So the politicians in the EU Parliament and in their "infinite" wisdom has passed the following bills and we have yet to see the consequences but let the speculation begin.


Ok, so seriously now - how does this affect sites operating outside the EU , in this case linuxquestions.org ?

-

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/1...11-13-approved

-

Reminder that we have users from the EU, and so how will this affect them and LQ? Who will be subject to the link tax, both the user of LQ AND LQ itself? LXer obviously crawls out and posts linux related articles, and users post both news (tech) and sometimes not so tech related stuff, and of course screenshots, etc, but what the EU law stipulates is that in order for LQ to operate legally in the EU, it must implement some kind of filter - which is rather unrealistic.

Next question, who pays for this absurdity LQ and the user from the EU, or both and how?

What would be the result? Does LQ stop accepting logins from the EU? (Folks in the EU, start shopping for those VPNs I suppose).

Perhaps I am fear mongering, but perhaps not - this type of legislation will affect a lot of websites that are being used from the EU, not just say linuxquestions.org, but also Google, Facebook, etc.

Jeremy have you been keeping up with this?

The legislation is about copyrighted contents. I don't see how this can affect LQ in any way.

jlinkels

Under the Berne Convention, everything produced in any of the signatory nations is copyrighted by default. That includes all the posts made by all the subscribers, even you and me. Neither of us have to like that fact but it still remains a fact.

However, that's not the point of the legislation. Article 13 makes the platform itself liable (i.e. LQ) for any and all copyright infringement done by its users. It basically mandates manual or snakeoil content filtering for each and every post or re-edit before said post is allowed to see the light of day. Sites like Gitlab and Sourceforge will be hit much harder though since the volume is higher and more complex. Article 11 basically bans web sites from using external hyperlinks. LQ, I have noticed, especially among the comments, is full of links to various outside pages. Those are two of the more prominent problems.

It may become necessary just to block access to LQ from EU-based networks.

And just to brighten the day even more, there's also some even nastier Internet legislation in the works in the EU which snuck in under the radar yesterday morning while everyone was distracted but that's another topic.

Well, if I understand correctly, The Verge could ask money for the link into OP post. But I guess the website has to be European. And there is exceptions like Wikipedia. The spirit of the law is clearly against GAFAM. Still have to see how it will really be used...

That could be the case, because I do not see Jeremy implementing such a filter to appease the EU, again those who are in the EU start looking at VPNs.


The Verge could very well use this to complain about linking to their articles, which makes no sense - if they are that worried they can just start using a paywall. This legislation is open to massive abuse, under the name of 'copyright' infringement, but call me paranoid but I am sure that it can be used to also censor any dissent.

[tangent]

Again, you see even the UK itself literally adopting a "Chinese style" packet inspection (see the Manifesto of Theresa May - https://www.privateinternetaccess.co...uk-government/). Which at this point whenever I see any sort of "reports" from say the BBC, or anywhere of the EU COMPLAINING about censorship in more authoritarian regimes - yet they are essentially among the same path, I no longer take their reports seriously, why should I?! [/tangent]


The issue is this though, when this law goes in full effect - Jeremy might have to change how even LXer links to sites - or outright just start blocking certain parts of the website (Linux News) to anyone in the EU, because again I do not see Jeremy capitulating and implementing such a filter, because it is not feasible and would cripple performance of LQ itself.

-edit

BTW, I am not even in the EU but in the USA - however I can see a variation of this being attempted here. The EU is more of a beta test as far as I'm concerned.

While I think it's problematic, I don't foresee it impacting LQ in any way.

--jeremy

Until you get a letter from the EU parliament perhaps - but you are probably correct. In either case, LQ is hosted in USA - so you wouldn't necessarily be subject to their rules - at worst you would just have to block access from EU networks.

We will just speculate further.


BTW - the term 'problematic' is so annoying. I would say it could be an issue, or a problem - but I would like to just introduce a shovel to the back of the head to the person who first coined the phrase 'problematic' - but I digress - and mark this thread as solved .

i don't believe it is to be read like that.
it does not require someone familiar with the internet to understand that that would be wrong.
there's also no precedent for anything like it, on the web or in real life.
it's the equivalent of making illegal a statement like "hey, the beatles' have a new single out, you should order it directly from their company!"

no, from how i understand it (and i might be wrong), it pertains to links combined with excerpts from the articles linked.

in accordance with how copyright law has been working for decades, it all depends on how much you quote from the original article before it becomes a legal issue.

Which is why it is so stupid. Only the largest of the large players may stay on the WWW. SMB, hobbyists, and private citizens need not apply, though Article 13 has even worse effects. Here is an old analysis of Article 11, which is still relevant because it was voted through: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-re...or-news-sites/

The whole text, with all the articles, itself is rather convoluted (I believe it is intentionally so) and requires a lot of cross referencing within the same document to ammendments and earlier legislation.

