
EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’ - daninet
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved
======
0x5f3759df-i
>However, those backing these provisions say the arguments above are the
result of scaremongering by big US tech companies, eager to keep control of
the web’s biggest platforms.

This is the most hilarious quote in the article. The _only_ thing this will do
is entrench massive players like Google and Facebook who already have these
systems in place. I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this
law while having any understanding of how the internet works. Do these
politicians really not understand the awful implications of these filtering
systems for free speech and fair use? Just look at the abuses that already
happen with the existing systems and now we have to spread this across the
entire web, absolutely insane.

A truly sad day for the future of a free internet in Europe.

~~~
bcheung
The stronger they push ridiculous laws like this the more it will force
perfectly legitimate business to go underground. We will end up with all the
problems of prohibition all over again.

> is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies
> like Google link to their stories

So Google should pay you when they send you more traffic? More traffic = more
money. Most companies would be overjoyed if someone sends them free business.
Google and countless others even provide tools like Adwords so you can
monetize your site if you can't figure out how to do it yourself.

I wonder how long until companies outside of Europe decide it's easier just to
block all traffic from Europe in protest.

This is a weakening of safe harbor provisions. This law makes it extremely
difficult to have a platform with any kind of user generated content. As long
as a company is taking reasonable measures to combat piracy, hate speech, etc,
they need to be granted indemnity from the actions of rogue users.

~~~
6ue7nNMEEbHcM
> I wonder how long until companies outside of Europe decide it's easier just
> to block all traffic from Europe in protest.

Exactly this. I already hit error 451 when trying to read some local news in
US when browsing from Europe (I don't remember name of the page now). This
happened after GPDR came into effect. I can totally relate with companies who
don't want to deal with legal mess related with GPDR and other nonsense from
EU an prefer to just show the user error 451 page. I'm pretty sure VPN
providers and huge companies like Google will benefit from this legislation.

~~~
AndyMcConachie
European here. I can't view some major newspapers in the US such as the LA
Times. Smallers ones like the Virginia Gazette and Daily Press are also
verboten for me.

Many US newspapers now redirect to tronc.com for a standard disclaimer.

For example, the LA Times redirects to
[http://www.tronc.com/gdpr/latimes.com/](http://www.tronc.com/gdpr/latimes.com/),
which says this.

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options
that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue
to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with
our award-winning journalism.

~~~
mike10010100
This also happens to me. Evidently my FiOS IP looks European despite the fact
that I live near NYC...

------
Grumbledour
As terrible as this is, I am actually even more shocked by this proposal:

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/12/europe-to-push-for-one-
hou...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/12/europe-to-push-for-one-hour-
takedown-law-for-terrorist-content/)

Having one hour to remove offending content, draconian fines and no,
absolutely no exceptions for small content providers would, I think, end the
internet as we know it in Europe. I see no way to host any kind of content
under such jurisdiction and surely all non European content providers would
just block the EU rather then take on a task that even giants like facebook
and google can barely manage.

~~~
arendtio
Sounds like the web without user content... Web 1.0? So much for free speech.

~~~
sircastor
Wasn't Web 1.0 _only_ user content?

~~~
wrs
Indeed. Of course it was limited to a very small and weird collection of
“users”.

~~~
strictnein
> it was limited to a very small and weird collection of “users”

Agreed. It was a much better place.

------
the6threplicant
A comment from someone who has actually read the article:
[https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9ely8y/why_the_w...](https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9ely8y/why_the_whole_world_should_be_up_in_arms_about/e5qndqn/)

For example:

 _...the EFF argue that the idea of what constitutes a link is not fully
defined. I 'm not sure what they're talking about. Recitals 31-36 set out the
concepts in article 11, fairly clearly. They make it clear that what is being
protected is substantial or harmful copying of significant portions of the
text. They also make it clear what organisations this will affect - press
organisations - with a fairly clear description of what a press organisation
might constitute. (FWIW, memes are not covered, and anyone you hear talking
about "banning memes" is getting their news from very poor sources.)_

~~~
dannyobrien
(Disclosure -- I work on this for EFF)

You can read the recitals this commenter is describing here, including the
latest amendments that were voted in the Parliamentary plenary. As you'd
imagine, I disagree with his interpretation.

[https://juliareda.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/Copyright_Se...](https://juliareda.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/Copyright_Sept12_Voss.pdf)

Firstly, these are just recitals. They're not a binding part of the Directive,
they just lay out the justifications for the law.

If you do read the listed recitals, they mention links once, and don't define
the term at all. When they do, the context is that "the act of hyperlinking"
is not protected (ie the new ancillary right does not explicitly cover the act
of hyperlinking).

This is an attempt to refute an argument that no-one is making (though the
language echoes a previous fight that rightsholders are still pursuing, which
is links to infringing content should be punished as strongly as hosting
content itself. That's what the "communication to the public" is about, and
has been ongoing, but that's another story.)

The concern over Article 11 isn't that it would criminalise linking to a news
item; it's that if you use any text of an article, including its title, you
can be sued or made to sign a license. Such snippets of text are usually used
when linking to a news article, especially when you're doing it automatically,
so that's where the threat to linking to stories.

A couple of other things to note in these amendments. One of the earlier
arguments as to why Article 11 isn't so bad we heard is that there are already
exemptions in copyright for quotation and critical review. We argued that
under EU law, these exemptions are entirely optional at the national level,
and news publishers will lobby to limit the effect of them on this new IP
right. If you look at the amendment for Recital 34, this is now being
explicitly set up to happen: the Recital now says that member states _can_
apply these exceptions, instead of _should_.

Just because the recitals aren't law, doesn't mean you can't use them to
better understand the motives and justifications of the drafters.

As others have noted, the "banning memes" line is about Article 13. An
amendment proposed by a Parliamentary committee to create a "fair use"-style
exception for user-generated content, specifically to protect remixes and
memes, was struck down in today's vote.

By contrast, an entirely new provision that gave organizers of sports events
complete ownership of the IP rights to their games was voted in.
[https://juliareda.eu/2018/09/copyright-sports-
fans/](https://juliareda.eu/2018/09/copyright-sports-fans/)

Basically, this directive remains an IP maximalists' dream. A bunch of new IP
rights, some of which only apply online, with clear signals that they should
be interpreted as broadly as possible.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
> it's that if you use any text of an article, including its title, you can be
> sued or made to sign a license.

This seems a great place to use automated translation technology, but into the
same language. Link to the news article, but rewrite it using a similar
meaning, with different words.

(I am an EU citizen and I think this is major overreach by the legislator who
thinks they are saving the newspapers, but have no clue as to what effect they
will have on the current system, but it still will not save the papers.)

~~~
Guvante
News articles are written with the understanding that the reader could stop
reading at any time so information is put as early as possible. This applies
especially to the title which is used as the very first filter for user
interest. Requiring rewriting titles is a bad idea as you are never in an
automated fashion going to make a better title.

As an example note that this very website heavily prefers the original title
for the link text, only changing it when substantial updates are made or the
original title is heavily biased.

~~~
Whitestrake
> Requiring rewriting titles is a bad idea as you are never in an automated
> fashion going to make a better title.

Depends on how you define "better".

I would argue that a rewritten title you can read is "better" than an un-
rewritten title you can't read because the site couldn't "link" it without
risking a lawsuit or signing an agreement.

------
zmmmmm
This is such a great outcome for Google, they could not have gotten such a
good outcome if they had bribed the legislators directly. They've essentially
enshrined the infrastructure Google has already as a legal requirement for the
bare minimum threshold to host a web site now. Google can sit back and stop
worrying about there ever being competition from Europe now.

~~~
bepotts
US tech giants haven't worried about competition coming from Europe for awhile
now. They worry about competition coming from either within the country or
China.

~~~
dmix
What about foreign companies operating in europe...wouldn't they have to
comply? Or does this only apply to companies with headquarters in Europe?

~~~
trendia
Honest question: What happens if a Russian or Chinese search engine doesn't
comply?

How would the EU block them? This is especially important if the Russian or
Chinese entity has no locus or presence in Europe.

(for instance, would you be able to get around it using a different DNS, or by
using a VPN?)

~~~
tormeh
They'll just block payments to those sites. You know, from the advertisers -
the actual customers of the platform. No one cares what people use for free.
This is about money.

------
ericdykstra
UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting
rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here
we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the
original text.

This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet
works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported
that MEPs voting on the issue could not, or refused to, explain why they
supported the bill. You can see him discussing the result in the immediate
aftermath here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISyiTcA6RIw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISyiTcA6RIw)

If you want a quick example of why this is bad take a look at fair use and
YouTube. Article 13 would make YouTube liable for copyrighted content on its
service.

Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or criticisms
of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video in their own
video. There is more content uploaded to YouTube than can possibly all be
manually reviewed. Aggressive automated content filtering to comply with
Article 13 would mean that these videos would straight get filtered out.

~~~
Shaddox
I may be naive in saying this, but I believe the law is made with good
intentions in mind. The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the
extremely stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use.

> _Much of YouTube content is (perfectly legal) remixes, responses, or
> criticisms of other YouTube content that embeds part of the referenced video
> in their own video._

As weird as it sounds, you are wrong. In a short summary:

1\. Fair use is a very small exception to some very broad rights.

2\. Fair use almost definitely does not apply to most youtube content : if you
use content other people made (video games or music immediately come to mind)
you are infringing copyright holder rights.

3\. If you rely on fair use rights, then you might find yourself in trouble.

What's even worse is that right holders can pick and choose who to bust, and
they don't need to be consistent about it. So even if they rarely go after
small groups, they can still shut down bigger ones.

