Regarding links that people actually click on, the current situation is that it'll take users to the publishers' websites, where the publisher monetizes it through advertising. Nothing wrong with that.
But, apparently, that's not enough. Because the state of journalism has been reduced to providing headlines that make people go "...naaaah. not worth it."
At the same time, the way they lobbied for this law was based on the notion that media companies don't get adequately rewarded for the bang-up job that they're doing, creating all this high-quality and highly original content.
It’s a noble art on 2ch and japanese groups to sum up articles in the most insane way possible. I understand bean counters wanting money on where the action is happening, irrelevant to their deserving of any.
The next step would be to shut down proxies, systems such as Tor, and connections to sites in rogue states that don't sufficiently enforce copyright.
And that not all content will be covered (although they appear to have accidentally forgotten to include that bit in what they published).
How in the world could I know that as a website master? How am I supposed to know the range of actions for any future users.
Article 11 targets news aggregators and search engines. Unlike blog posts or newspaper articles, they generally cannot benefit from the right to quote . Article 11 has two goals. One, it aims at protecting pieces of a work that are generally too short to enjoy regular copyright protection; second, unlike the usual practice in continental European copyright law, it grants ancillary copyright to publishers, not authors, for easier enforcement of these rights.
Note that this does not mean that I endorse Article 11 (I do not and actually consider it harmful and the result of misguided lobbying), but we should be clear what we are actually talking about.
 Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC.
 As the Wikipedia article above summarizes it, "the resulting new work is not just a collection of quotations, but constitutes a fully original work in itself".
So, what it will really do will be to create a monopoly enshrined in law, that news aggregation and search is a business you can only be in, if you already wield Google-esque influence over the world of media.
Which is wrong. It's just wrong, on so many levels.
I don't deny the util of being able to see movie times without having to click through, or a businesses contact details, but the effective redirection of traffic with reduction in site's ad revenue of whatever feels 'wrong'.
News blurb also seems rational to me. If I only need the headline I shouldn't have a go to the site. The headlines will be all over twitter and Facebook as people share with their friends so it's hard to see how Google is doing any harm here. If I want to read the details then I'd click through to the site.
Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil?
No, because copying titles is a very normal way to refer to something. Heck, even quoting is, as long as its done in proportion. But caching entire websites (such as Google Cache)? Copyright infringement. If it weren't for the fact that it is caching and therefore OK. Usenet providers attempted to argue usenet servers are also just caches, but I'm not sure if/how far that one has flied.
Google isn't doing harm from a user perspective, but it palpably is doing harm from a content provider's point of view by screen-scraping the content and repackaging it as its own.
If I don't I'm not 'stealing' anything.
If a publisher wants to show the headline story to prospective customers in the shop, it can -- google will display the headline, and if people are interested they'll click, just like they'll buy the newspaper in the shop if they want to read below the fold.
If the person isn't interested they won't click / won't buy the paper.
If the publisher doesn't want people in the shop seeing the headline, they put it inside their publiccation. Online they simply mark it as unavailable to google (robots.txt or whatever).
Now if the argument is that search engines have no right to read your site and display the headlines without explicit invitation, I'd argue that operating a web server is the invitation to all, and robots.txt is the bouncer saying "you aren't allowed in". Google and other search engines obey robots.txt / the bouncer.
Are you doing this on an industrial scale and building a large ad-supported business from it. More importantly, are you standing outside the shop saying 'don;t go in there, old chum - I can tell you what's going on'.
Why would I need to buy the News & Star, or even go into the shop, now I know what's happening?
It's quite easy for a publication to not appear in the following section of google's site
Either a simple robots.txt (a sign telling school kids they aren't allowed), or a username/password (members only), or even close the shop completely.
The newspapers have headlines and the start of stories on display in shops, trying to attract passers by to their wears. You can even read the first few sentences of the cabinet meltdown in the telegraph, far more than you can on google, all without paying the newspaper owner, or indeed the shopkeeper, a penny.
