Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EU's article 11 and 13

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    My previous reply may seem off topic but consider the link tax. Free access to content is putting media firms in a difficult position. Their only way to generate revenue is charging for content and advertising. On the other hand the solution of a link tax favors large content producers. I think it perfectly illustrates why we should be wary of letting bureaucrats set policy. Bureaucracies tend to attract people who are risk shy and are not meritocracies. In fact all of our institutions seem plagued by an inability to establish a system based on merit. Crony capitalism and monopolies are manifestations of a similar problem.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #32
      True on the free access to content utterly destroying traditional media firms.
      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
        True on the free access to content utterly destroying traditional media firms.
        Television was free for decades financed by little more than advertising revenue. Print is what has really suffered but it's decline probably started with radio. New technologies are disruptive. That said we are still reliant on traditional corporate media to generate news. Social media isn't really a substitute. It is to early to tell if independent journalists can really provide the news people want. In any case governments and the tech giants are protecting traditional media I assume because they don't have a better solution. My feeling is that is something best left to the market place of ideas to sort out.

        An internet bill of rights simply places the burden of censorship on the individual freeing companies to focus on development not politics. Existing laws on restrictions to free speech are adequate for the internet as they have been for print for centuries.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

          Television was free for decades financed by little more than advertising revenue. Print is what has really suffered but it's decline probably started with radio. New technologies are disruptive. That said we are still reliant on traditional corporate media to generate news. Social media isn't really a substitute. It is to early to tell if independent journalists can really provide the news people want. In any case governments and the tech giants are protecting traditional media I assume because they don't have a better solution. My feeling is that is something best left to the market place of ideas to sort out.

          An internet bill of rights simply places the burden of censorship on the individual freeing companies to focus on development not politics. Existing laws on restrictions to free speech are adequate for the internet as they have been for print for centuries.
          But the various "rights" only apply with national boundaries,while the net goes everywhere. Remember Google agreeing to censor the one billion people in China?
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            In theory the EU has passed legislation that will make it the responsibility of the owners of websites such as this to police links to articles and protect all forms of original content such as images. We don't know yet if that includes links and copyrighted material retroactively.

            Your thoughts please?
            Regarding the link tax part, my understanding is that it's not about links but about shared stories. Isn't this the policy on US sites too, including this one? You can't post an entire story/article, but only a brief snippet and the link. How is this a problem?

            Comment


            • #36
              Imperial the tech gurus I listen to explained it as nullification of fair use. I have little confidence that anyone knows for sure at this point. I have not given the details as much attention as perhaps I should but considering how draconian the hate speech laws in Europe seem I suspect my sources are moderately accurate. The key is finding out how the exemptions are to be applied and there is one more round possible for modification.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #37
                Let's discuss what the law actually is.

                Article 11 is the so-called “link tax,” which gives publishers a right to ask for paid licenses when online platforms share their stories. The obvious target is aggregators like Google News, but opponents worry the law could have broader applications.

                Some extreme interpretations have suggested that this might even stop ordinary web users sharing new stories, but the text of Article 11 does exempt individuals. It says that the new rights given to publishers “shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users.” (You can read the amended version of Article 11 in this document on page 54.)
                https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/13/1...sorship-google

                As far as I'm aware, Google News only provides a short excerpt from the news article and of course links to the source. I'm not sure how that would be a copyright violation. I also can't think of anything remotely negative about that for content creators. Being listed in Google News is only going to bring you more money, for FREE.

                At any rate this is something that was already tried and failed:

                There have been previous attempts to make sites pay for story links. They failed. Google, for example, closed down its Google Spanish news site rather than pay it. The result was Spanish news publication lost millions.

                This new law won't take effect yet. Individual EU countries will vote on it before it returns to the European Parliament for final approval in early 2019.
                https://www.zdnet.com/article/eu-sma...d-filter-laws/

                If this passes, EU businesses will definitely suffer.
                "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                - Benjamin Franklin

                The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Thanks Tact

                  I sounds like a hyperlink by itself is ok.

                  The annoying thing about the text is words like appropriate. It seems vague enough that individual countries can determine what is appropriate.

                  I suspect that the tech gurus I listen too are worried because they are also content creators who often use portions of mainstream publications to illustrate a point. Which gets me back to the point I made earlier about the traditional media sources being news generators. Very few private individuals are generating news as such although their videos are occasionally used as part of a story. Even the mainstream media has taken up using clips from each other. Not to mention investigate journalism being something the average Joe seems poorly equipped to do. It is just unfortunate that authoritative news doesn't seem possible in the current culture. A lot of what passes for news these days is just commentary.

                  We should keep each other inform as new information comes out. Unequal enforcement seems to me to be one of the things to keep an eye on even if the new rules seem reasonable.

                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    To take this seriously, the EU can't ruin "the internet". Facebook and Google can though. They have captured 84% of the advertising revenue made there. What they need to do in response the EU legislation is what YouTube is already doing.

                    The hate speech laws are a red herring. The real difference is the UK/US common law tradition of copyright being a purely commercial proposition. The EU + most rest of world (China takes the **** on all of it though) regards copyright as bipartite, where the commercial rights are separate from inaneable rights of artists or inventors.

                    Effectively Americans have stopped being able to distinguish between corporate America and any kind of independent US polity, because the corporate US has clearly eaten it already. It's probably even rational by now. Unless the US corporations agree to carry the US public, the US public is on its own. And if corporate America decides its bread is better buttered somewhere else than in the US, the US public is probably screwed. (Yes, this is the part of conceding why the US public could be tempted to elect someone like Trump for office; except as a cure he's worse than the ailment, and besides as a counter to corporate America his saving graces really might only be that 1) he's not rich enough, and two 2) his not all-there sufficiently to express coherent policies anyway.)

                    The EU is in a bind over the giants Facebook and Google because it has accepted that rather than go for European grown platforms (like China and to some extent Russia do) it has accepted to allow the US corporate giants to also capture the European market. This legislation is a bit of fightback, the kind against corporate interest, cartel-building and de facto monopolies the EU does quite well.

                    Really, all Google and Facebook and the like need to do is take a page from YouTube. They certainly have the money to handle it.

                    It might all CHANGE internet of course. But really, a large part of this OP is just a mass of directionless US fears speaking.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X