes even longer. Now we have to add potentially millions of copyright claims to the mix? That seems awfully unrealistic. And what about the stuff where it's brand-building instead of revenue-generating? I have to pay for a lawyer to resolve something over a few months which I wont make money for? Not to mention, if thats what the courts are for... Why do we need this legislation? If someones infringing your content just go to the courts yeah? No need to implement any of these laws, because the courts are working just fine for copyright. Are you some shill for Article 13 or lobbyist? Give this a read https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-disastrous-internet-law-what-happens-next https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/eus-parliament-signs-d...
      - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
        You may wish to consult the HN rules and guidelines regarding baselessly accusing people of being shills because they disagree with you. And no, I'm not. I work in IT in the US, and do not have any financial or political ties to either big tech companies or media companies. :) It's likely if YouTube were to disappear, a multitude of other, smaller platforms would crop up offering different revenue models, more options, and less automation. People who used them would be more discoverable, since they would be in a smaller sea instead of a big ocean. The default assumption that any shared video would be on that single site would disappear, but I sincerely doubt it would significantly change the ability for people to create Internet content. If anything, video creation is going to continue to explode into the future, if regular jobs increasingly become replaced by automation. But it'd be a good idea to ensure that one company doesn't control all of it. Bear in mind, any burden of fighting a copyright claim comes with an equal burden for the plaintiff. It's not like a given music studio can afford to actually participate in millions of copyright claims at a time. The reality of it is that media companies go after large infringers who cause significant financial harm. Those are whom it's worth paying a lawyer to chase down.