I have a childhood friend who is now a copyright lawyer and I sometimes
jokingly ask him whether something is copyright infringing. Other than yes,
the most frequent answer I get is "I don't know, it depends. Both sides have
arguments so ultimately it's down to the judge." It's just bad law. The only
difference between then and now is that now we have the technology to actually
enforce it.

~~~
gutnor
> The real problem lies in the laws it relies on, namely the extremely
> stringent copyright laws and the weird fair use.

Real problem is the negative incentive to be correct.

The rule penalise you harshly if you serve copyrighted content, but there is
nothing if you decide to not serve non-copyrighted content and there is so
much content on the internet, that "market pressure" simply isn't going to
work. If you are a small publisher of free content, there is a huge risk for
content platform to serve your content and no reward if they do.

And that's the best case scenario, where all actors have good intentions. But
in the real world we know that large copyright holder are very often bulk
claiming bulk content. There is no penalty, so that would be crazy for them no
to do it.

The laws is also talking about terrorist content and the need to remove it
within 1 hour or risk up to 4% turnover fine ! There is not going to be any
manual check done within 1 hour, and anyway the risk is so great you may as
well have a blanket no-question ask removal policy.

I fail to see the "good intentions in mind" you mention. MEP are some of the
most successful politicians, they would be Olympic level is it was a sport.
Their field of expertise is the people and public relation. I can believe they
are naive with technology (like encryption or monitoring actual capabilities)
but I can't accept they are candid about businesses or individual motivations.
Any negative consequence of this law is there on purpose.

~~~
rocqua
> MEP are some of the most successful politicians, they would be Olympic level
> is it was a sport.

I don't think so. I think MEPs are much closer to members of a state-congress
in the US than member of congress. With the equivalent of a member of the US
congress being a member of some national parliament.

My criterium here is how fierce the campaign is to get elected. At the very
least here in the Netherlands, the campaign for the European Parliament is
nearly an afterthought in the news. It ranks far below the campaign for the
German parliament, let alone our national parliament.

~~~
logifail
>> MEPs are much closer to members of a state-congress in the US than member
of congress

What's the salary and expenses package like in a state congress?

"[..] expense payments of €4,416 per month are given to MEPs as a lump sum in
addition to their regular pre-tax monthly salary of €8,611. They are not
required to provide any proof of how the money is spent"

sources: [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/about-
meps.html](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/about-meps.html) and
[https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-
corrupti...](https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-corruption-
move-to-reform-meps-expenses-wholly-inadequate-say-critics/)

~~~
rocqua
To be Olympic-level says something about how well you compete, not how well
you get compensated.

The fact that MEP compensation is so good, whilst public scrutiny on who gets
seats is so lax is even worse.

------
tomelders
As bonkers as this may seem, I suspect it will fall flat on it's face the
second it's put before a court.

For example, someone defends their right to use the title or quote from an
article from some other news gathering organisation. Someone will need to
convince a judge that it's OK for The Sunday Times, or Der Spiegel to do that,
but it's not OK for Reddit or Hacker News to do that.

And eventually, someone will need to convince a court that it's OK for Charlie
Booker to broadcast a Cassetteboy video mash up on the UK's Channel 4, but
it's not OK for Cassetteboy to upload that same video to youtube.

It is true that the CJEU doesn't hold case law and precedent in the same high
regard as other courts, but neither does it ignore them. The ECJ and CJEU
serves as a check on government in the same way the courts do in most other
countries. I think it is unfortunate that the EU parliament has approved this
law. But I struggle to see how it will stand up in court. That said, it will
take a very brave person or organisation with deep pockets and a steel will to
challenge this law.

However, if this law is upheld in court, then I think we can consider the EU a
failed experiment. So abhorrent is this legislation that I, an ardent
"Remaniac", would rather see the EU fail and take my chances with whatever
comes next, than let the EU stifle free speech and the free flow of
information and ideas in this way.

~~~
Too
> _And eventually, someone will need to convince a court_

I think this is exactly what they want. They don't want to automatically tax
every teenage kid making memes. They just want to create a legal minefield so
whenever they decide a link is not ok they will have a law that backs them up.

In a way it's good because most fair use most likely will fly under the radar
just as it does today, but on the other hand it's also scary that you never
really know when you are passing the threshold and might face an army of
lawyers.

It's very much like patent trolls. They strike like lightning on a sunny day
if you happen to build a mildly successful product that can be remotely
associated with their patent.

------
paganel
This decision is one of the many reasons why Europe will never reach the likes
of Silicon Valley, no matter how much money will they sink down the
"technology" hole (not that the US doesn't have its fair share of dumb
legislators, because it has). This continent is a mess in terms of IT, with a
few exceptions (London, Berlin, Dublin, some spots in Eastern Europe).

~~~
yummybear
Why wouldn't Silicon Valley be affected by this? Most companies have european
customers.

~~~
vorpalhex
"If you are in the EU, you are not allowed to use this website." Pretty much
the same solution for kids under 13 years of age (which is to say, they of
course still do use these sites, they simply lie about it which shifts the
burden...)

~~~
yummybear
Yeah, but wouldn't cutting 500 million of the wealthiest customers from your
solution have a pretty significant business impact?

~~~
nordsieck
> Yeah, but wouldn't cutting 500 million of the wealthiest customers from your
> solution have a pretty significant business impact?

It seems likely that large internet businesses will probably pay to comply
with GDPR.

Many small businesses, whose customers are often mostly regional anyhow, may
decide that it's just not worth the cost of compliance.

~~~
dominotw
> may decide that it's just not worth the cost of compliance.

You cannot not comply with it though.

~~~
xoa
Where the hell did this ridiculous talking point come from? Do you actually
know what "law" even is? Of course someone in another jurisdiction can blow
off law from another polity if they feel like including when dealing with that
polity's citizens, and in turn said polity can try to pursue action against
them. But if they do not travel their and have no asset exposure there and
their own country has a reasonable level of power and protectiveness of its
citizens then the likely responses tend to be limited and passive in nature,
such as internet censorship orders.

I mean, this should be utterly obvious given that most Westerners are not
complying either laws around the world constantly. We can and do criticize the
leadership and governments of any and every country as is our right in ways
that are absolutely illegal according to those countries, just for one simple
example. The EU is free to get some help from China and make a Great Firewall
of their own and censor the net, but if an American blows off something of
theirs that is legal in the US and they come demanding the US enforce their
law they will get told to pound sand. I mean, this isn't even just normal
discretion, in some cases Congress has even flat out made it illegal for the
US to honor foreign judgements, such as the 2010 SPEECH Act which rendered all
foreign libel judgements unenforceable, unless it's a country that has a
direct equivalent to the First Amendment of equal enforcement (I'm aware of
zero countries in the world where this is the case) or the defendant would be
liable if tried in the US, which in practice means basically any enforcement
faces a near insurmountable bar.

~~~
dominotw
> Where the hell did this ridiculous talking point come from? Do you actually
> know what "law" even is?

Calm the fuck down.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17168210](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17168210)

~~~
dang
Please don't respond to incivility with worse.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
xoa
With respect (and to downvoters as well) I did not take dominotw’s reply as
uncivil, and they has my upvote even if I disagree and wish they’d expanded
with their own thoughts rather then merely linked a previous thread. It was
not an adhom or personal attack of any kind, and expressing serious irritation
over a very serious issue should not itself requiring flagging if it’s a real
response.

~~~
dang
It's obviously against HN's rules for users to address each other a la "calm
the fuck down".

------
docdeek
"Article 11 is intended to give publishers and newspapers a way to make money
when companies like Google link to their stories…”

Is there anything stopping a search engine like Google choosing not to link to
a newspaper? Surely they can’t be required to link to a newspaper AND then pay
that newspaper to do so?

The trade-off if Google chose not to link to the newspaper would be a
(slightly) less useful search engine, but the cost to the newspapers would
surely be higher in the long term…or am I missing something?

~~~
cyphar
The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly, and so I think that
there is a valid argument that it needs to be regulated and be forced to be
impartial in the results shown. The fact that they show people's content
without giving them page views (in a world where page views are how you get
significant amounts of money, not to mention subscription opportunities) is a
conscious decision to implement a feature that arguably impacts revenue. I
think there is also a valid argument for this as well.

But I do think that the EU copyright law is significantly flawed because it's
purpose is to further extend the already ridiculously over-extended draconian
copyright laws that exist in the EU. I don't think the issues they
(ostensibly) set out to solve are something that should be ignored though --
Google acting as a biased monopoly which implements features that impact
people's ability to make money is a real problem that needs to be solved
somehow.

~~~
mrunkel
> The problem is that Google is without question a monopoly

This is just false. bing.com exists. news.ycombinator.com exists. reddit.com
exists....

> The fact that they show people's content without giving them page views..

This is just false. Google shows at most an excerpt (that is defined by the
publisher) or a headline (on news.google.com). Unless you're talking about
AMP, but that's a decision made by the publisher too.

~~~
Illniyar
Though the word implies otherwise a monopoly is not defined by the lack of
competitors. At least not in a legal sense anymore.

It is defined by it's marketshare. And google search is by and large a
monopoly in this regard having ~90% market share in virtually all segments of
the market.

~~~
Tor3
>[..] a monopoly is not defined by the lack of competitors.[..]It is defined
by it's marketshare.

No, I can't agree. I don't even consider Microsoft a monopoly, even though
their product comes pre-installed on every PC you can buy in shops. If you
can't get any alternative ISP (to e.g. AT&T) where you live, by any means, now
_that_ is a monopoly.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Surely you can just move house to get a different ISP and so in line with your
other reasoning it can't be a monopoly?

~~~
Tor3
Move house? To where? In areas with only a single ISP, and that ISP 'owns' the
poles/whatever, you can move as much as you want. Nothing changes. Or did you
mean moving to another city? Another part of the country? Really?

It should be obvious that it's perfectly possible to define something as a
monopoly _in a certain area_. If a monopoly could only be defined as a
monopoly if it were global, there wouldn't be many.

~~~
cyphar
For the record, I do agree that ISPs are monopolies (or oligopolies) in many
parts of the US and other countries as well. However they are not the only
form of monopoly, and I don't understand why you seem to be saying that the
statement "Google is a monopoly" is implicitly saying "ISPs are not a
monopoly". They're both monopolies, just different kinds -- the geographic
argument doesn't make sense for websites for instance (outside of countries
that massively censor the internet).

