1. 69
  1. 26

    This law targets link aggregators like lobster.rs explicitly. Nobody has any idea how it should work in practice but presumably linking to the bbc now incurs an obligation to pay. A sad day for the internet as yet another promising future is crushed beneath those who use the law as a means to oppress the populace.

    1. 4

      How can a site like this one be affected by this law?

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but, lobste.rs:

      1. doesn’t make money off the content they host,
      2. it hosts links (not quotes, not summaries, …), they are giving the original author more visibility;
      3. it also hosts discussion, which I believe is still a human right.

      If someone where to acuse Lobsters of damaging content creators (which is what this law is all about, isn’t it?) how would that differ from taking me to court for sharing a link in a closed chat group, or even IRL?

      Lobsters is by the community, for the community, it’s not one large corp promoting their stuff (I could see the argument made against HN as it’s YCombinator’s site and it hosts some publicity from time to time), that does not differ IMO to sharing things IRL, and we surely won’t stop from sharing links to our friends, will we?

      If this law goes agains’t Lobsters for those reasons, then I will understand all the noise made around this directive.

      1. 2

        it hosts links (not quotes, not summaries, …)

        well, depends on the links you have. technically, torrent sites which host only magnet links should be fine, too, but aren’t.

        1. 3

          Torrent sites and alike are link aggregators for copyrighted material. It’s a link to something that’s already illegal to distribute, therefore torrent sites are redistributing copyrighted material, which goes against copyright.

          But lobste.rs’ submissions link to direct sources of information, where you can see the content how it’s creator wanted it to be. Sometimes paywalled articles are downvoted here because not everyone can read them. If lobste.rs were redistributing copyrighted material it wouldn’t be paywalled.

          A clear example of the opposite is https://outline.com, which displays the content of a third party without it’s consent, and without keeping the shape and form of how the author wanted it to be.


          • This link is not illegal. It’s the primary source of the content, you are seeing the content how it was meant to be and from the creator’s own site.
          • This link is illegal, it’s a secondary source of copyrighted material, if the creator decides to paywall it, modify it, put ads on it, etc. They can’t.

          Lobsters links are to the direct (sometimes indirect, but it’s an unwritten rule to post the direct) source of the topic.

          I ignore if the EU-approved directive would put Lobsters in the “copyright infringement” bucket, if it does then I repeat my previous point: if sharing links online with other people is illegal, where do you draw the line so that sharing links with IRL friends isn’t, because that would be an obvious violation of free speech?

          1. 3

            Agreed. Threadstarter/OP is being way hyperbolic.

            This is probably not the best law that could have been enacted, but it’s also a fact that American companies like Google and Facebook have been lobbying heavily against it. A lot of online rhetoric is reflective of this.

          2. 1

            Such links are off-topic for this site.

            Only legitimate pointer to a torrent link for this site’s rules is for an open-source distribution. But in that case, it’s more appropriate to link to that project’s release page.

        2. 7

          actually lobste.rs is exempt because it earns less than 10million euros, and if its for educational or research use its exempt as well.

          just as sites like Wikipedia are exempt

          1. 26


            According to Julia Reda you have to fulfill all (not any) of those three criteria:

            • Available to the public for less than 3 years
            • Annual turnover below €10 million
            • Fewer than 5 million unique monthly visitors

            Since lobste.rs is nearly seven years old an upload filter is required.

            1. 4

              Reads like it was designed specifically to prevent newcomers to the field.

              Clever, and not subtle at all. I’m surprised to see this coming from the EU.

            2. 10

              You have to distinguish between former article 11 and former article 13 (now article 15 and article 17).

              Article 17 (requirement to try to get licenses and if you cannot get a license make sure that no licensed content gets uploaded) has the limitation regarding company size and age (as correctly stated by qznc) and Wikipedia is exempt from this.

              Article 15 however (requirement to license newspaper excerpts) does not have exemptions (according to my current knowledge). I guess however that all newspapers will again give Google a royalty-free license, because they fear that they will get less visitors without Google. Thus, in effect the only affected services are small services. Article 15 has these limits (imo not codified directly in the article, but in an annotation to the article): “The rights provided for in the first subparagraph shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications by individual users.”, but I am not sure how to interpret this “non-commercial uses by individual users” (it’s a similar grammatical construction in German).

