1. 69
  1.  

  2. 15

    This is completely moronic and will have a massive negative impact. They are requiring websites to deploy technology that literally doesn’t exist. There is no such tool that can work out if content is copyrighted or not. Even humans struggle to tell the difference between fair use and not, how on earth will a computer be able to tell the difference between a copyrighted recording of a public domain song and a public domain recording of a public domain song? Audio wise the two are almost exactly the same thing.

    Of course those with power don’t care because systems exist that can detect all of their content and the system will only harm everyone else when there content is constantly removed by automated systems that can’t tell they did nothing wrong.

    1. 4

      It sounds like this is referring to article 13, but article 13 has little in common with what was described above. Ignoring explicit exemptions made for small business and education (arguably including Wikipedia), it obliges information providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works to take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works, such as implementing effective technologies. It also places the onus on rightsholders to supply the data necessary to power effective countermeasures.

      In other words, the requirement is only on a particular class of (IMHO well-described) web sites to implement countermeasures, those measures must be deemed proportionate and effective, and the data that powers them must be supplied by the rightsholder.

      The example given is of a countermeasure that falls short of the plain criteria - if an ineffective technology creates a needless burden on the operation of a large copyrighted content web site, it is easily argued to be neither appropriate nor proportionate.

      1. 2

        “Easily argued” where? When the regulators come to you and say you are in violation… where do you fight that? How do you fight that? What are the costs? Being right has very little to do with being easy, you can easily be right and bankrupted by regulation and legal fees.

        1. 5

          The same applies to every new regulation, article 13 is no exception, and like GDPR will slowly be tested out, article 13 will receive the same, and those cases will be paid by a wide variety of deep pockets interested in such things, as you’re no doubt already aware. By the time it filters down to the little guy most of the legal legwork will already have been done, and words like “large”, “proportionate” and “effective” will have well-defined meanings.

          It only takes one case from e.g. a big content aggregator site to begin setting precedent.

          Just to be clear this isn’t my department, and I didn’t spend any time reading article 11, but it’s tiring to see a pirate party representative’s blog post repeated everywhere with no counterpoints, especially when that post is demonstrably inaccurate according to the most basic reading of the regulation

          1. 4

            The same applies to every new regulation

            Which is why regulations should not be broad nor generalized. “Large”, “Proportionate” and “Effective” are very much words that get to be defined at will by those given the power to interpret them. I don’t like regulations with those words anymore than an official “Be ‘nice’ and ‘kind’ to your neighbor, or face the penalties” – “Nice” and “Kind” of course to be defined later, by someone who is not you.

            and those cases will be paid by a wide variety of deep pockets

            I don’t see how you are so certain of this, GDPR absolutely hasn’t been paid for by the “deep pockets” alone. Its cost has hurt may of the “excluded small businesses” (under 250) because the follow on inclusion criteria was so broad as to bring many small businesses BACK into needing to deal with GDPR in a major cost-impacting, employee headcount cutting, and even transnational relocation way.

            it’s tiring to see a pirate party representative’s blog post repeated everywhere with no counterpoints

            Fair enough, and I understand the contrarian instinct. I get in trouble for it in my home all the time, I will almost reflexively argue the other side – not the best plan for domestic bliss.

            1. 2

              I will almost reflexively argue the other side – not the best plan for domestic bliss.

              Same here. I don’t know why I do this.

    2. 8

      I used to be against this, but with the exceptions for non-commercial services, I’m leaning the other way.

      1. 3

        Wait, really? Why on earth?

        1. 2

          Because the business model of google is to profit from other people’s work and I don’t want them or Msoft or similar to be the gateway to content.

          1. 2

            “Commoditize Your Compliment.” Might be a bit harder under this legislation.

            1. 1

              I see; kind of a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of thing?

              1. 1

                Not really. You can see from the Google publishers program that it is getting into a position where everything goes through it. I think it is reasonable to require that either an aggregator is a public resource not-for-profit or that it pays its content creators.

        2. 4

          Quoting from the6threplicant on HN:

          A comment from someone who has actually read the article: https://np.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/…

          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 - press 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.)

