EU approves internet copyright law, including 'link tax' and 'upload filter' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved <comment> 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.

<comment><USER4> 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.

<comment><USER5> > 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.

<comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER7> This also happens to me. Evidently my FiOS IP looks European despite the fact that I live near NYC...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 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.

<comment><USER9> Sounds like the web without user content... Web 1.0? So much for free speech.

<comment><USER10> Wasn't Web 1.0 _only_ user content?

<comment><USER11> Indeed. Of course it was limited to a very small and weird collection of "users".

<comment><USER12> > it was limited to a very small and weird collection of "users"

Agreed. It was a much better place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 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 - <USER2> 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.)_

<comment><USER14> (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.

<comment> 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.)

<comment><USER15> 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.

<comment><USER16> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 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.

<comment><USER18> 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.

<comment><USER19> What about foreign companies operating in europe...wouldn't they have to comply? Or does this only apply to companies with headquarters in Europe?

<comment><USER20> 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?)

<comment><USER21> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 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.

<comment><USER23> 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.

<comment><USER24> > 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.

<comment><USER25> > 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.

<comment><USER26> >> 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/)

<comment><USER25> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 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.

<comment><USER28> > _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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> 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).

<comment><USER30> Why wouldn't Silicon Valley be affected by this? Most companies have european customers.

<comment><USER31> "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...)

<comment><USER30> Yeah, but wouldn't cutting 500 million of the wealthiest customers from your solution have a pretty significant business impact?

<comment><USER32> > 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.

<comment><USER33> > may decide that it's just not worth the cost of compliance.

You cannot not comply with it though.

<comment><USER34> 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.

<comment><USER33> > 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)

<comment><USER35> Please don't respond to incivility with worse.

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

<comment><USER34> 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.

<comment><USER35> It's obviously against HN's rules for users to address each other a la "calm the fuck down".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "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?

<comment><USER37> 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.

<comment><USER38> > 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.

<comment><USER39> 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.

<comment><USER40> >[..] 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.

<comment><USER41> 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?

<comment><USER40> 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.

<comment><USER37> 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).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> 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.

<comment><USER43> Where have you witnessed creeping internet censorship starting like this? (Not disputing, I'd just be interested to study it)

<comment><USER42> 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.

<comment><USER44> 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.

<comment><USER42> 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.

<comment><USER44> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> 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.

<comment><USER46> > 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> 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.

<comment><USER48> 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.

<comment><USER49> 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.

<comment><USER50> > 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?

<comment><USER49> 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.

<comment><USER50> 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.

<comment><USER47> You forgot the House of Lords.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> >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.

<comment><USER52> Individual countries cannot "interpret the directive as they see fit". Transposition has to match the directive, otherwise the whole excercise would be pointless.

<comment><USER53> 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.

<comment><USER52> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> 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...

<comment><USER55> 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.

<comment><USER54> 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)

<comment><USER56> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> 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.

<comment><USER58> Regulatory capture implies Google and Facebook were in favor of this and made it happen, which I doubt is true.

<comment><USER57> 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.

<comment><USER59> 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.

<comment><USER57> > 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.

<comment><USER59> 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?

<comment><USER57> 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!"

<comment><USER59> 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."

<comment><USER57> But then why did they not pay voluntarily when publishing companies asked for this prior to lobbying for this law?

<comment><USER59> Same reason I don't pay extra money to the treasury even though I think my tax rates should be raised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> 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.

<comment><USER57> 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".

<comment><USER60> > 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.

<comment><USER57> 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.

<comment><USER60> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> 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.

<comment><USER62> How is this a local issue though? It affects 500m people directly so should be debated at that level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> 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...

<comment><USER64> 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.

<comment> 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)?

<comment><USER64> 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.

<comment> 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.

<comment><USER64> > 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 - <USER3> 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.

<comment><USER65> >> 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?

<comment><USER64> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> 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.

<comment><USER67> If you read it more carefully, it says "designed to avoid catching" not "must not catch".