              German Wikipedia stated that they are exempt from “article 13” (now 17). They mention their implications by article 11 (now 15), but do not mention that they are exempt from it. They state “[Article 11] could complicate our research for sources on current topics” (“Dies könnte auch unsere Quellenrecherche bei aktuellen Themen deutlich erschweren.”)

              1. 1

                I guess however that all newspapers will again give Google a royalty-free license, because they fear that they will get less visitors without Google.

                I can’t be certain but a discussion between some newspaper owners on a BBC Radio 4 weekly program on the state of media pointed out that similar laws existed already in both Germany and Spain (I think I remember the countries right) rendering Google news illegal in those countries and therefore unavailable. I don’t know if these new EU directives differ from those countries initial versions but their laws stated clearly that a license fee must be charged, therefore free licensing became illegal. The discussion revolved around how damaging it was to a number of publications whom obtained the majority if not all their revenue generating traffic from Google.

              2. 7

                Found something: I think lobste.rs is exempt from article 17 (article 13), because of the definitions in article 2. A “online content-sharing service provider” according to that definition “promotes [the content uploaded by its users] for profit-making purposes”. I think lobste.rs does not want to make any money? And then there comes the list of “educational or research use” that yakamo refers to. However, that’s only for the article 17.

                For article 15 (article 11) the relevant term is “information society service providers” and that is defined as: “information society service’ means a service within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535”:

                Directive (EU) 2015/1535 in turn defines: “‘service’ means any Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services.” (but I have troubles with “normally provided for renumeration”, because in Germany we have some terms that sound like they would mean “commercial”, but in fact they don’t).

            3. 10

              It’s going to be interesting to see how much this is going to affect the future of how the WWW functions. GDPR sure didn’t manage to be as severe of a measure as we’d hoped it be. Heck, I’m having troubles getting the relevant authorities to understand clear violations that I’ve forwarded to them, where they then end up just being dismissed.

              But this law here is of course not for the people, no… This is here for the copyright holders, and they carry much more power. So will this actually result in the mess we expect it to be?

              1. 25

                GDPR and the earlier cookie law have created a huge amount of pointless popup alert boxes on sites everywhere.

                1. 10

                  The one thing I can say is that, due to the GDPR, you have the choice to reject many cookies which you couldn’t do before (without ad-blockers or such). That’s at least something.

                  1. 10

                    Another amazing part of GDPR is data exports. Before hardly any website had it to lock you in.

                    1. 4

                      You had this choice before though, it’s normal to make a cookies whitelist for example in firefox with no addons. The GDPR lets you trust the site that wants to track you to not give you the cookies instead of you having personal autonomy and choosing not to save the cookies with your own client.

                      1. 26

                        I think this attitude is a bit selfish since not every non-technical person wants to be tracked, and it’s also counter-productive, since even the way you block cookies is gonna be used to track you. The race between tracker and trackee can never be won by any of them if governments don’t make it illegal. I for one am very happy about the GDPR, and I’m glad we’re finally tackling privacy in scale.

                        1. 2

                          it’s not selfish it’s empowering

                          if a non-technical person is having trouble we can volunteer to teach them and try to get browsers to implement better UX

                          GDPR isn’t goverments making tracking illegal

                          1. 15

                            I admire your spirit, but I think it’s a bit naive to think that everyone has time for all kinds of empowerment. My friends and family want privacy without friction, without me around, and without becoming computers hackers themselves.

                        2. 18

                          It’s now illegal for the site to unnecessarily break functionality based on rejecting those cookies though. It’s also there responsibility to identify which cookies are actually necessary for functionality.

                      2. 4

                        On Europe we’re starting to sign GDPR papers for everything we do… even for buying glasses…

                        1. 12

                          Goes on to show how much information about us is being implicitly collected in my honest opinion, whether for advertisement or administration.

                          1. 1

                            Most of the time, you don’t even have a copy of the document, it’s mostly a tl;dr document full of legal jargon that nobody reads… it might be a good thing, but far from perfect.

                      3. 4

                        “The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.”

                        1. 22

                          That old canard is increasingly untrue as governments and supercorps like Google, Amazon, and Facebook seek to control as much of the Internet as they can by building walled gardens and exerting their influence on how the protocols that make up the internet are standardized.

                          1. 13

                            I believe John Gilmore was referring to old-fashioned direct government censorship, but I think his argument applies just as well to the soft corporate variety. Life goes on outside those garden walls. We have quite a Cambrian explosion of distributed protocols going on at the moment, and strong crypto. Supercorps rise and fall. I think we’ll be OK.