          Personally, I haven’t (yet?) read the article, so not sure who’s the “discussion winner” here, but I’m sure happy to see this opposing voice — my curiosity got now piqued enough that I’m hoping to print it and take for a slow relaxed read on a couch, with a pen ready for scribbling over the paper.

          1. 1

            More or less the same text is repeated in another reddit thread, under a different account name: https://dm.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/9f6ou3/article_13_has_been_passed/e5uh7ka/ I’m not sure what to make of that fact, but I’m dubious of the claims (of the EFF detractor) at first blush at least.

            1. 1

              A reply to it by someone “working on it for EFF”. An especially important point seems to be that “recitals” in the directive are reportedly “not law” (i.e. not binding, I assume?)

              1. 1

                Interesting. It’d be nice to get a medium-length readable summary of the directive for laypeople. I generally like what the EFF does, but even in cases where I mostly agree with their take on things, they do tend to have very simple, call-to-action style summaries of what a given policy does. (Understandably so of course, because they’re a pressure group, and a whitepaper isn’t a very effective way of mobilizing anyone.)

              2. 3

                https://juliareda.eu/2018/09/ep-endorses-upload-filters/

                Hmm, I think this actually makes it mandatory for Wikipedia to install an upload filter.

                1. 13

                  There is actually an exception for websites like Wikipedia in this version of the directive:

                  “online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service one of the main purposes of which is to store and give access to the public to copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users, which the service optimises. Services acting in a non-commercial purpose capacity such as online encyclopaedia, and providers of online services where the content is uploaded with the authorisation of all rightholders concerned, such as educational or scientific repositories, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive. Providers of cloud services for individual use which do not provide direct access to the public, open source software developing platforms, and online market places whose main activity is online retail of physical goods, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive;

                  (Emphasis mine)

                  1. 4

                    Reda says Voss misrepresents the true scope of the upload filtering obligation and at no point does the definition exclude platforms that don’t make money off their users’ sharing of copyrighted content. She concedes that “completely non-commercial platforms” are excluded, but points out that experience has shown that even a call for donations or the use of an advertising banner can be considered commercial activity.

                    (Emphasis mine, https://thenextweb.com/eu/2018/06/19/the-eus-disastrous-copyright-reform-explained/)

                    Also, I am not sure that this is the exact wording that has passed. I am, to be honest, not well-versed in the EU legislative procedure.

                    1. 2

                      does an american organization have to care about exceptions in stupid european laws?

                      1. 16

                        does an american organization have to care about exceptions in stupid european laws?

                        They only do if they have enough presence in a European country willing to enforce those laws that they could be hurt in court.

                        If a company has no presence in any EU country, it can ignore those laws just like it ignores the laws against insulting the Thai king and laws against telling the truth about the Tienanmen Square Massacre.

                        1. 3

                          Untill some European countries order their ISP’s to block all traffic towards those companies.

                          This has already happened with major torrent sites like ThePirateBay,org, which serves up this page to everyone in The Netherlands with this ISP (and they are quite activistic about providing everyone unrestricted access to the entire internet). Take note that other European countries have ordered similar filters and take-downs onto their ISP’s and those are being actively being enforced.

                          1. 1

                            Untill some European countries order their ISP’s to block all traffic towards those companies.

                            Again, that only hurts the company in proportion to how much of their business was coming out of the EU to begin with.

                            It also isn’t forcing them to abide by the law of any EU member state, any more than West Germany was forced to abide by East German law when the Berlin Wall was up and East Germans were barred from going to West Germany.

                            1. 1

                              Again, that only hurts the company in proportion to how much of their business was coming out of the EU to begin with.

                              True, but since most major content-platforms in Europe are American companies, I doubt they’d get away with ignoring these laws. Nor do I think that they’d like to give up a market of about 510 Million people. Note that the United States is a market of only 325 Million people. So in terms of numbers, you have to care if you intend to grow beyond the United States, Canada and Mexico somewhere in the near future. You also have to keep in mind that Europe is a lot closer to the United states than you might think.

                              It also isn’t forcing them to abide by the law of any EU member state, any more than West Germany was forced to abide by East German law when the Berlin Wall was up and East Germans were barred from going to West Germany.

                              Actually, that isn’t true at all. West Germany still had West-Berlin and had to maintain supply lines to that part of Berlin through East-German (DDR) territory. Because of this, there were a bunch of DDR-laws they had to abide by, despite of being separate countries. A scenario like this, might also happen to US-companies as well.