------
h91wka
This is wrong on more levels than it seems from the first glance:

1) I've witnessed creeping internet censorship starting just like this: first
it's something as innocuous as "let's protect creators" or "let's protect
children from harmful content", then 6 years later you can't criticize the
government. They've just created a legal framework for massive automated
censorship, and also Overton window was moved. I expect this to happen as soon
as this law is backed up with the technical means.

2) People in power are uncomfortable with the current state of the internet,
that is a true p2p platform for communication. Can't have that! We just got
moved one step closer towards their vision of the Internet, that is nothing
more than TV + storefront.

~~~
JoeSmithson
Where have you witnessed creeping internet censorship starting like this? (Not
disputing, I'd just be interested to study it)

~~~
h91wka
Russia. The first bill was passed around 2012. There is one key difference,
though. As Russian government generally lacks influence on Western tech
companies, they chose to target ISPs, while the EU law in question goes after
hosting providers.

It is significant because while network-level filtering is potentially more
destructive, the agency in charge of enforcement of the russian law
(Roskomnadzor) stumbled upon cryptography (who could have thought!). Their IP-
level filters don't work for TLS, so the only option they are left with is
all-or-nothing block by IP. This kind of censorship lacks subtlety, therefore
big companies have some room for negotiation (small ones get banned without
any questions asked).

The EU law doesn't even bother with networks, it threatens companies directly.
And the EU market is large, so tech giants won't just shrug, they'll probably
choose to comply.

~~~
lossolo
Russian Federation was never like western democracies. It began long time
before 2012 in Russia. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested in 2003, because he
wanted to oppose current status-quo in politics. State media are propaganda
machines for the state a lot longer too. You can't really compare EU bill to
Russia situation, they are at totally different level. The bill you are
mentioning was just introduced to keep up with modern media censorship in
Russia. Papers and TV were censored a long time ago.

~~~
h91wka
Western countries indeed have functional democracies, but freedom of speech is
not sacred here either. Consider Britain for an extreme example. And you're
only talking about the current situation, while I am making a pessimistic
prediction based on the current attitude towards freedom of information
exchange and some past experience.

~~~
lossolo
> And you're only talking about the current situation, while I am making a
> pessimistic prediction based on the current attitude towards freedom of
> information exchange and some past experience.

It's indeed a pessimistic opinion but I understand where it's coming from
based on where you live. I was born in authoritarian country also and lived in
it when I was a kid, I am living now in _western democracy_ in EU and based on
my experience, knowledge and after reading most of the legislation myself I am
more optimistic.

------
baxtr
The whole thing really makes me furious beyond words. I shouldn't be that
aggravated, but unfortunately I am. I feel like this is really the opposite of
progressive and will leave the EU even further behind the US and China.
Meanwhile, people who don't understand how the internet works are deliberately
breaking it to save their out-dated business models instead of embracing the
new.

~~~
davemp
> Meanwhile, people who don't understand how the internet works are
> deliberately breaking it to save their out-dated business models instead of
> embracing the new.

The link tax is really absurd. Traditional news is now almost completely
useless. Information distribution is near free in todays market and
"journalist's" opinions don't add much value to the information either. A
large amount of stories are almost pre-written and sent off to publications
anyways. Quality curation is really the only aspect that I would consider
valuable, but these establishments just spread click-bait and junk articles.

------
headmelted
So bad is this legislation that it's almost enough to make me change my views
on Brexit.

It's ludicrous to me that the same body that approved something so user-
centric as GDPR could come up with legislation so incredibly hostile to small
players as to effectively abolish the open internet by financial attrition.

Once this comes in, we'll collectively need to finally start work on that
peer-to-peer, onion-layered, encryption everywhere Internet we keep putting
off building.

At least this is a lot more compelling in terms of a call to action. It's been
a death of a thousand cuts for the last twenty years, so at least it'll help
motivate us all to get a move on.

~~~
Milner08
I believe the EU would be the lesser of two evils here. If we leave it up to
the UK Government and Mrs May we will have it far worse. She has tried several
times to ban WhatsApp and encryption in general. I wouldn't put anything like
this past her.

~~~
pwned1
You have the ability to vote Teresa May out of office and change UK laws
through your member of parliament. The European Commission, the European
Council, and the Council of the European Union are entirely undemocratic, and
the European Parliament is democratic only in name. There's no serious
argument that the EU is in any way responsive to voters.

~~~
dpwm
> the European Parliament is democratic only in name

It was representatives (MEPs) today that chose to vote in favour of this
directive. They could have voted differently and rejected the proposal
outright. Can you elaborate on how this is a "democratic only in name"
institution?

~~~
pwned1
It's democratic on paper, sure. But in reality, does anyone know who their MEP
is? Five year terms? Total lack of responsiveness (according to comments on
here today), lack of real democratic accountability. Sure, it looks
democratic, but in reality it's not. Particularly when the EU Parliament
doesn't even initiate legislation, the un-elected European Commission does.

~~~
dpwm
The UK government is democratic on paper, sure. But in reality, does anyone
know who their MP is? [0]

Five year terms? [1]

Total lack of responsiveness [2]

lack of real democratic accountability [3]

Sure, it looks democratic, but in reality it's not.[4] Particularly when the
UK parliament doesn't even initiate (propose) legislation: ministers are
appointed by the government, and are not elected to their position. And civil
servants write the legislation before it goes to parliament.

[0] In 2013, 3/4 people could not name their MP. See
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-22555659](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22555659)

[1] Five years unless there is a supermajority or the loss of a no confidence
vote. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-
term_Parliaments_Act_201...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-
term_Parliaments_Act_2011)

[2] Numerous examples of this: [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-
responsive-your-mp...](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-responsive-
your-mp-responding-8198107;)
[https://www.writetothem.com/stats/2015/mps](https://www.writetothem.com/stats/2015/mps)

[3] There is an ability to recall MPs, but they need to have breached the
parliamentary code bad enough to be suspended from sitting for a number of
days or engaged in criminal behaviour and been duly sentenced. The current UK
government is actively trying to strip people of voting rights who do not have
the money for suitable photo ID (minimum £34)

[4] The UK's first-past-the-post electoral system means that the majority of
votes do not matter.

~~~
headmelted
You forgot the House of Lords.

------
zaarn
>The legislation approved today still faces a final vote in the European
Parliament in January (where it’s possible, though very unlikely, it will be
rejected). After that, individual EU member states will still get to choose
how to put the directive in law. In other words, each country will be able to
interpret the directive as they see fit.

It's not totally over yet, both the final vote and the implementation in
member countries can disarm the worst parts of the directive.

~~~
ElBarto
Individual countries cannot "interpret the directive as they see fit".
Transposition has to match the directive, otherwise the whole excercise would
be pointless.

~~~
BlackFly
They can interpret anything sufficiently vague as they see fit. For example
Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC states that a government shall only require
"a document attesting to the existence of a family relationship", which most
people would consider to be a marriage certificate, it also states the
residence permit will be granted within 6 months of presentation of the
documens. Article 25 limits the cost of the issuance of the residence permit.

Unlike many EU countries, the Netherlands requires that the marriage
certificate is "legalised" and charges for the process. They will not even
accept the documentation before you go through this extra legal procedure
thereby increasing the total time to over 6 months. Under some interpretation
of article 10 and 25, this would be illegal, they have a different
interpretation.

You can find various compliance studies for directive 2004/38/EC and other
directives as well. It is just a fact in Europe that the transposition into
local law leads to inconsistent application of the law. Applying for the same
visa (from the European perspective) in the Netherlands and in Germany can be
two wildly different experiences.

~~~
ElBarto
The point is that, overall, the requirements of the directive must be met

Your example is actually a good one: The Netherlands might have added that the
document must be legalised but their law still matches the directive's
requirement and the added restriction is neither unreasonable nor onerous and
might keep in line with the country's practices.

The bottom line is that those who hope that transposition will change the
directive in any meaningful way are going to be sorely disappointed.

------
antpls
For the anecdote, Nils Torvalds, the father of Linus, is one of the many
authors of this text law.

I'm from EU, I had the time to look at the recent amendments about this law,
in which they added precisions about the fair use of data, for non-profit and
public research.

They also precised that this law and the technical implementations should not
go against already in-place freedom of speech rights.

Hopefully, people will be able to easily defend themselves versus the big
corporations in case of abusing take-down requests. The recent example of
Twitch streamer Lirik being unrightfully suspended on a simple request from
UEFA shows there will be an adjustment period for everyone involved. His case
was quickly resolved and he was unsuspended in less than 24 hours after the
take down request. However, he is one of the most famous streamer from the
Twitch platform, he can easily use his social network to acquire visibility.
For smaller and not well-known streamers, it may be more difficult to obtain
justice...

~~~
buboard
Do you have a link to the text of the directive? i found this text from 2016:
[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...](https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593&from=EN)

Also , the major issue is not so much with the process of takedown itself, but
with the "terror" it inspires which will lead to the end of the "meme culture"
upon which internet media rely on. It's not so much about the number of take-
downs , but about the number of people that will quit before even trying.

~~~
antpls
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your link is the latest
version. It says 2016 because the procedure started in 2016, the linked
document itself has been updated with the following amendments :
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/report-
details.html...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/report-
details.html?reference=A8-0245-2018)

On a side note, there are a lot of information on several EU websites about
procedure, steps, people, etc, for example :

\- [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil-mobile/fiche-
procedure/20...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil-mobile/fiche-
procedure/2016/0280%28COD%29) (mobile version, I'm on my phone)

\-
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2F...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT%2BREPORT%2BA8-2018-0245%2B0%2BDOC%2BXML%2BV0%2F%2FEN&language=EN)

Also, with a timeline : [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/HIS/?uri=CELEX:52...](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/HIS/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593)

~~~
AnssiH
It is not the latest version. Compare it to today's amendments:
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN)

------
sebst
This is a decision that will end up benefitting the big players on both sides,
i.e. regulatory capture.

Google, Facebook and the like already employ filtering and copyright
techniques and they can afford it. So, this law lifts the barrier to entry for
smaller internet companies.

On the other side, it's also beneficial almost exclusively for the larger
publications or copyright holders as the collected amount of license payments
would end up there.