                            Anyway, I’m disappointed by the ruling as well; I just doubt that the sky is really falling.

                            1. 4

                              I agree that it is not the sky falling. It is a burden for startups and innovation in Europe though. We need new business ideas for the news business. Unfortunately, we now committed to life support for the big old publishers like Springer.

                              At least, we will probably have some startups applying fancy AI techniques to implement upload filters. If they become profitable enough then Google will start its own service which is for free (in exchange for sniffing all the data of course). Maybe some lucky ones get bought before they are bankrupt. I believe this decision is neutral or positive for Google.

                              The hope is that creatives earn more, but Germany already tried it with the ancillary copyright for press publishers (German: Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger) in 2013. It did not work.

                              1. 2

                                Another idea for a nice AI startup I had: Summarizing of news with natural language processing. I do not see that writing news with an AI is illegal, only copying the words/sentences would be illegal.

                                Maybe however, you cannot make public from where you aggregated your original news that you feed into your AI :)

                            2. 4

                              Governments, corporations, and individual political activists are certainly trying to censor the internet, at least the most popularly-accessible portions of it. I think the slogan is better conceptualized as an aspiration for technologists interested in information freedom - we should interpret censorship as damage (rather than counting on the internet as it currently works to just automatically do it for us) and we should build technologies that make it possible for ordinary people to bypass it.

                          2. 2

                            I can see a really attitude shift coming when the EU finally gets around to imposing significant fines. I worked with quite a few organisations that’ve a taken ‘bare minimum and wait and see’ attitude who’d make big changes if the law was shown to have teeth. Obviously pure speculation though.

                          3. 14

                            To be honest, I think us (“the public”) made our own bed with this one. For years we’ve stubbornly insisted that we can just ignore copyright, and every time we’re surprised that copyright holders mount a counter-attack?

                            A few weeks ago people here were arguing you should just torrent stuff, as it’s “easier” than dealing with Netflix. I have no great love for Netflix for many reasons, but that kind of “I’ll just ignore copyright because I find it inconvenient” attitude leads to … well, this. Routine copyright violation is common in many instances, not just torrent sites.

                            And look, I’m also not happy with legislators listening just to “Big Copyright” and failing to take the public interest in to account. I don’t think that any person – much less corporation – can law claim to the ownership of culture, which is pretty much what they’re doing by laying claim to almost all books, films, and music produced in the last ~70 years.

                            I’m not sure if copyright is really needed to make money, but I appreciate that some might disagree on that one, so we could compromise by reducing copyright duration to something sane (something on the order of several decades) like it was not so long ago. Seemed to work fine back then, don’t see why it can’t now (if anything, it should work better). Unfortunately, these are not the kind of arguments and debates I see taking place, certainly not at any level where it matters.

                            Arguably, pirating stuff could be seen as an act of civil disobedience, and in the past I’ve sometimes argued that torrent sites and the like should take a clearer stance on this. At the time of the great The Pirate Bay trail I was rather dismayed that TPB used flimsy excuses to claim that they weren’t sharing illegal content, instead of a bigger argument based on cultural freedom. Perhaps it’s naïve to think that would fly, but then again their quasi-legal bullshit didn’t fly either, and at least this might have brought the bigger argument to the attention of the public.

                            At any rate, I’m not quite sure where to go from here. I’m not sure if there are any options left, barring something dramatic.

                            1. 12

                              I disagree. While you are right that they have used people pirating as an excuse for this, make no mistake, this is what the MPIAA wanted from the beginning (they might not have envisioned it in this form, but total control of distributed media is something that they have fought for since the start).

                              1. 5

                                They screamed bloody murder over the radio, and over home video cassettes. Neither ended the world.

                                1. 3

                                  Yes, but it’s no the MPIAA enacting laws, is it?

                                  What pirating has done, especially in the last 20 years, is give them a powerful argument to convince lawmakers that copyright needs to be protected more.

                                  There are all sorts of interest groups that want all sorts of things. There is nothing wrong wit the MPIAA and other interest groups as such. The problem is the lack of “public interest” interest groups, which is a problem which goes beyond just this specific topic. I do know that in this specific case the public interests have been exceedingly badly represented in my view, in part due to the widespread piracy.

                                  1. 6

                                    Yes, but it’s no the MPIAA enacting laws, is it?

                                    isn’t it?

                                    1. 4

                                      Motion pictures association of America is enacting EU laws? Interesting.

