
Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’ - AnatMl2
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/04/wikimedia-warns-eu-copyright-reform-threatens-the-vibrant-free-web/
======
pjc50
Article 13 is the key one, mandating upload filtering. This has all sorts of
side effects - suddenly you can't make a Dropbox style file sharing site
without implementing pre-emptive filtering. You can't rely on notify-and-
takedown.

Article 11 potentially has huge implications for social media sites; suddenly
a user posting a news article link with a quote becomes a copyright liability.

All the worry that was focused on the GDPR should be focused on this instead,
in my opinion.

~~~
doh
Absolutely agree. Both articles are a huge mistake for EU and will have
incredibly negative impact on users and DSPs while favoring rights holders.

The status quo favors DSPs (and indirectly users) but damages rights holders.
A solution is badly needed, however it should be one balancing needs of all 3
groups instead of favoring one (or two).

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
Why should there be “balancing”? The entire premise of copiright is just wrong
to begin with.

Here we have this perfectly anti-rival public good produced. But of course
anti-rival just doesn’t work that well with free market economics, you know
with the externalities and all. And since we just can’t imagine any other form
of work allocation schemes than the free market, what to do?!

Naturally the most obvious thing, destroy the pesky anti-rival externalities.
Let’s waste as much effort, and misery, as it takes to force it into the shape
of the rival goods we all know and love.

It’s quite sad really.

~~~
doh
I'm sorry but I don't think I follow.

You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid
for it?

I do believe that correct attribution and fair compensation is vital to get
quality content. These proposals are not the answer though.

~~~
matheusmoreira
> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be
> paid for it?

Nobody disagrees with that.

The fact is copyright exists to create _artificial_ scarcity. "Content", once
produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial.
These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work.
It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".
People have been doing it since computers were a thing and ironically they do
it better than the copyright owners themselves.

It's up to the industry to find some other way to pay people. I don't really
care how they're going to do it, and frankly it's nobody else's problem but
their own. Instead of concentrating on a new business model, they keep
embarrassing themselves with endless anti-piracy measures that do nothing but
make the DRM-free copy look better than the original.

~~~
doh
That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Just because something is easy to copy
doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Creators should be paid for their work no
matter how simple is to copy. If they are the first one who created it and
someone else benefits, then they deserve to be compensated.

My best solution would be something along these lines
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17913535](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17913535)

~~~
intended
It’s not harsh. Although I disagree with his solution- we need copy right, but
copy-rights have been terrible for us.

However - Have people (on HN) forgotten how the content companies enforce copy
right ? The RiAa/MPAA?

Copy rights were to help creators earn return on their creation. Today copy
rights extend far beyond the natural life of the creator and are constantly
being extended to favor corporations/owners, at the expense of the commons.

The lotr will never enter the public domain. And Disney is one of the greatest
problems in this field. (And now they own Fox!)

Packet sniffing was created for the *AAs. Massive invasions of privacy and the
initial subversion of the internet traces to their doorstep.

Copy right was one of the first fights of the collective group of people who
landed up on /. And HN

~~~
tincholio
> Packet sniffing was created for the _AAs

I'm pretty sure tcpdump predates Napster and any involvement of the _AAs in
the workings of the Internet...

~~~
intended
Nope - as I recall that was the ISPs defense “we don’t know what people are
sharing since we can’t look into packets”

~~~
tincholio
The first version of tcpdump dates from '88[0]. And I'm not sure it was even
the first sniffer out there, quite likely not.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcpdump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcpdump)

------
nnash
Can we just agree to silo off the EU? Why should foreign companies have to
comply with these policies anyway? GDPR compliance has already had a negative
impact on web UX.

~~~
HeadsUpHigh
>Why should foreign companies have to comply with these policies anyway?

Because they want revenue from EU citizens? Should a car company from China
have to comply to US safety regulations when selling cars to US citizens?

>GDPR compliance has already had a negative impact on web UX.

Nah. I've switched off tracking on every website I use often via the popups
and I've noticed much faster loading. Imo GDPR has made the web experience
better.