The headlines are put out there for everyone to see to entice people to come in and spend money. If the shop or newspaper proprietor doesn't want people reading the headlines without buying, they can not put them on display (robots.txt), or cover them up, like on these (ex) publications
What they can't do is charge people for looking at the headlines on the advertising board they put out in front of their shop.
For example when considering the cost of water pollution we don't try to balance the interests of the owners of paint factories with the interests of people who drink water. Instead we consider if the cost of compliance with new antipollution laws will be worse for people who use paint then the cost to them of drinking polluted water.
Maintaining a healthy ecosystem and competition is good in the long term.
There are many things that are forbidden even though the consumer might like them in the short term (ex: selling lower than the cost for retailers to kill all attempt of competition).
Which specific law are you referring to?
In your analogy, Google is the owner of the paint factory, yes? If not, why not?
So it wants to expand copyright coverage and give it not to creators but to those who profit on them. Why should anyone accept that? Copyright is already crazy overreaching, it should be reduced, not expanded. This corrupt control grabbing should be completely repealed.
If it becomes standard practice for all except certain large corporations to ban all EU addresses, how will this impact the web and the EU?
That would be great, because better solutions with less monopoly would quickly spring up if those corporations don't make deals with publishers. That's just hypothetical, counterfactual speculation, though, since corporations like Google would make deals.
Like others have pointed out, these regulations will primarily have bad effects on small content providers such as individual authors, small forum sites, and not for profit information-providers.
Using VPN services would be far more practical. Although some sites do discriminate against VPN users, it's much less common than for Tor users. The EU could of course block access to VPN servers, just as China has done. But some VPN services use obfsproxy, and so can piggyback on obfuscation efforts by the Tor Project.
Sounds like a feature more than an issue.
As it is now, only serious criminals can manage it.
Manage what? Not having to use Google and Facebook?
Basically, you need clean IPs and mobile accounts. Tor and VPN exits don't work so well. Creating your own VPN in a VPS sometimes works. But I gather that the pros use botnet slaves with genuine residential IPs.
And that reminds me. I recently tried to create a ProtonMail account via Tor. But they wouldn't activate it without mobile and credit/debit card numbers. Ironic, no? And yes, I do get that many jerks have misused ProtonMail accounts.
Edit: I take that back about Facebook. Via the onion, it just wanted an email address to authenticate. I'm impressed.
As someone who has run both an image board and a decent IRC server in the past, it’s a choice between heavily scrutinizing tor connections or banning them outright.
wx13p 7 hours ago [dead] [-]
But someone did a manual override.
I am impressed. HN does allow throwaway accounts, when necessary to post anonymously. And making that possible via Tor is admirable. There's certainly potential for abuse. I see occasional spam, and angry insults, but nowhere near as much as one might expect. Which suggests either that shadowbanning works well enough, or efficient moderation.
This law is bad, but the negative predictions are unhinged.
There is no link tax. Article 11 is a requirement for commercial sites using copyright material as part of their commercial work to either get permission or pay a licence.
I'd be interested to know how article 11 is any different from existing law.
A German court ruled a few years back that use of a creative commons image by a non-profit publically funded television station was "commercial use" with the argumentation that "had the CC-NC image not existed they would have had to license an image and pay for it". Another German court ruling decided that a personal blog containing any sort of advertising qualifies as "commercial use" (in the context of the exemption from making the operator contact information visible on websites operated for personal use). The definition of commercial use is not clear-cut and definitely not in line with US rulings. This is why Art11 is a significant increase in reach. Small organizations and nonprofits operating mailing lists with a web interface would now have to screen all messages to make sure nobody quotes a news snippet. Same with forums and such. And of course it would shut down wikinews (wikipedia is explicitly and narrowly excluded, other wikimedia projects are not) and other user-operated news agregators where users are likely to quote parts of articles.
Erm, you say that like it's something we're supposed to disagree with?
Ideally, people would submit their own creative content. Personal blogging and vlogging would flourish. Gallery sites would expand exponentially with floods of new, self-made art. The Internet would shift back from primarily consumption to creation.