                                      1. 6

                                        Yeah, it’s a pretty sucky world. They enact laws in sub-saharan Africa where I’m from also.

                                        That kind of money can buy basically anything.

                                        1. 1

                                          I’m gonna need a source on that. I don’t believe that EU laws are written by American institutions.

                                          1. 3

                                            Free Culture, by Harvard Lawyer Lawrence Lessig, has an entire chapter describing how the American government used trade embargoes to force Africa to enforce American AIDS-drug patent law, while Africa was in the middle of an AIDS crisis [0].

                                            It is not a big stretch that America could use a trade deal with the EU to ensure the EU enforces copyright/patent law.


                                            But it is one thing to support patents, even drug patents. It is another thing to determine how best to deal with a crisis. And as African leaders began to recognize the devastation that AIDS was bringing, they started looking for ways to import HIV treatments at costs significantly below the market price.

                                            In 1997, South Africa tried one tack. It passed a law to allow the importation of patented medicines that had been produced or sold in another nation’s market with the consent of the patent owner. For example, if the drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is called “parallel importation,” and it is generally permitted under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the European Union.[^196]

                                            However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association characterized it, “The U.S. government pressured South Africa … not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.”[^197] Through the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the government asked South Africa to change the law - and to add pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed South Africa for possible trade sanctions. That same year, more than forty pharmaceutical companies began proceedings in the South African courts to challenge the govern-ment’s actions. The United States was then joined by other governments from the EU. Their claim, and the claim of the pharmaceutical companies, was that South Africa was violating its obligations under international law by discriminating against a particular kind of patent - pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these governments, with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa respect these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.[^198]

                                            We should place the intervention by the United States in context. No doubt patents are not the most important reason that Africans don’t have access to drugs. Poverty and the total absence of an effective health care infrastructure matter more. But whether patents are the most important reason or not, the price of drugs has an effect on their demand, and patents affect price. And so, whether massive or marginal, there was an effect from our government’s intervention to stop the flow of medications into Africa.

                                            By stopping the flow of HIV treatment into Africa, the United States government was not saving drugs for United States citizens. This is not like wheat (if they eat it, we can’t); instead, the flow that the United States intervened to stop was, in effect, a flow of knowledge: information about how to take chemicals that exist within Africa, and turn those chemicals into drugs that would save 15 to 30 million lives.

                                            Nor was the intervention by the United States going to protect the profits of United States drug companies - at least, not substantially. It was not as if these countries were in the position to buy the drugs for the prices the drug companies were charging. Again, the Africans are wildly too poor to afford these drugs at the offered prices. Stopping the parallel import of these drugs would not substantially increase the sales by U.S. companies.

                                            Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of information, which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an argument about the sanctity of property.[^199] It was because “intellectual property” would be violated that these drugs should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the importance of “intellectual property” that led these government actors to intervene against the South African response to AIDS.

                                            Now just step back for a moment. There will be a time thirty years from now when our children look back at us and ask, how could we have let this happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose direct cost would be to speed the death of 15 to 30 million Africans, and whose only real benefit would be to uphold the “sanctity” of an idea? What possible justification could there ever be for a policy that results in so many deaths? What exactly is the insanity that would allow so many to die for such an abstraction?


                                        2. 1

                                          Lobbies are very good at suggesting elected officials to just copy-paste their propositions as law. So while they’re not doing the final enactment, they sure did write an awful lot of laws. Add to that the soft corruption (inviting the politician to a dinner, giving champaign or chocolate… food is a bigger corrupter than we anticipate), and we’re not far away from foreign corporations actually writing laws on our soil.

                                          1. 2

                                            There is fundamentally nothing wrong with the MPIAA or other interest groups. They’re just looking after what are pretty legitimate interests, and I would argue this is not just desired but essential for a well-functioning democracy, but a necessity.

                                            The problem is more a lack of counter-argument. If 95% of what you’re hearing is from one side then it’s easy to be sympathetic to that side. It’s essentially an echo-chamber. Our current democratic system seems quite poor at providing a voice to interests that are not purely economical in nature. This is a problem that is far wider than just MPIAA.

                                            It seems to me that instead of vilifying the MPIAA, it would be more effective to organise better counter-lobby groups and/or work on institute systemic changes to the democratic system to better counter the various interests.

                                            (CC @singpolyma, since it’s also a reply to his comment)

                                            1. 1

                                              There is fundamentally nothing wrong with the MPIAA or other interest groups.