~~~
nnash
> Should a car company from China have to comply to US safety regulations when
> selling cars to US citizens?

In your example, the car company is implicitly selling to a foreign country.
When it comes to software/websites, a user from a foreign country is
incidentally served rather than implicitly.

~~~
HeadsUpHigh
Which part of the ip is hard to decode? If you don't like how a country's laws
are shaped, then stop selling there. You can't have your pie and eat it too.
Either you obey the market laws and sell or you don't. If someone is using a
VPN to get around your geo ban, then I think that's the user's implicit
choice.

~~~
int_19h
Why should the onus of blocking content in some faraway country be on the
company publishing it? If you don't want your country's citizens to have
access to something, well then, time for a Great Firewall.

~~~
HeadsUpHigh
>If you don't want your country's citizens to have access to something, well
then, time for a Great Firewall.

It's not the EU who wants to ban access to something. It's the provider who
wants to benefit financially from selling that product( targeted ads) without
having to comply to the laws of the country that the selling happens. There is
no other market that you get to do that. Why should your web page be
different?

------
suckerburg
EU builds a good reputation after setting a good standard with GDPR, some
politicians started talking about copying it which made me happy. Now I'm
scared again wondering what would happen if they go through with this and
politicians everywhere start copying it.

~~~
openbasic
Good reputation for what? Government interference in the free web? GDPR was
just the first step. Open your eyes.

~~~
blackbrokkoli
Honestly curious what definition of "free" you're using here? Are you saying
that anything moving away from uncontrolled anarchy is cutting away freedom
and we therefore shouldn't do that?

The government forbids you to make a company spying in people bathrooms and
sell the pictures, would you say that's interference in your free life as
well?

~~~
colemannugent
I don't want to put words in openbasic's mouth, but here I go anyway:

> _what definition of "free" you're using here_

Free as in relatively unencumbered by government regulation. I think it's fair
to say based off his "GDPR was just the first step" comment that he views
increased government control of the internet as the axis along which the
freedom he is referring to is measured.

> _Are you saying that anything moving away from uncontrolled anarchy is
> cutting away freedom.._

I take that as a given. Anarchy is the state in which people are
unconstrained, and are thus maximally free. Anything short of anarchy implies
that there is something limiting people's choices.

> _...and we therefore shouldn 't do that?_

Isn't this basically the entire issue with governments? We give up freedoms in
exchange for other benefits. Entire political philosophies devote their energy
to the question of how much freedom we should exchange.

> _The government forbids you to make a company spying in people bathrooms and
> sell the pictures, would you say that 's interference in your free life as
> well?_

Do you really think that openbasic is taking this EU move as a chance to
advocate for total anarchy? Or is it more likely that they disagree with this
freedom/benefits trade-off and you are strawmanning?

~~~
zaarn
>Free as in relatively unencumbered by government regulation. I think it's
fair to say based off his "GDPR was just the first step" comment that he views
increased government control of the internet as the axis along which the
freedom he is referring to is measured.

Freedom in the US and Freedom in the EU are differently defined, in part
because of history and culture.

The GDPR takes away some "freedoms to", but, for example, it gives me "freedom
from tracking without consent" and "freedom from having my data eternally
stored by a third party"/"freedom from having my data _owned_ by a third
party", which I think of as valuable freedoms to have.

------
qubax
What's with all the comments supporting censorship all of sudden? Every social
media site now has hordes of "people" defending censorship. Is it just more
european users on social media now? Or is it just government funded trolling?
I just don't get it.

Saudi arabia just declared online satire as a cybercrime punishable up to 5
years in prison.

[https://www.france24.com/en/20180904-saudi-arabia-
declares-o...](https://www.france24.com/en/20180904-saudi-arabia-declares-
online-satire-punishable-offence)

We know how much china and russia loves censorship. And of course europe has a
long tradition of censorship.

As americans, we had long hoped that the world would join us and embrace
freedom, but it looks more and more like we are forced to join them.

I'd rather keep our freedom and separate the internet into "intranets". There
is no european or saudi or chinese or russian websites or tech I need. Let the
world have their backwards censorship and lets hold onto our freedom.

If we have to cater to everyone's sensitivities, than that is a race to the
lowest common denominator. That means we have no freedom at all.