So, while I accept that the benevolent interpretation of this initiative is
correct – big internet companies have an unhealthy market share and it's
unfair to make money from other peoples' work – I suspect this might be
another step towards more corporatism.

~~~
TulliusCicero
Regulatory capture implies Google and Facebook were in favor of this and made
it happen, which I doubt is true.

~~~
sebst
They are in favor of this. Maybe it's worse for them than in the current legal
situation. But when the law comes into effect they are better off than any of
their smaller competitors.

~~~
oihoaihsfoiahsf
Do you have any statements or signaling you can link to from either of these
companies to suggest they are in favor of this law? I know Google, for
example, has fought strongly against similar link tax and other laws related
to Google News in the past. There is also a statement from them referenced in
this article: [https://www.politico.eu/article/plan-to-make-google-pay-
for-...](https://www.politico.eu/article/plan-to-make-google-pay-for-news-
hits-rocks-copyright-reform-european-commission/)

> The Commission’s proposal “would hurt anyone who writes, reads or shares the
> news — including the many European startups working with the news sector to
> build sustainable business models online,” Google said in a statement.

~~~
sebst
> Do you have any statements or signaling you can link to from either of these
> companies to suggest they are in favor of this law?

No, but I have to correct myself. I don't assume they are actively "in favor"
but that they will passively benefit in a post-law time.

~~~
oihoaihsfoiahsf
I think it may be true that they may suffer the law better than their
competitors. But I think if it was likely that they would benefit absolutely,
they'd be in favor of the law, or at least ambivalent, rather than strongly
opposed. Don't you?

~~~
sebst
I personally believe (without any evidence) that they are ambivalent, maybe
slightly opposed. However, they needed to oppose in public, otherwise, this
would have been a PR disaster:

Publishers: "You steal our content and are unwilling to pay, so we need a
law!"

Google: "You're right, please do the law, because it would harm our
competitors!"

~~~
oihoaihsfoiahsf
They could easily couch the statement in such a way that they would appear
blameless, if they really wanted to make a positive statement. E.g. "We
recognize the critical contribution of publishing companies to our society and
want to do our part to ensure the continued existence of a strong publishing
industry."

~~~
sebst
But then why did they not pay voluntarily when publishing companies asked for
this prior to lobbying for this law?

~~~
oihoaihsfoiahsf
Same reason I don't pay extra money to the treasury even though I think my tax
rates should be raised.

------
amelius
I'm worried not so much about the outcome of this decision (which indeed is
bad), but more about the whole decision-making process and how often we'll see
such uninformed decisionmaking in the future.

~~~
sebst
I'd rather not call it "uninformed". We pay good amounts of money to
parliamentarians, including their personal assistants.

It's more like a "bug" in democracy as such. As long as a topic doesn't have
widespread attention, it's the lobbyists who make the laws, not the citizens.
I am pretty sure there are other bad laws in other very specific areas, we as
techies don't have a clue about.

As I've written in another comment here, this is obviously an unavoidable
"bug", but the more centralized a legislation process is, the more it is prone
to exactly this "bug".

~~~
amelius
> this is obviously an unavoidable "bug"

Why unavoidable? For example, if a sufficient number of qualified people
complain about any law, isn't it possible to hold MEPs accountable by openly
questioning them about their reasoning? I'm sure there are journalists who can
make good use of any suspicious argumentation.

~~~
sebst
That's shifting the problem a bit, but does not solve it. Which journalist
would investigate a topic which is considered unimportant by most of the
readers (and in this specific case the decision is also welcomed by most of
the journalists employers).

And who would read MEPs reasonings about something "uninteresting"?

So, yes, there is plenty of room to improve democratic processes today,
especially with the communication tools we have. However, I guess that laws
which make things worse for the general public but are in too complex niche
areas for people to actually realize the issues, will ever remain a problem.
Try ask your non-tech social contacts if they consider it fair, that big
internet companies like Google don't have to pay for other peoples' work. And
this is the narrative of the supporters.

~~~
amelius
> And who would read MEPs reasonings about something "uninteresting"?

Perhaps not the general public, but the problem for MEPs would be that
evidence against their integrity may accumulate from different cases.

------
dev_north_east
You see where this at national level, I have some access and ability to plead
against it. But instead we've three MEPs serving a constituency of near
800,000 and they're never around.

I hate the removal of substantive access to local politicians that the EU has.

~~~
fabricexpert
How is this a local issue though? It affects 500m people directly so should be
debated at that level.

------
philpem
Can't say I didn't expect this, or the politicians' "I can't and don't have to
tell you why I voted like that" attitude. (see ericdykstra's comment).

Maybe this is the one single solitary positive to Brexit...

~~~
beaconstudios
the EU's capability to be authoritarian (and from what I gather, propensity to
use this authority) was one of the reasons I voted to leave. The central
dictation of "how it shall be", reality be damned, reminds me of the Soviet
Union. Obviously not to the same extent and severity, but the EU is making the
same mistakes in thinking that broad-brush central planning of a huge
geographic region isn't a fundamentally flawed concept.

~~~
dane-pgp
If you voted for Britain to leave the EU because of the EU's "capability to be
authoritarian", then perhaps you should have already voted (with your feet) to
leave Britain because of its much worse capability to be authoritarian.

For example, it was Britain that introduced the Snoopers' Charter:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016)

without any encouragement from the EU, and indeed that Act has since been
found incompatible with European law.

Out of interest, can you name another example where the EU was authoritarian
(acting in a way that the British government wouldn't have)?

~~~
beaconstudios
you're not wrong, I'm fairly anti-state-overreach so I'm also really unhappy
with the Snoopers Charter and just so, so many things my government does. But
hey, given two layers of authoritarian rule if I get an option to remove one
of them you can be sure I'll take it. Especially if it's the one that I can't
affect democratically.

> Out of interest, can you name another example where the EU was authoritarian
> (acting in a way that the British government wouldn't have)?

I can't really speak to things the EU would do that the British government
wouldn't - as you've already said, the UK government is pretty bad too. But we
have more democratic control over the UK government than we do the European,
because it's more localised. I've heard many examples of overreaching EU
directives through listening to parliamentary debates but my memory sucks, so
I'll give you a couple of examples that I can remember without re-researching
the topic: the EU national fishing quotas (famous for decimating the British
fishing industry), and the EU's "enthusiasm" for collective bargaining at the
WTO. Rather than negotiate directly, many of Britain's trade agreements are
bundled up into the EU's and then the EU makes special concessions to Britain.
We've actually been historically quite good at forcing the EU to give us trade
concessions so as far as I am aware it's not been too harmful to our prospects
(I welcome a correction from anyone more well-versed in the UK's international
trade standing) but it's still an example of EU authoritarian practices.

~~~
dane-pgp
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You start by saying that you can't
affect the EU democratically (even though you have much more democratic
control over your MEP than you do over the House of Lords or your monarch),
but then correctly point out that one of the important factors is how
localised the decision making is. It's true that your MEP has a wider
constituency than your MP, for example, but as I see it, the "less democratic"
EU is actually undoing the authoritarian tendencies of the British government,
rather than adding to them (in net, I suppose, especially since this copyright
law hasn't actually been finalised yet).

Excuse the triple pun, but speaking of "in net", I don't see how EU national
fishing quotas are an example of authoritarianism. I suppose you are saying it
is an example of state-overreach, but my understanding is that the quotas are
set to avoid over-fishing of British waters (a problem which has historically
done more to decimate fish populations than any EU politician has), and to
allow an open market for deciding which fishing companies are allowed which
part of the quota (leading to better prices for the consumer). You may not
like the idea that non-British citizens can fish in British waters, but it
could equally be argued that it would be state-overreach for the British
government to effectively raise the price of fish to give a subsidy to British
fish catchers.

~~~
beaconstudios
> You start by saying that you can't affect the EU democratically (even though
> you have much more democratic control over your MEP than you do over the
> House of Lords or your monarch)

This is true, but the Queen's job to sign new laws is purely ceremonial at
this point, and while I can't democratically affect the House of Lords, I
_can_ affect the House of Commons and the Cabinet. The House of Lords is a bit
of a relic at this point and though I don't know of any bad things they've
done, I am skeptical of their existence.

> It's true that your MEP has a wider constituency than your MP, for example,
> but as I see it, the "less democratic" EU is actually undoing the
> authoritarian tendencies of the British government

This is not the EU's job. It is the remit of the British people to hold our
government to account, not an even higher, more abstracted government that is
even less accountable to the people. The EU can make good decisions and bad
decisions, but in either case it is unaccountable to the people it is supposed
to serve.

> I suppose you are saying it is an example of state-overreach, but my
> understanding is that the quotas are set to avoid over-fishing of British
> waters

This is the same as above. As an island nation with limited resources we have
to manage our ecology and stocks of fish. The EU is not in the right position
to do this. Our fishing industry has been suppressed leading to even less job
opportunities in the coastal North, but then Norway (which is not an EU member
but has mutual fishing agreements with it) is permitted to come in and fish
our waters. So you don't even get the theoretical benefit of the EU's
legislation in this case, because the EU has handed the supposedly-restricted
fishing rights to another country that is only bound by trade agreements, not
membership under a unified international court. And I have to ask - who
benefits? Because the EU negotiates over all its member states, and this
arrangement certainly doesn't do Britain any favours. I did enjoy the pun
though ;)

> it could equally be argued that it would be state-overreach for the British
> government to effectively raise the price of fish to give a subsidy to
> British fish catchers.

Excluding transportation costs, this might be true. But we're not talking
about an open market - the EU licenses which countries can fish British
waters. If Norwegian fishing boats are collecting British fish and selling
them from Norway, there are two options: 1) they aren't selling them to
Britain, leading to a simple drain on our natural resources, and 2) they are
selling to Britain, adding transport costs (both fiscal and ecological) to the
production of fish, meaning increased costs. I agree with the need to regulate
the waters, but it should be Britain that manages its own resources (after
all, the incentives are aligned to provide for future generations, 5-year
election cycle notwithstanding) by capping the fishing, but choosing for
itself which fishing vessels get to harvest our waters. This way Britain can
balance its own interests between increasing supply of locally-caught fish,
and exchanging use of our natural resources in mutually-beneficial
international exchange.