                                              Actually, I wasn’t really saying that. I’m mostly saying that such interest groups have more influence than they should have.

                                              Our current democratic system seems quite poor at providing a voice to interests that are not purely economical in nature.

                                              Perhaps because our current “democratic” system is more like a plutocratic system? Those who have money have disproportionately more influence than the common folks, and this most likely bias the whole system.

                                      2. 2

                                        I feel like pirating has equal well given the other side a powerful argument that the people don’t want this law. That this level of copyright protection is undemocratic, unpopular, and will get you voted out of office.

                                    2. 1

                                      I think the vast majority of the public obeys copyright because they don’t know how to circumvent it.

                                      1. 2

                                        They usually don’t, though. Regular people just look up an image online and use it in their presentation on fire safety laws. Kids making videos just download a song and use it for a gaming mashup of theirs. And don’t even get me started on kids pirating their games using cracks from slightly older kids who just can’t resist the challenge.

                                        Nobody gives a fuck about copyright.

                                        And in this reality, where most of the population is violating copyright so blatantly, their representatives somehow manage to get re-elected and tighten the screws just a little bit more.

                                        1. 1

                                          Just for clarification: are you personally in favor of widespread copyright violation? Or are you using “copyright” as a shorthand for “copyright enforcement”?

                                      2. 7

                                        Can anyone provide a simple bullet-point list of why this is a bad thing? It might help when discussing it with folks.

                                        1. 16

                                          Just out of my head:

                                          Newspaper licensing (former article 11):

                                          • still unclear what is “very short excerpt” (afaik no ruling in Germany yet and we had this law for a few years), even titles might not be “very short excerpts”
                                          • all newspapers gave Google a royalty-free license in Germany, because they were afraid of losing visitors -> thus it only helps Google and harms competitors and small services
                                          • essentially in my opinion it becomes impossible to start a startup company that somehow collects news (news younger than 2 years), because you’d have to request a license from each newspaper

                                          Licenses for user-generated content platforms (former article 13):

                                          • all experts say that you cannot create a reliable upload filter that can distinguish between original and satire (and similar problems), thus leading to a lot of overfiltering
                                          • getting licenses from all major labels is simpler for the big players than for small players
                                          • the “exemption” for small startups (must be younger than 3 years AND less than 5 mio users per month AND turnover below 10 million Euro) is essentially useless, because all companies will have to use filters after 3 years (in the public communication they always acted as if they had used OR, but it is an AND).
                                          • the only ones that have enough money and knowledge to implement upload filters are Google, Facebook etc. Thus, they will be the only ones that can host content in compliance with the law or (which is very probable) they will provide Filter-as-a-Service to other companies.
                                          • Filter-as-a-Service will lead to routing of all uploads through Google / Facebook, thus this might have data protection problems

                                          There’s also the less famous former article 12 (there were some talks about it on the Saturday protests):

                                          • this one seems to make authors pay a bigger share of their earnings to the publishing companies

                                          In general the whole process was a big infamy(?) (=they were extremely rude) by the fans of the new law, especially the German party “CDU/CSU in the European Union” (even so far that the national parts of the CDU/CSU had to try to fix it…)

                                          • When there were a lot of emails to the politicians about the law they called us bots.
                                          • When there were a lot of phone calls to the European Parliament they called it a campaign controlled by the US companies.
                                          • When there were massive protests in many European cities last Saturday they called us “bought by so called NGOs”.
                                          1. 2

                                            Thanks for putting this together?

                                            1. 1

                                              Thanks, very helpful!

                                          2. 5

                                            In case somebody is interested, I think this is the full text: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0245-AM-271-271_EN.pdf

                                            German: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0245-AM-271-271_DE.pdf

                                            Other languages can be selected by changing DE/EN in the URL, e.g. Croatian would be A-8-2018-0245-AM-271-271_HR.pdf and so on.

                                            1. 5

                                              This is a mixed-bag, for me. On one hand, laws that damn these large corporations are largely a good thing; if everyone had their own independently hosted website, it would be much harder to even expect such a thing; laws such as this are only even feasible due to consolidation that shouldn’t happen. On the other hand, I don’t actually see these laws doing anything against the largest players; I was optimistic that this would kill Github and perhaps people would go back to hosting their own programs themselves, but now Microsoft owns Github and so I don’t see that happening anymore; per the usual, I see this only hurting those who aren’t the problem, however asinine that ultimately is.