This is how Russia made Yandex censor the Russian web. Search about a gay topic? Sorry, comrade, we don't want to violate the law about promoting homosexuality to minors, so we're going to self-censor the result.
In Europe, this will make it unsafe to provide search results with anchortext or snippets that might be hate speech, Holocaust denial, or encourage sex trafficking. Choose your snippetizing algorithm carefully! Drop the wrong words and someone's going to jail.
The EU will be blocked out from the latest and greatest experiences on the web.
In China's case, there is a genuine (not that I like it) interest in blocking access to "disruptive" material.
American online services will be available without problems
> What about bookmarks, all I am really doing is saving a link
Perfect example of the confusion caused by these fucking stupid articles.
i) The law doesn't apply in any way to your book marks.
ii) The only way the law could apply to your book marks is if you're a commercial organisation, and you publish them as part of a commercial venture, and if they are also more than hypertext links but include non-fair use portions of a copyright work.
Laws that might apply to a very broad set of behaviors and situations can be selectively enforced. If you are uncertain if you activities became illegal, you are incentivized to err on the safe side and self-censor.
Rather than lawyers not understanding technology I think this interpretation is just the reverse.
If one of Facebook's users (anywhere in the world) posts a piece of copyrighted material, and that material is served to a European user, then the copyright owner can take Facebook to court for copyright infringement under this legislation. I'm not even sure the owner has to be a European entity.
European law considers the offence to occur in the browser's country, not the server's country (hence Yahoo having to block all references to Nazi memorabilia as a result of a French court case held in France under French law despite Yahoo not being a French company).
Mind you, the US takes the same viewpoint, hence them suing to extradite Mr Dotcom from New Zealand for trial in the US for transgressing US law. The fact that he wasn't a US citizen, MegaUpload wasn't a US company, and he had committed no crime according to New Zealand law didn't matter. The US still considered his breach of copyright to have occurred on US soil, so he had committed a crime on US soil.
At least that's how I read it... I am not a lawyer.
But in this scenario, Facebook would be blocking all EU users, based on IP address, DNS lookup, and so on. Just like Netflix blocks non-US users from accessing US-licensed media.
So EU users could only access Facebook through Tor, or VPN services. And Facebook could still argue (and make sure that it held no conflicting data) that it knowingly served no users in the EU.
I set up ublock/pi-hole for a reason :) If they GTFO EU then even better as EU pages won't load their spy scripts.
So anyway, Facebook was just an example. To show how social media etc providers could work around the EU Copyright Directive. By blocking access to all users known to be in the EU. If there are no apparent EU users, arguably the law doesn't apply. But then, IANAL.
Thankfully foreign laws don't magically propagate over the internet, even if a citizen of a country happens to point their web browser at your server.
Facebook does have a business establishment within the EU. They are selling ads in Europe that are delivered to EU users. There is no way that Facebook can claim not to be a European company in some sense.
Maybe that seems extreme and unlikely. But consider. What would Facebook be left with, if users couldn't share anything?
The problem is that not many have the clout of Facebook and Google to work out arrangements that won't kill them or fight the whole thing effectively.
Can anyone post some links to a long form article that can explain how we got here and what is the logical fulfillment of these forces?
To me it looks like the destruction of the internet and transformation to a new version of televison.
Facebook can afford to just implement the damned upload filter.
But if you're an operator of a small blog, you'll likely just turn off commenting functionality and stuff like that.
If you're even smaller, and relying on other people to provide infrastructure for you to be able to comment on stuff, where does that push you? You guessed it. Back to the likes of Facebook, Twitter, etc.
They want specific, centralized corporations or entities (eg government) that they can get upset with when something goes wrong, whether that's PayPal, or Amazon, Twitter, or Comcast. They love that aspect, it provides a blanket (which tech people will call an illusory blanet).
The decentralization premise is a standard techie failure to understand product, markets and average consumers. It's solely an allure for tech people. That's why for it has been thrown about as a lure for so long with so little success to show for it, there's a reason for that: it's a fantasy for an extraordinarily small niche of people. A decentralized Internet is the absolute last thing on a list of wants from the bulk of users that make up the Internet, they have no idea what it is, no idea why it matters, and couldn't care less. It will not be possible to get them to care about it, because their Internet works for them right now.
