If you thought GDPR is a joke, joke's on you

[Forsaken]

Giving people control over their privacy and data is one thing, but the GDPR does things in such a way that far oversteps what should have been allowed in a single reform, and gives too much control

It doesn't really matter if it was better or not and what I may (or may not) think about rich media.

Point is I do think that claims a fee on displaying snippets would mean the end of the (internet) world as we know it is uncalled for-
The world wide web did exist before social media, before rich media embeds and it will most likely continue to exist even without rich media embeds.


I don't expect scenario 2 to happen often (if at all); if the software does not do an embed, the user will just go with a plain link.
Or do you see users manually trying to craft Twitter-looking embeds on XF 1.5?
I don't, they just paste URLs to tweets.

The issue is what do you define as a snippet? There is no standard for a 'snippet' of news, and as such the bulk of a story has often been posted or used by aggregate services (including Google, Facebook and Microsoft).

This is a solution to a problem that some news services had with snippets being posted, whereas their other solution was to just sue the people posting snippets and disallowing their usage entirely.

 

[Kirby]

So my point still stands - a snippet is required. Why?

And I still say that it is not required

if you share the link (plain text link), then the link + quote fall under the "link tax".

Yes, I fully understand that consqeuence and it's fine to me. A quote is not required for a link, only the URL is required the generate a link and unless there are fees on using nothing but the URL from the source I don't see a problem.

If you don't quote something, just share a link, well, the plain link does not suit our current internet, see above or below.

I wholeheartedly disagree. A link does still work without any facy stuff.
That's all I am trying to point out; fees on using 3rd party do not kill the ability to freely link content

Usually people on social media platforms without automatic link conversion post links with own descriptors

Well, my experienceis different - most users don't even know how to create links with descriptive titles, they just copy & paste.

And displaying plain text links is bad for everyone, not only users, but also the whole internet. SEO and usability suffer from that, as mentioned above, and I'm pretty sure there are more fields which would suffer from a "link tax" aswell.

Actually Google recommends leaving links as-is, so from SEO point of view it's perfectly fine to leave plain links in user generated content.

It is, unless you still haven't understood that simple quoting plus linking for giving proper credits already would fall under a "link tax".

As stated above, I fully do undertand that.
But I still don't accept that a quote is necessary to to link - it is not.
You can always create a link just with the URL or "here" as linktext, this is not a big deal.

Additionally, content getting auto-rejected because your platform does not hold the rights - even though your work currently would be totally legal under Fair Use - is a pretty stupid censorship. This kills independent and small YouTubers, Bloggers and so many more.

I fully agree that it is not the best idea ever made, I just don't agree that it is so uber-bad as you seem to think.
As you stated above, filters are already in use at YouTube so I don't see much of a difference there anyway.

It's even a big problem for news media itself: only big companies would be able to afford the "link tax".

If that is indeed a problem, it might be a good idea to create original content and not relying instead?

The issue is what do you define as a snippet?

According to the latest amendments to the proposal it would be up to each EU member state to define that.

 

[TPerry]

According to the latest amendments to the proposal it would be up to each EU member state to define that.

Oh wow... we have this mighty EU that passes all these "laws".... but then it's up to the local jurisdictions to interpret them. And we have people who wonder why many don't like the EU?

 

[thumped]

Oh wow... we have this mighty EU that passes all these "laws".... but then it's up to the local jurisdictions to interpret them. And we have people who wonder why many don't like the EU?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[S Thomas]

And I still say that it is not required [...]
Yes, I fully understand that consqeuence and it's fine to me. A quote is not required for a link, only the URL is required the generate a link and unless there are fees on using nothing but the URL from the source I don't see a problem. [...]
I wholeheartedly disagree. A link does still work without any facy stuff.
That's all I am trying to point out; fees on using 3rd party do not kill the ability to freely link content

From a technical point, sure, that's possible. But by now you really should've understood that we are not talking about the technical possibilites but the actual impact on using options which would be available to free public usage.

Actually Google recommends leaving links as-is, so from SEO point of view it's perfectly fine to leave plain links in user generated content.

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that anchor texts can be useful and naked links require a context to be useful.

You can always create a link just with the URL or "here" as linktext, this is not a big deal.

Uh, well, it is. Try to do that mobile ("share with" function), on any platform without dedicated editor like we do have here on XF, on Reddit, etc. There is a good reason why auto link conversion is so important.

I fully agree that it is not the best idea ever made, I just don't agree that it is so uber-bad as you seem to think.
As you stated above, filters are already in use at YouTube so I don't see much of a difference there anyway.

The difference is, YouTube encourages and actively supports Fair Use. Fair Use won't exist with the proposed content filter. YouTube will be able to buy licenses, I assume.
But any independet, self-hosted blog won't be.
Anyone trying to compete with YT won't be, unless they have money.
And anyone not willing to share licenses with YT will kill the creative content out there. That really is a huge difference.

If that is indeed a problem, it might be a good idea to create original content and not relying instead?

That's a joke, right? (Not only limited to, but importantly journalistic) Criticism, independet news reporting, public opinion and discussion awareness all depend on Fair Use.
Content creators who rely on sources, e.g. everyone who wants to be taken serious or is claiming something, need Fair Use.
Content creators who want to create something new from something already existing, e.g. musicians, artists, some other kinds of creative works, need Fair Use.
Actually, just google what Fair Use does for our internet and why its so important for our internet. Just a tip: Creating content under Fair Use is considered as original content.

 

[Kirby]

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that anchor texts can be useful and naked links require a context to be useful.

IIRC it was mentioned on an article by Matt Cutts at google webmaster blog a couple years ago, but I don't have the URL bookmarked - i'll try to find it though and let you know.