~~~
jonathanp88
>> It is the remit of the British people to hold our government to account,
not an even higher, more abstracted government that is even less accountable
to the people.

Why does it stop exactly there in the multiple layers of goverment we have?
Because you say so? Why is the remit of a citizen of say, Ipswich, to hold the
Ipswich City council to account, the Suffolk County Council to account, the
British government to account, all elected with ever larger constituencies,
each more abstract and less accountable than the last, but not the EU
government?

~~~
beaconstudios
> Why does it stop exactly there in the multiple layers of goverment we have?
> Because you say so?

I think you're misunderstanding me - granted, the sentence was ambiguous. I
was saying that it is not the remit of the EU to hold the British government
accountable.

------
mcintyre1994
From [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
room/20180906IPR...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
room/20180906IPR12103/parliament-adopts-its-position-on-digital-copyright-
rules)

> Any action taken by platforms to check that uploads do not breach copyright
> rules must be designed in such a way as to avoid catching “non-infringing
> works”.

Utterly hilarious and scary that they think that's possible.

~~~
dcbadacd
If you read it more carefully, it says "designed to avoid catching" not "must
not catch".

~~~
mjburgess
The conditions under-which something is fair-use are not features of the
content. So there is nothing a system can do.

~~~
guitarbill
Because you need to catch infringing works, while only "avoiding" to catch
non-infringing works, the result of that phrasing means those filters will
have a high false-positive rate. Like content ID strikes on white noise...

------
psidium
Oh yeah good luck trying to stop library genesis/scihub/PirateBay with that.
Meanwhile everyone else doing business legally will have to suffer while the
perpetrators go free.

We already have lots of tools to block user access from the EU, time to
upgrade them!

The EU fail to understand that the internet is inherently free and you can’t
regulate it well (unless you’re a dictatorship in China, but you have bigger
issues there).

~~~
nothis
This is the real bummer, IMO. It's not even like they're reaching the sites
that truly, genuinely don't give a fuck about copyright. The big sites have
long implemented all of this, anyway.

It's basically just more bureaucracy if you're running a start-up or mid-sized
company and want to do things by the book. Something to worry about, something
to fear. I genuinely wonder if copyright holders will make a single cent off
this.

~~~
josteink
> I genuinely wonder if copyright holders will make a single cent off this.

What’s to wonder about? Of course they won’t.

At best nothing will change. At worst people start removing links and contents
driving them traffic in fear of link-taxes and fines. Not to mention large-
scale exclusion/filtering for EU users and content platforms.

They are almost certainly guaranteed loss.

------
mbrumlow
Both copyrights and patents are stupid in a digital age. If you don't want
people to make copies of bits and bytes (large numbers) you found to be
interesting or even arranged to be interesting don't upload them to the
internet.

Once those bits and bytes find their way into the digital world you might as
well kiss them goodbye. When you try to control them it is like going to a
public street and yelling "I am going to go get a burger from Bob's Burger"
and then getting upset when a bunch of people also go to the same place and
make it all crowded for you.

Simply put, nobody should own any arrangement of numbers, sorry if that fucks
your lucrative monopoly up.

------
belorn
A bit less discussed aspect of the law is the recent addition that makes
recording sport events illegal. While the intention looks clearly intended to
be about large sport stadiums with explicit deals, the scope is not limited to
those situations and simply cover any "sport event". It will be interesting to
see what happens if they try to enforce it for marathons and bike races on
public roads.

------
DINKDINK
Copyright is a contract between two groups where a copyright holder dictates
the terms under which their material may be used or duplicated. If the
receiving party to that material violates those terms (say they've received a
movie screener for an unreleased film and leaked it), they are in violation of
that contract and should pay the fees dictated in their contract.

To argue that all parties everywhere should be forced subsidize the
enforcement and policing of that contract is outrageous, economically unsound,
and violates liberty.

~~~
Y_Y
I like your idea, but it's hardly the case currently.

If you find a book on the ground, or read it in a library, or learn of its
contents any number of ways without entering into even an implicit contract
with the copyright holder, you are not then entitled to publish the contents
without limit.

~~~
DINKDINK
>I like your idea

It's the only peaceful way to govern copyright.

>but it's hardly the case currently.

You should advocate it to be the case or else you will suffer more and more
socialized enforcement of a contract in which you are not a party.

------
scoom
If GDPR didn't make you block the EU, this will.

~~~
fabricexpert
GDPR is TOTALLY different. If you can't run a business under GDPR legislation
then what you're doing is almost certainly unethical or at worst mismanaged
and irresponsible with customer data.

On the other hand this legislation will completely change the internet as we
know it.

~~~
tartrate
For some companies, making the IT-related changes to accommodate for GDPR was
simply too expensive.

~~~
remify
I don't believe that. If a compagny has no idea where does their data goes and
what their use is, they have shitty practices and / or are incompetent. Good
riddance

------
heavenlyhash
So since the majority of the voices here on HN seem to be pretty negative
towards this, I think it's worth noting there _are_ some creative voices who
are _in favor_ of some copyright law. For example, here's one fellow on the
twitter machine who's a composer and seems pleased:
[https://twitter.com/Howard_Goodall/status/103983376226213478...](https://twitter.com/Howard_Goodall/status/1039833762262134784)

Simultaneously, I'm not campaigning in favor of the "link tax" component,
here. I think it's widely agreed upon that that part of this proposal is
pretty dire bunkum.

But let's not be eager to discard the baby and bathwater together. The idea of
some EU copyright policy consensus is not inherently evil. If HN wants to
rally about the "link tax" issue, do so. Don't jump directly to "boo, the EU
is undemocratic because they didn't do what I want". That's just bizarre and
we should be above that.

~~~
jonathanstrange
The crucial issue that I miss both in this directive and the current practice
is that companies are encouraged to use automatic filters while _actual
copyright holder_ have almost no way of appealing against false copyright
claims.

I'd be fine with automatic content tagging if at the same time false copyright
claims by someone who does not actually hold the copyright would lead to a
hefty fine and/or be considered a crime.

Right now, large corporations seem to spam the systems with automated take-
down messages without any control and any incentive not to do so, to the
effect that actual content producers have almost no way to defend themselves
against false claims. Every youtube channel owner can sing you a song about
that.

That's a problem for both the US and EU copyright system, but it's also not
clear to me if and how the forthcoming EU directive would fix that problem.
For all it's worth, it seems to make things worse.

~~~
arnvald
This is a good point. False copyright claims should be penalized, enforcing
companies to improve the accuracy of their claims.

~~~
dexen
The american DMCA includes provision to penalize false takedowns, but from
what I've seen the provision isn't used too often.

------
redm
I find it interesting that the conversation is mainly about fair use and not
about false positives.

I've been working with filtering and fingerprinting technology for some time,
and while its "pretty good", false positives happen frequently. Its a case of
continual disappointment, even from the largest tech companies with the "best"
technology. I expect that widespread "filtering" will equate to widespread
non-fair use related false positives.

This law is going to work like the DMCA for many providers, carpet bomb
everything and worry about the cleanup later.

------
nickpp
And this, together with the idiotic cookie and GDPR laws ensure the future
Internet startups will have no home and no audience in Europe.

Like always here, death by regulation. The way governments grant monopolies to
established players and kill competition.

~~~
madspindel
Maybe it's a good thing? The real world of atoms is heavy regulated. I prefer
flying german cars instead of 140 characters.

------
duprat
So we now got our own SOPA to deal with. Important note: the bill now goes to
trilogue before it's ready to face a plenary vote. Though I'm not holding my
breath.

------
pluma
As far as I can tell, this is the actual text that was voted on
(A8-0245/2018):

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2F...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT%2BREPORT%2BA8-2018-0245%2B0%2BDOC%2BXML%2BV0%2F%2FEN&language=EN)

EDIT: The final text will apparently be published here eventually:
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/texts-
adopted.html](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/texts-adopted.html)

~~~
pluma
As I understand it, Article 11 (the "link tax") is actually fairly tame. It
only requires reimbursement for "use" and explicitly permits linking and
citations. The term "use" is a bit ambiguous but it seems to be more directed
at scraping and republishing rather than mere link aggregation. It's not a
link tax.

Article 13 however still sounds worrying. It describes automated image
recognition (i.e. an upload filter) as a possible mechanism for preventing the
upload and publishing of illegal content. However I can't find any language
that explicitly requires the filtering, non-commercial platforms like
Wikipedia are explicitly exempt and it's fairly directly aimed at companies
that make money from publishing content users upload to make them liable for
the content they're hosting.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like it will mostly be trouble for companies
like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and file hosters (e.g. Mega). How dangerous
it is to startups exactly depends on how "appropriate and proportionate
measures leading to the non-availability on those services of works or other
subject matter infringing copyright or related-rights, while non-infringing
works and other subject matter shall remain available" is to be interpreted in
practice.

EDIT: To clarify: I'm skeptical of this and was extremely biased against this
because of what the EFF and others have said about it. But the final text
seems far less terrible than the first draft that everyone got up in arms
over.

------
dalbasal
How can I see who voted what?

~~~
pwned1
Does it really matter? The EU is a supra-national, oligarchic institution that
merely has the _appearance_ of democratic mechanisms.

------
mauliknshah
Does anyone have any resources saying what all impacts this legislation would
bring and how it would change current online applications?

How can anyone think that while uploading a new set of content on a website,
it would be an instant job to compare against all other legal content already
uploaded?

~~~
sieabahlpark
You just have to build a copyright system before you can display it publicly.

Can't afford it? Too bad, that's the fun of this law and why it should be
abolished.

------
black_puppydog
So no comments containing "decentralization" yet. These days, I'm really not
sure any longer if decentralizing all the web to the point where this kind of
legislation becomes completetly futile is harder or easier than fixing the
politics... :|

~~~
sparkzilla
I just commented above. One solution to this kind of legislative overreach is
decentralized apps that have no official jurisdiction.

------
chatmasta
Is there anything good about this law? Is there any logical, coherent argument
for what benefit it might provide to anyone?