~~~
bahamut1928
Please understand that for many of us in the EU, freedom of speech as
understood and implemented by Americans is not something desirable.

Based solely on my personal experience, most of the people are actually happy
on how censorship is handled by our institutions. I've never felt restricted
in expressing my opinion in whichever topic we are discussing, and I am
actually happy that people preaching racist ideologies (that have cost us a
lot in the past) find some obstacles in their way.

I personally don't consider your freedom of speech as inherently superior or
the obvious step into progress. As many things in life, it has its pros and
cons. Would you deem as "progress" all those echo chambers on the internet
where people find support for ideologies that have cost millions of lives in
the past?

~~~
anoifeh
>I've never felt restricted in expressing my opinion in whichever topic we are
discussing

Of course, if you belong to a mainstream ideology...

~~~
bahamut1928
In some cases I do, in others I don't. I've never encounter censorship in
either of those. Besides, I had some pretty interesting discussions with
people expressing ideas which did not agree with my thoughts. If, as you said,
I would be on the "mainstream" side, they would have been censored. That did
not happen.

------
StavrosK
So what can we, as citizens, do to get the watered-down, "compromise" version
of the bill that's still much worse than current laws, but a bit better than
this travesty?

------
John_KZ
The WWW is fundamentally broken at this point, perhaps this legislation will
completely destroy it and kickstart some other form of network.

------
soris
The EU needs to go.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Unfortunately, there isn’t a vibrant free web. Wikipedia is about the only
major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Most user content is
probably on Facebook or Medium. Most breaking news is first available on
twitter. Even independent websites, most likely have Google analytics and
Google ads.

From a European point of view, the current copyright situation is just a
wealth transfer from European companies who have the copyrights, to American
advertising companies.

~~~
adventured
> Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal
> people visit.

Which costs $69 million per year to operate, has 300+ employees and requires
six million donations. Your example also isn't free.

> Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium

Medium is less than 1% the size of Wordpress, both in terms of traffic and
amount of content. The majority of all content on Wordpress sites is ad free.

The consumer is paying for all of it in one manner or another. If it's a
donation, it's coming out of your pocket. If it's an ad, it's data about you
being monetized. There is no such thing as free if you're talking about
something the size of Wikipedia or similar services.

~~~
chatmasta
There should be a better mechanism for funding sites like Wikipedia that
provide what is effectively a global, common, public good. Perhaps a budget
from the UN or something should be set aside for funding projects like
Wikimedia, Archive.org, etc.

It’s a bit ridiculous that something so important to so many people relies on
donations from individuals.

~~~
veridies
One of the problems with that model is it centralizes power in one
organization which is subject to the whims of its members. I’d argue that that
might guarantee less stability than the current system.

Perhaps a large endowment, like private universities, could work? Enough money
to let them invest in a diversified portfolio and run their sites off of the
profits.

------
leephillips
Wikipedia is contributing to the slow death of what could have been, and
almost was, a web of independent pages maintained by individuals and groups. I
have had a recurring experience of skimming a Wikipedia article, only to get
the feeling that the text is familiar - then tracking it down to the book or
article that it was lifted from, without attribution. If a "vibrant free web"
means routine copyright theft committed by a homogenizing, centralized
collective established as some kind of anonymous authority, I can do without
it.

~~~
mlinksva
Please take the next step
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Viola...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_Copyright_Violations_101)

~~~
mike22223333
Wikipedia should verify the copyright before allowing changes. It should not
be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright. Wikipedia should be
responsible because they decided they wanted to allow anyone to edit. They
should hire moderators, and if they cannot moderate, they should not run a
platform of theft.

~~~
ben_w
> It should not be the publishers responsibility to enforce the copyright.

Why not?

Copyright is an unnatural right created in the name of encouraging creative
output; if the person who owns the rights to control copying a work don’t
enforce it, _why should the rest of us do it for them?_

~~~
fnord123
Don't you have a bloom filter for all content ever created with which you can
compare the content?