<comment><USER68> The conditions under-which something is fair-use are not features of the content. So there is nothing a system can do.

<comment><USER69> 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...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> 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).

<comment><USER71> 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.

<comment><USER72> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> 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.

</comment><comment><USER74> 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.

</comment><comment><USER75> 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.

<comment><USER76> 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.

<comment><USER75> >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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> If GDPR didn't make you block the EU, this will.

<comment><USER62> 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.

<comment><USER78> For some companies, making the IT-related changes to accommodate for GDPR was simply too expensive.

<comment><USER79> 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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> 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.

<comment><USER81> 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.

<comment><USER82> This is a good point. False copyright claims should be penalized, enforcing companies to improve the accuracy of their claims.

<comment><USER83> The american DMCA includes provision to penalize false takedowns, but from what I've seen the provision isn't used too often.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> 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.

</comment><comment><USER85> 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.

<comment><USER86> Maybe it's a good thing? The real world of atoms is heavy regulated. I prefer flying german cars instead of 140 characters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> 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.

</comment><comment><USER88> 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)

<comment><USER88> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> How can I see who voted what?

<comment><USER49> Does it really matter? The EU is a supra-national, oligarchic institution that merely has the _appearance_ of democratic mechanisms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> 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?

<comment><USER91> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> 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... :|

<comment><USER93> I just commented above. One solution to this kind of legislative overreach is decentralized apps that have no official jurisdiction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> Is there anything good about this law? Is there any logical, coherent argument for what benefit it might provide to anyone?

<comment><USER95> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> 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.

</comment><comment><USER97> > 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.

</comment><comment><USER98> 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.

<comment><USER99> 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?

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> 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.

<comment><USER101> 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.

<comment><USER64> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> 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.

<comment><USER81> 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.

<comment><USER103> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> 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...

<comment><USER105> 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).

<comment><USER104> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> 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).

</comment><comment><USER107> 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.

</comment><comment><USER9> > 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.

<comment><USER108> I very much prefer DRM over having everything I do on the internet to be monitored.

<comment><USER9> 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 ;-).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> 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.

</comment><comment><USER110> 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?

<comment><USER111> The GDPR has nothing to do with the internet specifically.

<comment><USER110> 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?

<comment><USER112> 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.

<comment><USER110> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> 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.

<comment><USER114> 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?

<comment><USER45> 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.

<comment><USER115> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER116> 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)"

</comment><comment><USER117> 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).

<comment><USER115> > 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER118> 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.

<comment><USER68> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> I am currently visiting the EU, couple of sites are blocking access within the EU, I guess it's gonna get worse.

<comment><USER120> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER121> 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

</comment><comment><USER122> 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.

</comment><comment><USER123> 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?

</comment><comment><USER99> Time for VPN outside EU...

<comment><USER124> This will be hilarious: Russians buying EU VPN while EU citizens buying Russian (well, not necessarily ofc). Both to bypass each states stupidity...

</comment></comment><comment><USER125> 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.

</comment><comment><USER126> 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.

<comment><USER127> And drop out of the EU market? That sounds insane.

<comment><USER126> I could be wrong but wouldn't the global versions still be accessible and capable of selling ads?

<comment><USER127> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER128> 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?

<comment><USER129> No, this is just lobbying by the copyright industry playing the "look how poor Bono is, he deserves more" card.

<comment><USER130> Yeah it's this.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER131> 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.

<comment><USER132> As a European, I wish I could just say the same :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER133> 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.

</comment><comment><USER134> > 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.

</comment><comment><USER135> 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.

<comment><USER136> What kind of effect do you think that these laws could have on your use of arXiv?

<comment><USER135> 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?

<comment><USER51> Why would any of that happen? I don't think the internet copyright proposal will affect things in a way you describe...

<comment><USER135> 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.

<comment><USER51> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER137> > "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.

</comment><comment><USER138> 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.

</comment><comment><USER55> 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.

<comment><USER139> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> Sad. The public gave their opinion two months. It appears they haven't listened.