~~~
simias
I think the most "noble" angle you could have is that it's supposed to protect
artists and help them benefit from their work instead of having it "stolen" by
third parties. Of course in practice it seems like it will do nothing of the
sort but if you only look at it on the surface to a casuals observer it might
look like it would actually do some good.

On one hand I'm sad that the EU fell for that crap, on the other copyright law
is so fucked up already that it kind of feels like more crap in a bucket of
crap. One day this whole thing will become completely unsustainable and will
have to be rebuilt from the ground up.

------
auganov
This sort of stuff is exactly what many GDPR opponents were warning about.
Once the floodgate of aggressive regulating is open you don't get to pick the
ones you like. At the end of the day there are going to be very few winners.

------
mar77i
> but the shift in the balance of power is clear: the web’s biggest tech
> companies are losing their grip on the internet.

What? Where? How? Is the author of this article somehow confused? The article
doesn't make clear in any way how the new law would threaten any tech giants'
grips on anything. Tech giants are the first to jump regulatory bullets that
would kill anything on a tighter budget in its way.

------
bendavis381
It's worth noting that this is not a law in the commonly understood sense.
It's an EU directive, which requires member states to achieve a required
outcome, but leaves the legal implementation up to the individual state. It'll
be interesting to see how the member states interpret the language and what
legal framework will be used to enforce it.

~~~
kvgr
And also how giant fuckup will be, once every country will implement it
differently. 27 different versions and levels of upload filter. How will you
display content upload by someone in Italy to someone in Germany if Germany
has stricter filtering policies? Will you need to recategorize it for display
in different countries?

------
mscasts
This is so sad but kind of expected. EU is run by politicians and the public
has very little to no insight.

After this goes through I will become a single-issue voter, to leave the EU.

~~~
lorenzobr
Do you really believe this is something politicians came up with in the first
place?

This is another example of the classic lobbies-driven political decision where
politicians pass legislations as a favour to their friends in corporate A or
corporate B.

Also, if they think this will fix the revenue problems of the majority of
newspaper publishers they are certainly wrong, newspaper are not dying because
people read news on Google.

~~~
beaconstudios
> This is another example of the classic lobbies-driven political decision
> where politicians pass legislations as a favour to their friends in
> corporate A or corporate B.

It's still the politicians passing the law. The fact that back-handers might
be involved only makes them potentially even more corrupt.

------
wongarsu
I don't think the link tax will have any real implications. Any individual
party that starts charging for links will simply not be liked to. It would
only work if an entire industry/sector would start charging for links to them,
but then we are talking about collusion and price-fixing which is already
illegal. It's hard to start demanding money for something that was free and
costs you nothing.

And the link tax has excemptions for plain hyperlinks and the like, which
prevents most distopian uses of such a provision.

If google acts on this it will be because they know this was written with them
in mind and if nothing happens stricter laws will follow. But for everyone
else it will be a non-issue.

Upload filters on the other hand are a much bigger problem, mostly because
copyright law is way to strict to make them reasonable.

~~~
jonathanstrange
Every sufficiently large publishing company on earth will demand a link tax,
where "sufficiently large" means they can afford one or two lawyers.

Why shouldn't they? It's money lost otherwise.

~~~
sjwright
> It's money lost otherwise.

It's a choice between more money or less money, but the opposite way around to
what you're implying—because nobody will pay for the privilege of gifting
traffic to someone else.

If you're a web publisher and you're not making more money as your traffic
increases, you're doing it wrong. And if you can only make money by taxing all
potential inbound sources of traffic, you'll quickly find yourself with no
traffic—and no money.

------
mindcrime
Youtube, Facebook, etc., should simply pull out of Europe and block all
European users. I don't think it would take very long for this to sort itself
out...

~~~
fermienrico
Comments like this are extremely naive given the fact that Google/Facebook
cannot do anything at whim without Board/Investors backlash. Stock price would
crash, future projections would collapse and it would create a havoc for
bailing out of a major market. It happens, but rarely (Google China exit).

~~~
mindcrime
I'm pretty sure it's still the case that Zuck can effectively do whatever he
wants with FB due to his stock ownership position. But that isn't really the
point... nobody said anything about anybody doing anything "on a whim". And if
these companies were to get serious about playing the long-game, instead of
fixating on short-term fluctuations in their stock price, I believe it is the
case that what I propose is actually in their best interest.

------
kzrdude
I overheard some discussion of the "upload filter" on the radio. It was very
simplified, all about big rights-holders that have to ensure they get paid,
and nothing about the power of consumers or even journalists or those acting
like that (review/commentary).

------
mpartel
Well this sucks a lot, but if I'm reading this right, they at least amended it
to be _slightly_ less awful: [https://juliareda.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/Copyright_Se...](https://juliareda.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/Copyright_Sept12_Voss.pdf)

It seems to contain a bunch of amendments that seem to make at least Article
13 a bit less draconian. In particular, 13.2b seems to require a human-
reviewed and appealable complaints mechanism.

All in all, it's still very shitty.

I intend to save the list of those who voted for and set a reminder to dig it
out when the next EU elections come up. I hope people with more social media
presence than I do the same.

------
arendtio
> They say that the campaign against the directive has been funded by US tech
> giants eager to retain their control over the web’s platforms.

While I am not a particular fan of the dominance of Google and Facebook, I
like it better how they handle the web than what we have seen from the
'creative' companies. It took years until they found a way to monetize their
content properly (e.g. Spotify, Netflix) and even now after they pushed DRM
down our throats, they kinda complicate things by not letting you watch the
full HD version on certain platforms or restricting streaming rights on a per
country basis.

~~~
lazyman75
I very much prefer DRM over having everything I do on the internet to be
monitored.

~~~
arendtio
Well, I find it hard to compare those two. I mean, yes, if DRM works I have no
issues with it either, but sadly it causes a lot of issues where none should
be (e.g. Hardware DVD Players not being able to play certain DVDs, Spotify Web
player having issues because it doesn't overcome its own protection, not being
allowed to view 'your content' on your favorite device, not being able to save
'your music' to your old mp3 player) and one of the biggest issues is that you
aren't allowed to do anything against it.

Tracking is a completely different beast. They take what they can get, but you
can fight back. My biggest concern is that they (Google,Facebook) gain so much
influence that they can change the political opinions via Ads. So yes,
tracking and advertising can be a lot more harmful, but at least you can kinda
opt-out (e.g. use curl to browser the internet ;-).

------
curtisblaine
This law is to prevent any non-mainstream news outlet to share content. From
the UKIP site:

"The great danger is that it will destroy the capacity for free speech on the
internet and social media, which has exploded in recent years and is an
invaluable alternative to the so-called mainstream media."

[https://www.ukip.org/national-ukip-news-
item.php?id=18](https://www.ukip.org/national-ukip-news-item.php?id=18)

The law is about the so-called "fake news", now that we're close to the 2019
European parliament elections.

------
TomMarius
Hijacking the top comment: Can someone explain me why EU was considered
knowledgable about the internet in case of GDPR, but isn't now? Have they lost
their knowledge in the meantime?

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
The GDPR has nothing to do with the internet specifically.

~~~
TomMarius
I'm not sure what you mean. GDPR has everything to do with Internet, the
Internet has been the whole reason it was created. Without the internet, the
previous laws were OK. During the discussions (on state-level politics as
well) only the internet was mentioned that frequently along with internet
companies such as Facebook and Google, except for the note that it of course
affects everything else.

Even if GDPR was merely touching the internet, _it is touching the internet_ ,
which is my point - people said things like "the people in EU know what
they're doing", why isn't it true now?

~~~
raverbashing
Parent is right, but you're right it was created because of it.

But it applies to processing of personal data, this is independent of if it
happens over the internet or not.

~~~
TomMarius
I know, thus the "except for the note that it of course affects everything
else" part. However all discussions revolved around the internet and the
internet was the sole reason why a change was made.

------
hackandtrip
I'm European but as many don't have a clear idea of how this will work.

At my understanding, there will be discussions about the amendments and
another vote, like the one we had two months ago. Is it right? There is still
time to act, right?

Also, is there a place to see who voted what? Elections are close and those
choices could impact the vote of many. I knew Votewatch but I don't know if it
still doing it, saw some excel file going around last time and wondering if
they are being updated, to see who changed ideas.

~~~
yostrovs
I'm getting the impression that many Europeans don't seem to have a grasp on
how their laws are passed. Is my impression correct? I'm baffled by the
commission, Parliament, individual states, and how they interact to make laws.
Is this topic teachable to 3rd graders in Europe?

~~~
baxtr
Yes, that is unfortunately the case. Exactly this is creating a feeling
amongst many of us that something is fundamentally wrong with the EU as
governing and legislative body. Of course, you could reverse that and say:
People have to inform themselves properly. But that's just the situation were
in right now.

~~~
candiodari
Most of those citizens don't speak any of the languages that the EU operates
in. And the EU only translates the result of the legislative process, not the
process, so participating in Polish or Greek ... or even French ... is almost
impossible. Eventually the outcome of the whole process is translated, but
that's it.

And starting next year there will be exactly 0.9% [2] of the citizens that
speak the language that the EU government conducts itself. Now it is 13.9%
[1], which is not exactly a good number. As if it wasn't already a huge
problem that the French and German governments essentially control the EU.

Combine that with the fact that large blocks hate eachother. Like famously the
French and German governments, for example, but those are hardly the only
examples. Some blocks have actually recently had shooting conflicts with
deaths (the Catalan and Spanish governments, if you're wondering, and yes,
both have representation, even though the Catalan government gets no
representation in the commission or council, the only institutions with real
power in the EU).

[1]
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(british+population+%2B...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=\(british+population+%2B+irish+population\)%2Feu+population)

[2]
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(irish+population)%2Feu...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=\(irish+population\)%2Feu+population)

------
fbn79
The copyright laws are totally wrong. If you produce an opera and don't want
it to be reproduced or used in other works, don't share it. Keep it for
yourself, don't show it to anyone. If an author spontainously share an opera
making it public available (for free or selling it is not important) must
accept the fact that the opera can be used and elaborated by anyone. If I see
something I must have all the right to try to reproduce it, rielaborate it,
use it to create something new, resell it, givit it free to other. If author
don't want this, must keep it for himself. Sharing something (free or by fee)
and asking to not reshare, re-elaborate, copy ecc. is an act of intellectual
violence. Author thinks that is this violionce is necessary to grant him the
right return for the work he have done. But this is totally false. The
copyright law is useful only to aliment of an ecosystem of leeches that
prolifer around the artist limiting his and his audience liberty and freedom.
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law
on the planet. (Mark Twain)"

------
whyleyc
I emailed my 10 UK MEP "representatives" about this law, explaining why it was
bad news and encouraging them to vote against it.

I received one "pre-canned" email acknowledgement from UKIP, attempting to
make the bill into an "EU bullying us" issue, and nothing from anyone else.
One politician I tried to call had a published phone number that connected to
a commercial money lending service.

And mainstream political parties wonder why people feel disenfranchised. They
have become a professional political class, completely disconnected from the
people they purport to represent. The result is protest (Trump, Brexit et al).

