Forget GDPR, EU's New Copyright Proposal Will Be a Disaster for the Internet
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
anyway, occasionally my music is copied and monetised on other youtube channels without me knowing. While this annoys me, YouTubes approach to this is very good, If I report this copyright infringement, YouTube allows me to enter an agreement with the copyright infringer for shared revenue or other. I balance this multi tiered approach as very good, since this other channel may be getting better views than me, and the cost of marketing is so high, and this other user is effectively endorsing my brand and creating awareness for me, and to waiver their violation, I can enter a shared revenue agreement with them. This is a win/win for me as I get another opportunity to profit, and my music is shared in more places than just the places I manage to manually put it myself or pay someone to.
I have some personal story about this. A while ago a certain person decided to scan some books copyrighted by me and put it on Scribd. Every few weeks he'd scan one and upload it, saying that information should be free. I contacted Scribd and my experience was overly negative. Yes, they would wait a few days, then answer and remove the book. Then this person would reupload it, and the story repeated itself. Basically, the book was longer on rather than off Scribd. I repeatedly asked Scribd to take it more seriously, and, for example, remove the offending account, but they refused. They did it in the end after some weeks. Of course the same day that person uploaded all books again under another account. It all looked like a joke, as if the copyright law was some boring invention that they only pretended to observe.
Now, this was a few years ago, and maybe things changed since, I don't know. But at that time it felt like Scribd was cooperating more with the offender than with me.
They can (but aren't forced to) avoid that liability by making "best efforts to prevent the availability of specific works or other subject matter by implementing effective and proportionate measures, [...], to prevent the availability on its services of the specific works or other subject matter identified by rightholders and for which the rightholders have provided the service with relevant and necessary information for the application of these measures" and "upon notification by rightholders of works or other subject matter, it has acted expeditiously to remove or disable access to these works".
There's also some stuff in there saying these measures should be "effective and proportionate", taking into account how big the company is, how much content is uploaded on their platform and the availability, cost and effectiveness of the measures.
We should not give in to so called "content producers". Their privileges are not more important than peoples rights.
Ugh, Is Google too then?
EDIT: Misunderstood OP, it appears he/she was being sarcastic.
I don't think the parent is raging against the Internet Archive, just pointing out the legal problems of what it does. Strict copyright law will destroy archives.
https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Copyright...
But these don't really address digital archives as the Copyright Office recognizes. https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/
Presumably the Internet Archive is considered a library, museum, or archive although I don't know if there are specific technical factors that would make them one or if it's more of a "know it when you see it" situation in the event of a dispute.
Shutting down wayback machine will not benefit society, keeping it open and supporting it will.
Edit: If this was a sarcasm that i didn't get as another poster pointed out, ignore above message.
The Wayback Machine is a great resource and relatively few people are going to object to things that they themselves (or their predecessors) put online in public being archived. And the Wayback Machine protects themselves by bending over backwards to remove anything a site owner decides they don't want to be archived.
There are some special exemptions to copyright for libraries but they're probably not relevant in the context of the Wayback Machine.
If I create a site called the "Library of Great Comic Strips" I shouldn't be surprised if copyright owners ask me to take their strips off.
ADDED: To be clear I fully support The Wayback Machine even if what they do isn't really covered by copyright exceptions for archives. "Library" isn't a magical superpower with resect to copyright.
Unless you believe corporatist technocracy is the future of civilisation.
This proposal is just another example of that process.
I said "generally" on purpose. There are exceptions of course, but from speaking to a lot of them, watching interviews etc. that's the impression I got for their general sentiment. I of course am not presenting this as a fact, just as what I observed.
Or is it incumbent upon you to realise that you have selected a small and unrepresentative sample and look for balance. It's not difficult to find and talk to Paul Embery, Kate Hoey, Brendan Chilton, Thomas Fazi, Bill Mitchell, etc. Or for that matter me.
I'm curious how you plan to stop this from happening. To me that seems like an inevitable future, and a decent description of our present society. Is it so bad?