                                              As an aside, copyright shouldn’t exist and having the lengths it does is insane. I don’t weep for people having their work, I mean the work of others they publish, ’‘stolen’’. Still, most of the big works disgust me to the extent that I wouldn’t watch them even if I were paid to.

                                              Consider how our modern societies so well resemble those older societies that have supposedly been surpassed. You can’t criticize that, that’s heretical! You can’t build from that, that’s copyrighted! You have different justifications for the same results, telling people what they can and can’t do with works that compose parts of our cultures.

                                              1. 17

                                                I was optimistic that this would kill Github

                                                For perhaps the first time in history, people don’t have to pay other people to host their programs, they can put their source code on the web in a versioned, low-effort way. And you wish to destroy it? I can appreciate having a fundamental dispute against monopolies, but surely you understand the amount of code this has released to the public through a mixture of zero-cost and low barriers?

                                                1. 3

                                                  Github was a very late competitor in the code-hosting field, and even late to have a free offering. This is far from the first time in history that those things had happened. With no Github, people would still have had google code, source forge, freshmeat, gna!, savannah, and others.

                                              2. 3

                                                I checked the text a few days ago and I found some sections that were not so widely discussed very interesting. For example, the directive has an exemption regarding copyright for text and data mining for scientific organisations. This is similar to something we already have in Germany. However, the directive also includes this sentence that in my opinion tooootally is a section for the industry:

                                                Article 3 (3): “Rightholders shall be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.”

                                                This is something I have not seen in German law, yet, and in my opinion means that copyright holders can declare which technology universities have to use if they want to do data mining / text mining on their material… (luckily according to the second sentence only to some extent).

                                                Another detail I liked about article 17 (the famous upload filtering article). “If no authorisation is granted, online content-sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public […] unless the service providers demonstrate that they have: (a)made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and […] [b) upload filters] [c) take down notice]”

                                                I probably misunderstand this one, but to me this “and” seems as if you have to proof that you tried to get a license, otherwise you are still liable for any copyrighted content that gets uploaded, even if you employ upload filters (and there is a false negative). Thus, essentially making this whole directive a “force the whole internet to request licenses from copyright holders”.

                                                1. 2

                                                  More horrifying that it appears to have passed because of a bad button press.

                                                  1. 2

                                                    I wonder how long it’s going to take for the United States Congress to start talking about copyright reform? Will there be the same amount of political goodwill to oppose this inevitable reform as there was when popular reaction opposed SOPA?

                                                    1. 3

                                                      Congress mainly passes bills big companies pay for to benefit those big companies. I’m going to cringe if I hear Congress is thinking about copyright reform.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        Media companies are fairly large and they love copyrights, understandably.

                                                    2. 2

                                                      I used to like the EU, even if there were some dubious things (longer copyright terms, database IP rights) but with GDPR and now this… stay away if you can.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        Also being covered by the NYTimes.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          Does anyone know if and how this will impact open source? I’m thinking of platforms like Github and package managers (e.g. npm and Hex both have commercial interests afaik).

                                                          1. 3

                                                            Github is exempt from the much discussed article 17 (formerly 13; user generated content), because of the redefinition of “online content-sharing service provider”. The EU defines:

                                                            “Providers of services, such as […], open source software-developing and-sharing platforms, […] are not ‘online content-sharing service providers’ within the meaning of this Directive.”

                                                            But the question is how definite this list is. This is what troubles me and what also Wikipedia has criticized. They write a list of a few services, put a “such as” before the list and expect that everything is fine.

                                                            They list a few not-for-profit examples in this list, but for example not a “not-for-profit soccer movie hosting service”. Is my theoretical not-for-profit soccer movie hosting service ¹ now exempt or not? I guess not, but the list is prefixed with “such as” which for me means that it is not a definitive list. And it’s not a definition like “not-for-profit services such as not-for-profit encyclopedia, not-for-profit …”, it’s a list of “services such as”. They EU does not even know what kind of services they want to exclude from article 17, only that they want to exclude “services such as”. lmao.

                                                            ¹ not so theoretical indeed, because there is or was a German service that hosted short clips from 4th or 5th (or even lower?) league soccer matches; cannot find them anymore and maybe they are offline, because some years ago they got into big trouble with the soccer association for copyright infringement or licensing problems or so (I think all clubs playing in the league are member of the association and the association said the website is violating their exclusive right to publish soccer videos, even though the association of course have zero will to sell clips from the 5th league…).