It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionOk, now that the internet is officially abolished...(57 posts)(57 posts)
(57 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
Maighstir: On Imgur there's the commonly used concept of "cat tax", meaning that people include an image of a cat at the end of their post (not required, of course, but frequently done), sometimes substituted for a different species of pet. Perhaps "Link tax" could be used here? People could start including an image of Link with their post.
avatar
tinyE: It was a joke Maighstir. ::P
And I replied in kind.
Attachments:
zww-link5.jpg (31 Kb)
Post edited June 25, 2018 by Maighstir
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
tinyE: It was a joke Maighstir. ::P
avatar
Maighstir: And I replied in kind.
Oh. My brain must be shutting down. Sorry. :D
Posted June 25, 2018
Name one country, any country around the world that if you asked that countries government, would they like more control over the internet yes or no, how many would actually say no??

Enjoy the free flowing internet while you can people, it aint gonna last forever, that's a given.
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
RWarehall: The other part of this not talked about in this thread is the "link tax", where one has to pay a fee and buy a license to link to any news story or article. Which also allows the content creator to deny a license to anyone of their choosing.

What this means for Wikipedia or an ordinary blogger is a serious question. You cannot cite sources without paying, and if your blog is a criticism, you may be denied a license altogether. Apparently Germany passed such a law in 2013 and Spain passed one in 2014 and it was a huge failure. Google closed their Spanish news service as a result. The result was that reporting of news from those countries basically stopped as few people wanted to bother with the fees. Both laws were abandoned as a result, but here it is again...
Acoording to my sources (one being a video of a German lawyer) hyperlinks are excluded. Article 11 is refering to headlines and snippets only. I would love to read it myself but so far could not find it in wriiting.

Edit: Found it. It's here.

On page 20 it says: "2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking."
Post edited June 25, 2018 by MarkoH01
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
MarkoH01: Acoording to my sources (one being a video of a German lawyer) hyperlinks are excluded. Article 11 is refering to headlines and snippets only. I would love to read it myself but so far could not find it in wriiting.
But how often does someone link something without telling you what it is aka "Headline" or "Snippet". Most source citations also traditionally include the "Headline" as well. Such citations used to fall under "fair use" provisions which also allowed small snippets. The problem is exacerbated if you are holding the service providers responsible. What are they supposed to do about it that makes any sense except to ban all links? They certainly cannot provide the manpower to check if people have gotten the proper licenses. Research papers use proper citations. How is that handled?

I don't think it makes sense to overreact, because nothing has passed yet, but the fact it has gotten this far is concerning. Google forced the laws to collapse before, and they will likely do so again.

Edit: I see they have provided exclusions for research institutions, but again, the question of how this applies to service providers and how they distinguish from proper use is interesting
Post edited June 25, 2018 by RWarehall
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
RWarehall: The other part of this not talked about in this thread is the "link tax", where one has to pay a fee and buy a license to link to any news story or article. Which also allows the content creator to deny a license to anyone of their choosing.

What this means for Wikipedia or an ordinary blogger is a serious question. You cannot cite sources without paying, and if your blog is a criticism, you may be denied a license altogether. Apparently Germany passed such a law in 2013 and Spain passed one in 2014 and it was a huge failure. Google closed their Spanish news service as a result. The result was that reporting of news from those countries basically stopped as few people wanted to bother with the fees. Both laws were abandoned as a result, but here it is again...
avatar
MarkoH01: Acoording to my sources (one being a video of a German lawyer) hyperlinks are excluded. Article 11 is refering to headlines and snippets only. I would love to read it myself but so far could not find it in wriiting.

Edit: Found it. It's here.

On page 20 it says: "2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking."
Thanks for the link Marko - I will read it with interest.

In a way, this is similar to the GDPR, and it's been a long-time coming. If this is to be fully implemented in practice, we are talking about serious "spyware" present throughout the net, monitoring literally everything. I do wonder to what extent will this affect the position of, for example, domain and host providers, publishers, web admins, etc.
Posted June 25, 2018
Legislation is powerless against the Internet, as it has been proven time and time again.
I don't think I need to explain why. If you want to do something on the web, you'll do something on the web. Plenty of ways to become invisible.
Of course, to do so you must break laws... but again, are people made to follow laws or laws made for people?

The problem is another, see post 7.
Post edited June 25, 2018 by Enebias
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
RWarehall: I don't think it makes sense to overreact, because nothing has passed yet, but the fact it has gotten this far is concerning. Google forced the laws to collapse before, and they will likely do so again.
Don't get me wrong - we are definitely on the same page here. It's amazing how politicians that we (more or less) voted can go so much against the will of those who voted for them. Just look at the numbers of people who signed the petition against it. Still it probably won't change a thing and I am pretty sure many think it won't get that bad. Well - I hope those are right but I fear they are wrong.
Posted June 25, 2018
It's also interesting that those provisions for research weren't added to the text until June 12. Makes one wonder how thought out any of it is. So, as the general public, it may become a copyright violation to discuss a news story if we quote any of it? We have threads all the time discussing what people meant with the claim that 53% of people playing RPGs in a 2014 study meant or some ridiculous claim by Fox News. Quoting what we are disagreeing with would now become a copyright violation? That seems rather overbearing...and impractical to say the least.
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
fronzelneekburm: Why would the "regular" media even care? Ask yourself this: Who would be one the main beneficiary of this kind of legislation? Could it be a dead and dying "old" media (print, TV, radio) that is quickly fading into obscurity because of the internet?
Not entirely convinced this would be a bad thing, honestly.
Posted June 25, 2018
Article 11 is like a law we already have in Spain, and the world hasn't ended. The main consequence is that Google News is supposed to be inaccessible from Spain, although not really because it kinda works.
Post edited June 25, 2018 by Caesar.
Posted June 25, 2018
What I can't figure out with Article 11 is how no one saw it coming.

I mean, given the way the certain people were acting, the ineffectiveness of the Senate, and the seemingly endless grind that the Clone Wars and turned into, it seemed so obvious that a coup was in the works and that sinister forces were primed to beset their rule over the Galaxy.





Oh wait, I'm thinking of Order 66, not Article 11.
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
tinyE: Oh wait, I'm thinking of Order 66, not Article 11.
Now I am lost. Which of the bad Star Wars movies was this again?
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
Caesar.: Article 11 is like a law we already have in Spain, and the world hasn't ended. The main consequence is that Google News is supposed to be inaccessible from Spain, although not really because it kinda works.
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/new-study-shows-spains-google-tax-has-been-a-disaster-for-publishers/

Lost money, lower traffic. And for the record, Spanish publications chose to not collect any fees so that Google could continue. Does that sound like a good plan that is working fine? Google re-opened it's service as a result. It's why you don't notice a difference, because the law was ignored by Spanish publishers.

Your definition of "kinda works" is a law completely ignored.
Posted June 25, 2018
avatar
Caesar.: Article 11 is like a law we already have in Spain, and the world hasn't ended. The main consequence is that Google News is supposed to be inaccessible from Spain, although not really because it kinda works.
avatar
RWarehall: arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/new-study-shows-spains-google-tax-has-been-a-disaster-for-pu blishers/

Lost money, lower traffic. And for the record, Spanish publications chose to not collect any fees so that Google could continue. Does that sound like a good plan that is working fine? Google re-opened it's service as a result. It's why you don't notice a difference, because the law was ignored by Spanish publishers.

Your definition of "kinda works" is a law completely ignored.
Same happened in Germany. If publishers want to get payed they will have to stay out. So they just don't get payed and stay in.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionOk, now that the internet is officially abolished...(57 posts)(57 posts)
(57 posts)