The average user is not upset about the Internet and how it operates now. In fact quite the opposite, they're overwhelmingly satisfied with the Internet. You can see an ideal representation of the techie failure to understand the average user, in the dire predictions thrown at Facebook the last number of months, and the actual end results of what the average user did (they didn't quit Facebook, the techies were entirely wrong and didn't understand average users). Decentralized Internet is an emotional issue for most techies, just as Facebook is, that's where the fog comes in, and obvious reasoning mistakes are made.
E.g. the Axel Springers of the world have long held certain positions. Why are they getting their way now, in 2018? Did legislation in EU or elsewhere set a recent precedent to lay the ground for this proposal?
So do the right thing, call every MEP from your country that isn't an EPP member and ask them to a) be there at the vote (this is CRITICAL attendance really matters) and b) vote to allow changes to the law (tomorrow's vote is about whether the law continues to the next stage unchanged or whether changes are allowed - it's not about accepting or rejecting the law in general, just in its current form)
You mean Google used their 90%+ market share to extort rights from publishers.
If it kills news aggregation and strengthens newspapers - I all in. Investigative journalism is needed for democracy and currently going extinct due to power shift from news sources to news aggregation - producing a news is way more costly then distributing it.
However, the actual victims of this are another group. The law specifies "commercial users" as ones that have to comply with this but does not define what "commercial use" is. In Germany, courts have ruled "commercial use" to be very broadly interpreted, and it would cover things like forums that collect user donations to cover server costs, or have advertising for the same reason. They are clearly not making money from news aggregation, but the way the law is written any kind of commercial use is the same and has to comply. So now they have to police all their users just to make sure they don't post a news snippet, and there is no minimal size for news snippets. So in the worst case you can no longer discuss news on a forum without making the forum operator liable for license fees to whoever published the news. As a forum operator, how am I supposed to know whether something is news or not? Do I have to screen every post and compare against a list? The law doesn't say. The committee proposed an exemption for user-submitted content but the proposer of the law shot it down. So now here we are. Forum operators have to police their users against unclear criteria or face legal liability. I think that's a chilling effect, and it has no upside.
If you want to strengthen investigative journalism, do exactly that - put more money into EU-wide funds to fund investigations, for example, or make it safer for them to report by implementing EU-wide protections for journalists (to prevent what happened in Poland from happening elsewhere for example). Or regulate ownership of mass media to prevent concentration of power. There's lots of things you can do on an European level to strengthen journalism and democracy. This is definitely not it.
You make it sound like it's a bad idea, I think it's lovely
They made their bed, let them lie on it
Also as I just wrote on twitter it kills innovation. All the ad revenue is supporting some of the most cutting edge machine learning work in the world. The data itself enables this too. The algorithms and learnings that come out of this can be applied in many spheres of interest and now all that is lost. It is a massive loss for innovation and humanity just as articles 11 & 13 will be.
People like GDPR because they have a kneejerk emotional reaction to it and they never consider the second and third+ order effects which are disastrous at best.
So what? What if instead of ad revenue it was financial fraud supporting some field of innovation, should we suddenly start being OK with it?
I agree with you that it's a ridiculous argument, because it's the same exact argument you made.
Note: there are over a hundred advertisers and trackers in advertising cookies on top of "performance" cookies. On a website about a tech stack.
It's considerably worse on other sites.
I also find it implausible that online advertising is a major contributor to machine learning (ML). In the literature I've read, online advertising doesn't usually appear near the top of the list of ML applications. I can see that authors might want to avoid mentioning something that everyone hates, but most of the articles do mention the military applications, which aren't likely to make most people feel enthusiastic about ML either.
Naive guess: the loss of London as a balancer.
No it doesn't.
For fucks sake, the law is lousy, but we don't need shit articles from techdirt who are completely unable to read and understand law.