~~~
candiodari
> And mainstream political parties wonder why people feel disenfranchised.
> They have become a professional political class, completely disconnected
> from the people they purport to represent. The result is protest (Trump,
> Brexit et al).

Just wait until you walk around Brussels. EU politicians don't mix with the
locals. They've got separate everything. They have reserved parking spaces,
separate taxes, separate restaurants, separate social security, separate
supermarkets, schools and swimming schools that the locals are excluded from.

Needless to say, all are vastly superior to what the locals get.

Compared to that, I would argue you're wrong. I don't know how UK politicians
live, but I very much doubt it is half as "separate class" as the EU class in
Brussels. In Brussels the politicians live like the politicians in Beijing
live.

------
kodablah
It is an unpopular opinion, but they were given the mandate by all those
cheering the internet restrictions in the GDPR. Whether you still like that
law or not is unrelated to the mandate given. You should have drawn your
battle lines there instead of being so dismissive of those warning about
government intervention.

~~~
mjburgess
The majority dissent here isn't that the EU do not have the right to regulate
the internet in some way, it is that they are not doing it well.

You can believe GDPR is a good law and this a bad one without hypocrisy. As
much as you can believe murder ought be illegal but not cannabis.

------
hartator
I am currently visiting the EU, couple of sites are blocking access within the
EU, I guess it’s gonna get worse.

~~~
Zenst
Sadly, I suspect you are right. It's as if the EU wants a firewall and wants
to make every other country pay for it, even if that was not the intention,
that will be the end result.

------
vhiremath4
Perhaps the most disastrous side effects of articles 11 and 13:

1\. Access for EU residents is shut down on many sites. 2\. GDPR is not taken
seriously, even if 11 and 13 get repealed. 3\. We once again do not have a
legal body to look to as privacy thought leaders. 3\. People will stop taking
the EU seriously as a

------
oldandtired
Let's take a look at some background here. Freedoms are in the eye of the
beholder and what is considered a "right" by one can be and often is quite
different to what is considered a "right" by another.

The changes going on at such governmental levels should not be unexpected.
These kinds of changes have been happening over many decades. Very few, if
any, governments (I am not talking about politicians here) want to give the
citizens of itself the freedoms that could threaten the well-being and growing
control of that government.

Politicians may have agendas (obviously they do) and can in some way direct
how the relevant government will operate. They have less control than they
think and they are there only fo relatively short periods of time. Most of the
legislation that citizens end up suffering under is dictated not by the
politicians but by other control structures.

Policy changes made by the various political representatives will be warped by
those who are in charge of bringing these policies into reality.

The changes being discussed here for the EU are in line with the premise that
government will gain more control over its citizens and the ones who have
pushed for this will find out quickly enough that there are very large
unintended side-effects that will come back and haunt them.

The fundamental concept driving all this movement towards control of what
citizens can and can't do is to ensure that when needed those same citizens
will follow whatever directives are given. This is just repeating what has
happened in the past many times.

Does that mean we lie down and just take it or is there something that we can
do?

If you are going to actively do something, you must start out first realising
that there are going to be consequences. You have to make up your mind as to
whether or not you are willing to face those consequences.

Then you need to look at what action you can take and take without the
destruction of others. Peaceful civil disobedience can be a strong motivator
of change in some cases.

------
elorant
Here's what I don't understand. How is Google/Facebook supposed to know which
are news sites and which aren't? Apart from the known ones there are hundreds
of thousands smaller ones which can start looking for royalties. How do you
tell which is which?

------
kvgr
Time for VPN outside EU...

~~~
konart
This will be hilarious: Russians buying EU VPN while EU citizens buying
Russian (well, not necessarily ofc). Both to bypass each states stupidity...

------
aldoushuxley001
What a catastrophe. Can't wait until the EU is disbanded and that
dysfunctional union is laid to rest in the history books for good.

All I can say is I hope Europeans enjoy their new walled garden, because I
sure as hell won't be complying with these rules.

------
jaimex2
Is there any reason now why Google shouldn't shutdown all their EU web
services and remove its divisions like it did in China?

If they did so they can conveniently also ignore that $5B anti-trust fine.

~~~
efdee
And drop out of the EU market? That sounds insane.

~~~
jaimex2
I could be wrong but wouldn't the global versions still be accessible and
capable of selling ads?

~~~
efdee
If you accept visitors from the EU, you have to abide by their laws. If you're
exclusively based outside of the EU, you could just ignore the laws. But
Google has offices inside the EU, so they can't.

------
nautilus12
Do you think that after GDPR and the fact that everyone actually took it
seriously the EU is trying to see if they can keep pulling the same string and
making the world dance?

~~~
M2Ys4U
No, this is just lobbying by the copyright industry playing the "look how poor
Bono is, he deserves more" card.

~~~
ionised
Yeah it's this.

Just another in a long list of efforts by the copyright cartels to restrict
access to information and culture.

------
jtr_47
As an American, I can gladly say fuck the EU. Their laws do not and never
shall be imposed on me or the work I do ever. I'm glad not to do business
within the EU.

~~~
Jdam
As a European, I wish I could just say the same :/

------
nailer
Quick reminder of a common misconception: contrary to what you may believe,
MEPs do not propose laws. The EU Commission (that you don't vote for) propose
laws.

------
anonytrary
> Article 13 requires certain platforms like YouTube and Facebook stop users
> sharing unlicensed copyrighted material.

How is this different than making gunmakers responsible for shootings?
Continuing with the analogy, the only option the gunmaker has is to
essentially close up shop. Seems like an impossible law to follow. "Develop
better algorithms for filtering inappropriate material or you're gonna be
sorry" sounds like tyranny.

------
isthatart
As a EU researcher, reader and author, I ask: does this reform affect my use
of arXiv or say figshare? Until now I don't have a clear answer.

~~~
kgwgk
What kind of effect do you think that these laws could have on your use of
arXiv?

~~~
isthatart
Example: article in arXiv gets later published in a journal. Will the arXiv
article version be still available for anybody? Only for non-EU people? Will
be removed from arXiv? None of these?

~~~
zaarn
Why would any of that happen? I don't think the internet copyright proposal
will affect things in a way you describe...

~~~
isthatart
I'd like to see a discussion around these aspects. I see only cries re big
platforms and news outlets.I'm neither of these.

~~~
zaarn
Smaller platforms are exempted on the directive (ie, startups, single person
corporations, etc.) as well as anything that doesn't do profit oriented
content/active content moderation.

------
em3rgent0rdr
> "Exactly how the legislation will be interpreted will be up to individual
> nations, but the shift in the balance of power is clear: the web’s biggest
> tech companies are losing their grip on the internet."

I don't see it very clear that the biggest tech companies are losing their
grip on the internet with these new laws. They will be able to weather this
and even profit just fine.

------
brod
In 2016 I stopped accepting freelance work with an internet explorer or edge
requirement.

In 2018 I'm considering rejecting clients with an Eu requirement.

------
buboard
If this directive is voted, it will be interesting to watch the aftermath.
Copyright is a legacy concept that is incompatible with digital media. This
will make the absurdity of owning an idea and profiting from it virtually
forever (at least as a ratio of human life) stand out. I hope it leads to a
changes in the mindset/laws regarding IP.

~~~
cft
I think it will change only when the world order changes, which may be soon.
Many Western countries operate on untenable platforms in the long term that
are designed to preserve existing order in the short term (uncontrolled
creation of Fiat money, uncontrolled welfare programs). This just adds to the
list and hastens the change.

------
montenegrohugo
Sad. The public gave their opinion two months. It appears they haven't
listened.

What actions can the average citizen take against this?

------
nkkollaw
Can someone do an ELI5? There is so much confusion and speculation that I
can't figure out what the hell is going on.

------
cddotdotslash
Prepare to see another onslaught of "how to block your site in the EU" posts
like there were right after GDPR.

~~~
hmd_imputer
rightfully so, don't you think?

------
snr
Am I wrong in seeing merit in the argument for blocking people/entities from
re-posting copyrighted content and simultaneously holding the platforms
accountable? Of course, they should exempt businesses valued below a fair
figure like $50M so as to not bother startups with compliance expenses.

------
sbradford26
"Exactly how the legislation will be interpreted will be up to individual
nations, but the shift in the balance of power is clear: the web’s biggest
tech companies are losing their grip on the internet."