The roll back of democracy from universal suffrage capable of changing anything to akin to a toddler group able to choose the colour of their sugar free fruit juice is deeply worrying.
But more worrying is the acceptance of it.
As much as I don't believe in the inevitable march of progress I'm also fairly skeptical that we're heading to hell in a handcart (excluding the potential environmental catastrophe which would be a genuinely novel experience).
The past was pretty shitty. Many things are getting better. Some things are getting worse. Eternal vigilance etc...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164244
HN, unfortunately, seems biased towards laws like the GDPR and somehow believes that start-ups can no longer self regulate or Do-no-evil. I hope I am wrong regarding this.
Self-regulation was once the gold standard on boards like HN.
Imagine creating the Google search engine in 2018 without the new proposed EU copyright law in place. Seems difficult right? Most websites have anti-scraping techniques in place if you are not Google-bot. Now imagine, creating the next Google after laws like the new EU copyright law go live.
Laws like the GDPR are red tape and are poison to start-ups. Self regulation is the way to go and we need industry bodies who can stand up and talk to government bodies like the EU to come up with meaningful regulations which help both the industry and the end user.
Startups could never self regulate and never will. And a few bad startups can be enough to do massive damages.
Look Cambridge analytica: this startup alone made the case for regulations like GDPR.
As a user, I really am pleased with gdpr, so that "do-no-evil" startups stop selling my data around and not caring at all about my privacy.
As a user, I'm _not_ pleased that the law has devoided me of a choice to participate with businesses under a previously acceptable business model, and without any input/say on my part, assumes my agency to chose which businesses I interact with. I accepted it as my responsibility to know that some may be selling my information, and to make conscientious choices accordingly. This not even touching on that the law does precisely nothing against the sort of data incidences that I have the most issue with (Equifax).
Which business model do you think is killed by GDPR? Can you point to the bit of GDPR that you think causes that change?
I don't trust their enforcement because they aren't my government. If I lived in the EU, I would at least know my countries government is the one enforcing the law, but as a non EU resident I don't know who will enforce it. I don't have a home country to give me recommendations, protections or support.
(One can also observe that this may serve as a regulatory moat protecting e.g. large ad networks that have enough scale to merit the overhead/costs of global compliance infrastructure, but not new startup networks. We've seen similar problems in recent HN writeups re: starting a bank; where something much more consensus, financial security, can still serve to overreach and serve incumbents more than it protects users.)
As a meta comment, I notice you are _very often_ present defending GDPR in threads where I've stayed quiet in the past; to the point that as someone who almost never notices names on this site, I've noticed yours before this interaction. Can I be curious about why you advocate this so comprehensively while also answering your question? (because, frankly, even the advocates I know personally agree that there are costs and risks involved, and that the letter of the law itself also left a lot up in the air)
Again, please can you point to the actual part of GDPR that forces people to gain consent before targetting ads?
Here's the UK regulator, the Information Commissioner, saying that legitimate interests (one of the lawful reasons for processing data) might be ok for marketing.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
> As a meta comment, I notice you are _very often_ present defending GDPR in threads where I've stayed quiet in the past; to the point that as someone who almost never notices names on this site, I've noticed yours before this interaction. Can I be curious about why you advocate this so comprehensively
It's because almost all of the people posting against the GDPR will post things that just aren't in GDPR. They haven't read any of the regulation; they believe things that are not true and they spread those incorrect statements. Some of this is unintentional - they've read a bad blog and they beleive it. Some of it is intentional - fuck the EU.
I don't mind people being against GDPR if they've read it and are against things it's actually doing.
I'm not sure how that's an argument against GDPR today, especially since it's built on long standing EU traditions and law.
The previous business model worked because your consentual sharing of private data was supported by thousands of others who did not consent to said sharing.
Because I can demand them to properly delete my account, and they must properly disclose data breaches, and because they can't just sell their recording of my activity to whomever they feel? That's poison?
