EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by jules on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @05:43PM (#17973713)

> I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could support this law while having any understanding of how the internet works.

These are the same politicians that brought us the law that forces every website to ask EU visitors permission to store cookies with a big fat modal dialog, so I don't think you need to worry that people who any understanding of how the internet works supported this law. Imagine all the time wasted on those modal dialogs and add up the total cost in human lives. I bet none of them have any clue that the functionality to block cookies is built right into your web browser.

The funny part is that they're doing this copyright law out of jealousy of Silicon valley and they don't realise that these types of regulations and attitudes are the very reason why Silicon valley is not located in the EU, and why the next Silicon valley won't be either, and that this law will make it harder for new companies to compete with Youtube and Facebook.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by isostatic on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @06:24PM (#17974025)

> These are the same politicians that brought us the law that forces every website to ask EU visitors permission to store cookies with a big fat modal dialog

No it doesn't. For example

https://news.ycombinator.com/

Does not have any such dialog

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by nothrabannosir on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @06:34PM (#17974110)

And to preempt the pointless but inevitable thread to follow: it also wouldn't need the dialog if it were based in the EU.

How do I know? I don't. Maybe it does track users. But the website was used as a counter example to "forces every website", and a hypothetical news.ycombinator.eu which doesn't track users or keep any PII on them (conceivable by any reasonable person) is acceptable as a counter argument.

The point stands. GDPR doesn't force anything. It just prevents you from tracking people silently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by majewsky on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:05PM (#17974314)

> And to preempt the pointless but inevitable thread to follow: it also wouldn't need the dialog if it were based in the EU.

Exactly. The only thing that every EU-based website should have is a data protection statement. The one on my blog is short and stout:

> No system under my control records any personal data of users of this website.

I also have an imprint because German law requires it. The regulation is clearly aimed at businesses, for private websites it just makes doxxing easy since I'm required to put my post address on there. (I considered getting a PO box, but going to the post office to empty it is pretty tedious.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by isostatic on Thursday September 13, 2018 @09:05AM (#17978269)

http://www.bogons.net/ -- a UK based ISP with no modal dialog.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:37PM (#17974564)

Imagine all the time wasted on those modal dialogs and add up the total cost in human lives.

GMAFB, nobody is dying because they're being asked to consent or refuse cookie tracking. If you are worried about that then why haven't I see you complaining about the modal dialogs and umpteen other other impositions inflicted upon users by marketing departments?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by corysama on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:55PM (#17974685)

There are nearly 4 billion internet users. 1 billion seconds is 31.7 years. Clicking on those useless dialogs easily adds up to a whole human lifetime every day.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by steamer25 on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @07:44PM (#17974615)

I think jules means to consider how many millions of dollars and euros and hours and hours were spent developing the modals for thousands of different websites and how that money might have been better spent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @10:25PM (#17975456)

Perhaps, but you could say the same about 99% of marketing appeals, which are far more profuse, and many of which are actively deceptive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by camgunz on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @09:34PM (#17975204)

My main objection to it is that it doesn't at all solve the problem. Everyone clicks "accept", people still don't know what cookies (etc.) are, it was yet another silly regulation that harms small players and entrenches megacorps, and overall makes the internet less fun and more corporate junk.

Real regulations about this stuff require real technical expertise, and it's going to be at least a generation before that expertise exists in the political class. The alternative is to let the tech lobby write the regulations, but booooooooo.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday September 12, 2018 @10:24PM (#17975450)

Sorry, that argument begs the question. I am well aware of what cookies are and think about the content of what I'm agreeing to, and often decline invitations from sites I don't trust. You're assuming that's what is convenient for one party in the transaction must be optimal for all parties, which is irrational.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU approves internet copyright law, including ‘link tax’ ... by camgunz on Friday September 14, 2018 @12:12PM (#17988399)

In fairness, you're a Hacker News reader. I don't think we should be making regulations and defending them with "sure only experts really know what these things are, but that's fine". Regulations shouldn't rely on people being experts, they should keep people secure even when they're not experts. Regulations more in this vein are things like building regulations, electrical standards, hospital regulations, etc. I know basically nothing about this stuff, and if I get shocked because of bad wiring no electrician anywhere will say, "well you should've been an expert electrician, your fault buddy". But that's exactly what happens in the non-security dev community right now. "Well you should've been an expert in public key cryptography, your fault buddy". It's just not realistic.

[ Parent | on HN ]