I feel like this is actually forcing the biggest tech companies to increase
their grip on the internet.

~~~
candiodari
You say that as if that's an accident. You see, the politicians at the EU
aren't just malevolent, they're also incompetent and lazy. You see that's why
they're doing this: force everyone's opinions into a few companies, and
foreign ones that Europeans won't care about at that.

Next step is to sue those companies into submission. To give them the emails
of everyone on their platforms. Their location. To make them pay for
everything. To ...

But if they had to do that against 10000 companies, they wouldn't be able to.
So they're enforcing Google's monopoly on Europe, to then force them to abuse
it on their behalf (and of course blame them for it all the way).

------
enitihas
The only thing GDPR and this new law have in common is that both of them will
make it very difficult for new internet companies to challenge incumbents (not
that it was very easy currently). But if every video distributing company is
going to need something like contentID, good luck to them.

------
ams6110
I'm rather conflicted about this. Whenever big companies say a new regulation
is going to be "disastrous" or use other similar hyperbole I'm immediately
suspicious.

On the other hand when the government wants to regulate something I'm also
immediately suspicious.

------
kvgr
And the publishers are in nice conflict of interest with this piece. I saw one
online medium that I follow(It is relatively balanced), to publish only one
article saying that we shall support this law. For 5 million country pretty
sad. But not really surprising.

------
EastSmith
This is obviously bad. I am hoping that more decentralization / p2p tech is
born out of it.

------
jimnotgym
The headline is rather misleading. The EU parliament has approved it, the EU
as a whole has not. The parliament is one step on the legislative process.
National governments carry much more weight. Time to lobby your local
politicians.

------
dbg31415
* Honest Government Ad | Article 13 (Internet Censorship Bill) - YouTube || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ZkydX0FPw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ZkydX0FPw)

------
ericb
I've seen many posts on HN questioning whether there is any value in a
permissionless uncensorable internet of the type some cryptocurrency platforms
are building toward.

Will the concept get less mockery now?

------
newswhere
I'm not surprised that people that believed GDPR was good legislation would
approve this law. The EU is simply not that important, internet businesses
should simply not do business there.

------
graeme
Will this affect the global internet, or will big sites simply make a reduced
"european version" where some filtered content isn't shown in the EU but is
shown in North America?

~~~
candiodari
The EU was furious when the large internet firms chose to have a reduced EU
version and informed their customers the EU had forced them to remove stuff.

So they will do their very best to make it affect the global internet.

Given that all major powers want that, it'll happen. Maybe not right now, but
it's coming. It would have happened a long time ago if it wasn't for the
stroke of luck that these companies are in the US and the US government is
protecting them (for now succesfully).

------
cbuq
Let's say I want to create a YouTube clone under these new laws, obviously I
will need one of these upload filters.

Where can I get the collection of all copyrighted content so I can build this
filter?

------
qaq
Hmm at this velocity even more sites will start blocking EU users.

------
samgranieri
Can these laws be suspended or judicially reviewed if someone or government
entity in the EU sues? I'm an American and unfamiliar with the lawmaking
process in the EU.

------
pedro1976
What a sad development. The two major implications of this law I see are \-
(even more) privatization of the jurisdiction and \- inverted presumption of
innocence

------
chrshawkes
I'm curious what all this means for a company like Reddit where links are
shared and typically titles are copied 1 for 1 from the news website.

------
ultim8k
Laws are there to be ignored. The only laws that apply implicitly are the laws
of physics. As engineers we owe to trust only physics and science.

------
kerrsclyde
Does this mean self-hosting content on our own web sites will become a more
realistic option for content creators? No upload filter to tackle?

------
mirimir
OK, so just don't host anywhere that EU enforcement can get to you. It sounds
like a great opportunity for folks with requisite skills :)

------
da_murvel
Anyone in the EU who wants to create a new Internet?

~~~
yasp
I wish the EU would, so that it stops damaging things for the rest of the
planet. Eventually the costs of complying with the EU's decrees will get high
enough where it will make more sense for companies to block European traffic
than comply.

~~~
Keyframe
It's already happening. chicagotribune.com leads to
[http://www.tronc.com/gdpr/chicagotribune.com/](http://www.tronc.com/gdpr/chicagotribune.com/)
for example. Not sure what to think about that.

~~~
JohnTHaller
If (cost of providing content to EU visitors) > (revenue generated from
separate non-personalized ad network for EU visitors) { turn off EU visitor
access }

------
AllegedAlec
So how long will it take people to find a way around this? I mean, I cannot
imagine that, for example, the Chans will take this kindly.

~~~
raverbashing
> I cannot imagine that, for example, the Chans will take this kindly.

That will be funny

~~~
AllegedAlec
Just imagine how easy it's going to be to screw over other websites, just by
making an account, uploading material that could in some way be construed as
violating copyright but passes the filter because it cannot be perfect, and
then reporting the site to one of the bodies responsible for upholding this
directive.

Hell, just by doing that you could probably end any potential upholding of
this system really fast.

~~~
raverbashing
Chans have much worse than copyright infringement going on

~~~
AllegedAlec
I'm not sure if I know what you're talking about. Could you expand on this?

~~~
chillidoor
Chans allow anonymous users to upload images and historically this leads into
a lot of illegal content, especially stuff like child porn, to be uploaded
unless you have strict moderation.

~~~
AllegedAlec
> Chans allow anonymous users to upload images and historically this leads
> into a lot of illegal content

Moderation over the last years has been strict though. I haven't seen any
illegal content on there in ages.

~~~
chillidoor
That's 4chan. The other big site is 8chan, where users can create their own
boards and there are less rules, which makes it much harder to moderate. Then
you also have all of the smaller chans which tend to get spammed by bots
posting illegal stuff like child porn.

------
Dowwie
I cant imagine a proposal such as this one being approved without a study to
back it. I really am curious what that study presented.

------
reaperducer
So now all the content aggregators can link exclusively to non-EU web sites,
further spreading a non-European point of view globally.

Problem solved.

------
fourthark
> the shift in the balance of power is clear: the web’s biggest tech companies
> are losing their grip on the internet.

Huh? How does this follow?

------
kriscius
[https://imgur.com/a/TOLHJKw](https://imgur.com/a/TOLHJKw)

------
IdontRememberIt
Great, we are turning into the Banking industry: stupid regulation to make big
actors bigger and make it almost impossible for newcomers with great ideas.
These regulation always started with good intentions, but turned out to just
add cost for... no value added to the final customer. I can imagine their will
be many opportunities for "middleman" services to support these regulations.
The days of many free services are numbered.

------
imhoguy
Time to download some rare gems from YT.

------
messit
This feels just as stupid as the war on drugs. Another step back, especially
for the poor as usual.

------
linuxftw
Everyone in this thread is asking the wrong question. It's not whether or not
some rule the EU approves is good or bad, it's whether or not the EU is
legitimate and has or should have the authority to dictate these types of
things.

------
kermittd
Whoa. Sounds like a paradoy of what foolish bureaucrats would do.

------
trumpeta
How do I write all my MEPs that they fucked up badly this time?

------
exabrial
Business's who depend on the livelihood of free speech: Google, Facebook,
Apple, Cloudflare, Netflix, Salesforce, et all need to get together and say
"No, or we'll stop doing business in the EU".

This is beyond ridiculous.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Business 's who depend on the livelihood of free speech: Google, Facebook_

Given this legislation virtually guarantees their hegemony over European
content distribution, I don't expect too much complaining.

~~~
exabrial
That's a good point. I guess I rescind my comment.

------
eruci
Yet, another thing that's wrong with Europe these days.

------
pwned1
Although the EU _looks_ like a democracy, it is not.

------
tomjen3
Is there a complete list of those who voted in favour?

------
anonytrary
F

------
bad_user
Oh shit.

How can I find who voted for it?

------
nothis
Holy fuck no...

------
visika
DecEntRalyZE EvritHyNg™

------
asdasdqweqwe
asd

------
raxxorrax
This corrupt old farts. The brexit people were right ...

~~~
interhero
If this gets through in January, the UK would have to implement it too...

~~~
amyjess
"Have to" is an awfully loaded phrase. If they don't, who's going to enforce
it?

"Enforce this, or we'll kick you out."

"Well, we _are_ leaving anyway, so uh, fuckity-bye."

------
ihatethem
I don't understand why any of this was necessary in the first place, the only
reason I can think of is this being on the wishlist of a powerful lobbying
bloc.

There is something suspect about the EU's cavalier attitude in churning out
internet regulations, they generally favor old industries and incumbents.

~~~
arendtio
Newspapers are dying and try to find a way to make money from their content.
They find that the big user distributor Google doesn't give them their fair
share and therefore try to make him pay. They get supported by other content
producers and now we all are facing another absurd law.

I am a big fan of the GDPR, because it protects the rights of the users. But
this time they are building a law to ease the fight of large corporations,
affecting everone else in the process... not cool.

~~~
unexpectedcharm
I think the upload filters are meant to serve a peeking hole for EU
governments to listen to what people share on the internet, as this bypasses
the encryption. This will enable governments to stop content harmful to the
regime from being shared and also track individuals who are working against
the government. This all happened before in all socialist regimes. I remember
it well, when I was phoning someone there were censors actively listening to
the conversations. This is being transplanted on the internet. It is ironic
how people fought this through the 80s only to have it reinstated.

------
liftbigweights
This shows you the power of old money vs new money ( tech companies ). I laugh
when people say tech companies are powerful when you see even small newspapers
bully them into submission.

Of course what's best for the people and the internet is a non-consideration
for these politicians who work for the moneyed-class rather than the people.

The news companies ( especially the big ones like BBC, NYTimes and CNN )
already bullied google and facebook to give them exceptional preferential
treatment. Now they want a link tax? We already have news companies' social
media team bombarding the internet with their spam, now they will go into
overdrive mode if news links are monetized. That's so ridiculous. What's to
stop anyone from creating a "news" company and them spamming their own links
everywhere to profit from this tax?

As for the upload filter, all that's going to do is to impede or silence
critics, artists, etc using materials protected as "fair use".

People talk about china or russia all the time, but the biggest enemy of a
free internet so far has been the EU since their legislation can be global
while china and russia are pretty much confined to their own borders. And of
course with EU behaving so erratically, this will just embolden china, russia
and the rest of the world to act in bad faith as well.

------
vidann
America please save us

------
sparkling
[ ] Remain [X] Leave

------
nialv7
This is pretty dumb.

------
hmd_imputer
yet another stupid decision by the EU lawmakers who are obsessed with
regulating anything they see as a grey area.

------
scotty79
So now it's time, if you have news agregator or img/video upload site, to
close it to Europe and if not, just ignore the new laws and see what happens
next.

------
jimmaswell
How long until the EU ruins the internet so much that the rest of the world
just cuts off completely from it, and the EU is left with their own little
hyper-legislated enclave net?