> Most websites have anti-scraping techniques in place if you are not Google-bot.
Do you have sources on this?
> Self regulation is the way to go
How will a voluntary group enforce their own regulations? Especially on the Internet?
Can you name successes in self-regulation? And in the last 10 years?
I think if the past few months have shown anything, it is that GDPR is a highly divisive issue. There have been a host of both negative and positive submissions regarding it, many of which have had spirited discussios in the comments. This is the Internet, so there is plenty of hot air on both sides, but with some digging I’ve also found nuance and rigor in the arguments.
As for your point of self regulation, while I feel GDPR is a disaster in it’s implementation, I think it has come about as a reaction to the lack of sufficient self regulation on the part of tech companies. It’s simply become de rigeur for companies to attach a mandatory, 10 page, tiny font in the footer, flagrantly anti-consumer, adhesive contract to every website and app and then to shirk all responsibility when they screw up. Not exactly the model of self regulation.
I guess that's okay, as long as the EU provides those upload filters. Or a machine-readable specification of one. And as long as the EU is penalized for false positives.
Do you realize how wrong that sounds? The EU should provide upload filters for all companies that put content on the internet? Wow! Yeah, let's make everyone have to get approval from Brussels every time they publish anything. What could possibly go wrong?
(Not disagreeing, I just want to say that I think this idea is fundamentally broken beyond repair)
There's not much of a practical difference between the two.
Edit: It's okay to disagree with my comment. But why not share your view with us instead of just downvoting me?
I would also like a new YouTube to have a similar shot at existing and not “close the door” by legally requiring programs that only large existing companies can implement.
I doubt they'd have made it out the other side had Google not acquired them.
I haven't read the proposed EU regulation, and it sounds like there's a bunch more stuff in it.
It would have been nice if Techdirt had a clear link to the proposal.
Some channels get some money before they get closed though.
YouTube alone has one 300 hours of video uploaded every minute. How are they to determine whether any of that is infringing on someone else's copyright without error or trampling on Fair Use / Fair Dealing?
They even have some videos explaining what copyright-infringement is?
If a uploader is reported or found uploading any videos which breaks there terms of service for three times, your account is going to be permanently banned.
They do have complex algorithms, which searches for matching video content, once your video is uploaded, some uploaders just get away, by decreasing the screen size or by adding some watermarks or logos ...
It’s simpler, more ethical, and more effective to punish the offender.
The checksum is clearly not enough in this case, so EU administering bodies would have to set up a really sophisticated system - and in countries where getting even an appointment date to the social healthcare system is nigh impossible I see literally zero chance for such a backend (so everyone's on their own).
In this case what's happening here is that we are killing the internet as we know it (or knew it five years ago). Government bodies most of the time are incompetent in IT (unless they have an ulterior motive, like large scale censorship or surveillance), so you're probably better off relying the giants' service and create a facebook page, or a google doc, instead of building something on your own (creating a gray net).
There are many worst case scenarios with this law. Facebook and Google creating a new Internet, government bodies setting up "copyright servers" (with advanced data mining capabilites), link tax rendering hyperlinks feared, extortion schemes by shady organizations and lawyers, implementation tax for software development, fear of innovations et cetera.
Like universities and DARPA?
Universities depend on governmental funding to a certain extent, but they have their own freedom - though I still can't see how the next Facebook or next Google or the next super intelligent state firewall will emerge from a research project.
This basically depends on how high the bar for due diligence is set. Will the regulatory bodies provide a certain set of filter criteria that the companies have to implement and everything that isn't being caught is not their problem? Then it's not that big of a deal and might be a good idea to catch the worst offenders and hold platforms accountable.
Is it going to end in countless copyright lawsuits against platform owners just because some content escaped them? Then it'd be a nightmare.
I think there is some healthy middle-ground. Platform owners should have to face some duty to see that their platforms are used in lawful ways, (akin to say owners of a bar not allowing illegal gambling under their noses), but it shouldn't interfer too strongly with regular, legitimate business.