What actions can the average citizen take against this?

</comment><comment><USER141> Can someone do an ELI5? There is so much confusion and speculation that I can't figure out what the hell is going on.

</comment><comment><USER142> Prepare to see another onslaught of "how to block your site in the EU" posts like there were right after GDPR.

<comment><USER143> rightfully so, don't you think?

</comment></comment><comment><USER144> 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.

</comment><comment><USER145> "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.

<comment><USER115> 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).

</comment></comment><comment><USER146> 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.

</comment><comment><USER147> 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.

</comment><comment><USER99> 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.

</comment><comment><USER148> This is obviously bad. I am hoping that more decentralization / p2p tech is born out of it.

</comment><comment><USER149> 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.

</comment><comment><USER150> * Honest Government Ad | Article 13 (Internet Censorship Bill) - YouTube || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ZkydX0FPw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ZkydX0FPw)

</comment><comment><USER151> 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?

</comment><comment><USER152> 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.

</comment><comment><USER153> 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?

<comment><USER115> 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).

</comment></comment><comment><USER154> 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?

</comment><comment><USER155> Hmm at this velocity even more sites will start blocking EU users.

</comment><comment><USER156> 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.

</comment><comment><USER157> 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

</comment><comment><USER158> 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.

</comment><comment><USER159> 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.

</comment><comment><USER160> 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?

</comment><comment><USER161> 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 :)

</comment><comment><USER162> Anyone in the EU who wants to create a new Internet?

<comment><USER163> 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.

<comment><USER164> 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.

<comment><USER165> If (cost of providing content to EU visitors) > (revenue generated from separate non-personalized ad network for EU visitors) { turn off EU visitor access }

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER166> 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.

<comment><USER112> > I cannot imagine that, for example, the Chans will take this kindly.

That will be funny

<comment><USER166> 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.

<comment><USER112> Chans have much worse than copyright infringement going on

<comment><USER166> I'm not sure if I know what you're talking about. Could you expand on this?

<comment><USER167> 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.

<comment><USER166> > 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.

<comment><USER167> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER168> 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.

</comment><comment><USER169> 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.

</comment><comment><USER170> > 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?

</comment><comment><USER171> [https://imgur.com/a/TOLHJKw](https://imgur.com/a/TOLHJKw)

</comment><comment><USER172> 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.

</comment><comment><USER173> Time to download some rare gems from YT.

</comment><comment><USER174> This feels just as stupid as the war on drugs. Another step back, especially for the poor as usual.

</comment><comment><USER175> 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.

</comment><comment><USER176> Whoa. Sounds like a paradoy of what foolish bureaucrats would do.

</comment><comment><USER177> How do I write all my MEPs that they fucked up badly this time?

</comment><comment><USER178> 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.

<comment><USER179> > _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.

<comment><USER178> That's a good point. I guess I rescind my comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER180> Yet, another thing that's wrong with Europe these days.

</comment><comment><USER49> Although the EU _looks_ like a democracy, it is not.

</comment><comment><USER181> Is there a complete list of those who voted in favour?

</comment><comment><USER134> F

</comment><comment><USER182> Oh shit.

How can I find who voted for it?

</comment><comment><USER71> Holy fuck no...

</comment><comment><USER183> DecEntRalyZE EvritHyNg™

</comment><comment><USER184> asd

</comment><comment><USER185> This corrupt old farts. The brexit people were right ...

<comment><USER186> If this gets through in January, the UK would have to implement it too...

<comment><USER187> "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."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER188> 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.

<comment><USER9> 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.

<comment><USER189> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER190> 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.

</comment><comment><USER191> America please save us

</comment><comment><USER192> [ ] Remain [X] Leave

</comment><comment><USER193> This is pretty dumb.

</comment><comment><USER143> yet another stupid decision by the EU lawmakers who are obsessed with regulating anything they see as a grey area.

</comment><comment><USER194> 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.

</comment><comment><USER195> 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?</comment>