You can read the provisional edition for yourself plus the original if you choose not to believe reputable parties like MEP Julia Reda. The Creative Commons and Wikipedia are both among the organizations and businesses which have been outspoken on the problem. They've had reason to look into what was being proposed and assess the threats more than you or I have.

It's up for a final vote later, sometime next year. That is the last chane to shoot the whole thing down -- not change it. The time for proposing changes has passed and those making the decisions have actively avoided input from the tech sector.

The big problems from this for LQ will come in the next years when corresponding lobbyists on the other side of the Atlantic start pushing for "harmonization".

it says here right in the first sentence:
this is in harmony with existing copyright laws as i have know them for decades, and pretty much what i wrote in my last post. in the end it depends on how much of any one text (or other content) you quote before it becomes a copyright issue.
as an artist, i was familiar with this before the www became a thing.
it can be problematic, but it is also for the benefit of the artists.
we got so used to an internet where anything can be consumed in full length immediately, that we have forgotten that this isn't to be taken for granted.

important to understand: the term "link tax" is misleading. the link itself is NOT being taxed, but instead the "automatic link previews social networks generate" (again from julia reda's text).
this is in effect quoting someone else's material, and from my experience it depends on how much one quotes before it becomes a copyright issue.

on the other hand i am very well aware that such new legislation tends to let large companies benefit, and one must scrutinize it thoroughly.

i am in no favor of this! but i think it is being made look worse than it is.

Well I think it is worse than it is. Lets say you don't post the link to your facebook or what not, but do you have to have" a loicense there mate fo'r that link" if you post it to an instant message to someone else? Are they going to be monitoring instant messages on such platforms to prevent that? (Not like they probably already do monitor them) - like twitter...

Also again, how won't this be abused by those with bigger budgets? Say you merely share to someone a link to a news story from the BBC, whats to stop BBC from going after a mere user for sharing a link in an instant message? I don't see this ending well - typically anything passed by a group of technology-illiterate politicians at the behest of such corporations never really end well. DMCA anyone? - Also, SOPA, PIPA........... Although at least SOPA/PIPA were stopped thankfully.

....nevermind - just go here https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...5/#post5903859

i am by no means in favor of this new law.

BUT...
what little i understood - i can only repeat: the term "link tax" is misleading.
it is not the link itself that falls under copyright law (not tax afaiu), but actual content from the linked article.
the sort of automatically generated previews "platforms" like facebook use.

beyond that - i admit i did not read the law text itself.

i am not sure how much i can trust any politician to interpret it for me (but they probably wouldn't tell a straight lie).
i am not sure that i can trust a random youtube "activist" that then interprets these interpretations for me, with plenty of bravado and a loud voice.

i am sure that the proposed technological solutions are very unrealistic.

in the end, all i see is a few buzzwords and a lot of talk about what such legislation might entail. if things in the end turn out to be much better than envisioned, the "cyber activists" can pat each other on the shoulders about how good a job they did - but in reality it's all just part of the game: it's not about the content, it's about clicks.

Neither did the imbecile politician that gleefully celebrated as it passed - and then when someone confronted him about it - proved just why politicians like these should be kicked out on the street(but I am being kind and holding back, in the interest of LQ rules, and won't reveal what I really think should be done to him) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...x-things.shtml https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A4npPRywKs

Though don't take it the wrong way I am not saying you are an imbecile too , you weren't voting on it so you didn't have much of a reason to read the legislation, he did though.

Well considering the state of politics , I am more inclined to trust a youtube pleb then the so-called 'educated' elite, particularly if they have been in government for x amount of years and are rather out of touch with reality - and think they know whats best for everyone.

Either this law will collapse on itself, or Brussel' mask will fall completely and just say screw it and decide to block everything, I wouldn't put it past them.

That remains to be seen. Whatever happens next in the EU, I am just going to sit back and watch - and when there are complaints about all this - I will just smile and reply "this is what you wanted, enjoy!"

Articles 11 and 13 of the directive appear to be an unmitigated disaster, as written (however, as with GDPR, it does all hinge on how member states choose to implement it).

We can only hope that this mess will become unworkable and unenforceable and go the way of a lot of other token EU legislation. It has big names in the media behind it and more importantly of course it keeps the money rolling in for the Brussels gravy train. The googles, amazons and facebooks of this world obviously make far too much money and the EU bureaucrats want a slice of that.

The big players, some of which have bases within the EU, are of course the primary target and have to worry about this as they did with GDPR, but not a private individual running a Linux website entirely from within the US. To the Brussels crowd, plus the associated "artists" and others supporting this, those aforementioned web giants quite simply are the WWW and it's doubtful if anything else really appears on their scopes.

But entities, based entirely outside of the EU, not being "subject to their rules", wouldn't have to worry (too much).