                        2. 6

                          It’s going to be interesting for US firms that use e.g. the Dutch sandwich to avoid US taxes.

                    2. 3

                      Urgh, damn it. I guess I should download Wikipedia while Europeans like me are still allowed to access all of it… It’s only 80 GB (wtf?) anyway.

                      1. 3

                        That and the Internet Archive. ;)

                        Regarding Wikipedia, do they sell offline copies of it so we don’t have to download 80GB? Seems like it be a nice fundraising and sharing strategy combined.

                        1. 3

                          I second this. While I know the content might change in the near future, it would be fun to have memorabilia about a digital knowledge base. I regret throwing to the garbage my Solaris 10 DVDs that Sun sent me for free back in 2009. I was too dumb back then.

                          1. 2

                            Its a bit out of date but wikipediaondvd.com and lots more options at dumps.wikimedia.org.

                            I wonder how much traffic setting up a local mirror would entail, might be useful. Probably the type of thing that serious preppers do.

                            1. 1

                              You can help seeding too.

                          2. 4

                            Actually Wikipedia is exempt from this directive, as is also mentioned in the linked article. While I agree that this directive will have a severely negative impact on the internet in Europe, we should be careful not to rely on false arguments.

                            1. 1

                              Do you remember the encyclopedias of the 90s? They came on a single CD. 650MB.

                              1. 5

                                To be explicit, this is not a “modern systems are bloated” thing. The English Wikipedia has an estimated 3.5 billion words. If you took out every single multimedia, talk page, piece of metadata, and edit history, it’d still be 30 GB of raw text uncompressed.

                                1. 4

                                  Oh that’s not what I was implying. The commenter said “It’s only 80 GB (wtf?)”

                                  I too was surprised at how small it was, but them remembered the old encyclopedias and realized that you can put a lot of pure text data in a fairly small amount of space.

                                  1. 1

                                    Remember that they had a very limited selection with low-quality images at least on those I had. So, it makes sense there’s a big difference. I feel you, though, on how we used to get a good pile of learning in small package.

                                  2. 1

                                    30 GB of raw text uncompressed

                                    That sounds like a fun text encoding challenge: try to get that 30GB of wiki text onto a single layer DVD (about 4.6GB?)

                                    I bet it’s technically possible with enough work. AFAIK Claude Shannon experimentally showed that human readable text only has a few bits of information per character. Of course there are lots of languages but they must each have some optimal encoding. ;)

                                    1. 2

                                      Not even sure it’d be a lot of work. Text packs extremely well; IIRC compression ratios over 20x are not uncommon.

                                      1. 1

                                        Huh! I think gzip usually achieves about 2:1 on ASCII text and lzma is up to roughly twice as good. At least one of those two beliefs has to be definitely incorrect, then.

                                        Okay so, make it challenging: same problem but this time an 700MB CD-R. :)

                                        1. 4

                                          There is actually a well-known text compression benchmark based around Wikipedia, the best compressor manages 85x while taking just under 10 days to decompress. Slightly more practical is lpaq9m at 2.5 hours, but with “only” 69x compression.

                                          1. 1

                                            What does 69x compression mean? Is it just 30 GB / 69 = .43 GB compressed? That doesn’t match up with the page you linked, which (assuming it’s in bytes) is around 143 MB (much smaller than .43 GB).

                                            1. 5

                                              From the page,

                                              enwik9: compressed size of first 10e9 bytes of enwiki-20060303-pages-articles.xml.

                                              So 10e9 = 9.31 GiB. lpaq9m lists 144,054,338 bytes as the compressed output size + compressor (10e9/144,054,338 = 69.41), and 898 nsec/byte decompression throughput, so (10e9*898)/1e9/3600 = 2.49 hours to decompress 9.31GiB.

                                            2. 1

                                              Nice! Thanks.

                                2. 1

                                  It’s always concerning that this technology is in reach of already-large platforms, never in reach of small platforms; small platforms that get big under these laws are in trouble. Google can make the right noises and new upstarts who dare compete will be thrown under the regulatory bus. This legislation only helps entrench today’s biggest tech companies.