Uh, well, it is. Try to do that mobile ("share with" function), on any platform without dedicated editor like we do have here on XF, on Reddit, etc.

I try to avoid mobile as much as possible and I don't even have a Reddit account, but I am almost 100% sure it would work just fine.
Why? There has to be a falback to the URL in case the destination is currently unreachable, access is forbidden, the page has no title, etc.

There is a good reason why auto link conversion is so important.

Yes, absolutely - it's a nice, userfriendly comfort function, but not necessary at all to use the web

The difference is, YouTube encourages and actively supports Fair Use. Fair Use won't exist with the proposed content filter.

There is no proposed filter and "fair use" does not exist in German intellectual property law at all anyway.
If, for example, you embed a tweet into a forum post and comment "Haha, so funny" on that, that is a copyright violation (if the tweet itself is a copyrighted work, which might be debatable).

YouTube will be able to buy licenses, I assume.

Might be. Or they might just shut down illegal content (which exists in massive amounts and is the primary reason why this article 13 proposal exists in first place).

But any independet, self-hosted blog won't be.

I don't really understand what an independent, self-hosted blog has to do with YouTube, but anyway:
As long as it does not abuse ("fair use") copyrighted material by others I don't see a problem.

And anyone not willing to share licenses with YT will kill the creative content out there. That really is a huge difference.

It's their creative work, they can do whatever they want with it.
If they don't want to give certain licenses that's absolutely fine.

Actually, just google what Fair Use does for our internet and why its so important for our internet. Just a tip: Creating content under Fair Use is considered as original content.

As stated above, "fair use" is pretty unfair to those who create original content.

Final remark: If you use other peoples creative work - get at license to do so or don't use it at all. That's my take on this.
Yes, we are nowadays used to abuse ("share") everything that is online and this proposed law might significantly change our ability to do so - for the better.

 

[S Thomas]

Yes, absolutely - it's a nice, userfriendly comfort function, but not necessary at all to use the web

It's as @DragonByte Tech said - if you want to go back to stone age, then yes, it's not needed. Other than that, it would be probably a good idea to declare some standards around that, so indeed they would be needed. Right now it's just best practise. Good time to wake up and understand the necessity of anchor texts and rich-media snippets.
But then again, we're talking about technical issues and not the actual impact which is my main concern..

There is no proposed filter and "fair use" does not exist in German intellectual property law at all anyway.
If, for example, you embed a tweet into a forum post and comment "Haha, so funny" on that, that is a copyright violation (if the tweet itself is a copyrighted work, which might be debatable).

Idk where you're taking from that there's no proposed filter, but if politicans, EFF, tech magz and other notable members with knowledge do explicitly call Article 13 a content filter, well, then I assume it's safe to say that a content filter is being proposed. I mean, it's literally written in Article 13 and that's something even I can understand and I'm not a lawyer.
Btw, we do have some kind of Fair Use, notably Zitatrecht, which includes text, audio and video. No clue if other EU states have something similar, but yeah, we do.

Might be. Or they might just shut down illegal content (which exists in massive amounts and is the primary reason why this article 13 proposal exists in first place).

Content ID is there to fight against illegal usage on YT. And I'm pretty sure not much would change on their side other than YT dropping the support for Fair Use. But that's an assumption. While Article 13 might have good intentions - as GDPR did have - it's not a well thought process.

I don't really understand what an independent, self-hosted blog has to do with YouTube, but anyway:
As long as it does not abuse ("fair use") copyrighted material by others I don't see a problem.

Let's say you're hosting a video crafted with copyrighted content on your own server rather than on YouTube for your blog - well good luck, you probably will need a license. Fair Use won't exist. On the other hand, YT most likely will have the money and connections to obtain the licenses.

It's their creative work, they can do whatever they want with it.
If they don't want to give certain licenses that's absolutely fine.

As stated above, "fair use" is pretty unfair to those who create original content.

Final remark: If you use other people creative work - get at license to do so or don't use it at all. That's my take on this.

And that's pretty much how the freedom of speech and small / independent creators will die. Doubt anyone can afford to get a license for every single video unless he's part of a major network.

 

[ManagerJosh]

No, I don't have a "digital presence there. They actually have to come to the server where I have a "digital presence". No server, no digital footprint, no visit. And guess where that happens to be... in the US, not in any jurisdictional location controlled by the EU.
And no, many arguments are that simply having a VISITOR from the EU come the site then makes you liable.
And as for the argument of "digital presence"... that's no different than phone company "rules". just because you have a "device" does not make you subject to the worlds laws at the whim of that farce they call a court/legislative branch.

It's not about digital presence. It's whether you have EU customers.

The GDPR laws are not territorial in nature. They are individual in nature - as in the citizen bears the rights.

And for those sites blocking EU based IPs - it is a bandage to a problem that needs antibioitics or surgery. Blocking IP addresses addresses 95% of all EU citizens, but it doesn't work for the last 5% - many who live abroad as expats in foreign countries but may not not renounced their citizenship in an EU country.

 

[Mouth]

The GDPR laws are not territorial in nature. They are individual in nature - as in the citizen bears the rights.

Wrong.

it doesn't work for the last 5% - many who live abroad as expats in foreign countries but may not not renounced their citizenship in an EU country.

Wrong.

GDPR data subjects are residents of EU states at the time their personal data is processed. It has nothing to do with citizenship. It is very much territorial.

 

[TPerry]

It's not about digital presence. It's whether you have EU customers.

It's very much about presence (either digital or physical). Some countries citizenry are rather touchy about being told by someone in another country and that they've had no input into their being put into office what to do.
I look at this no different than I had a physical store in New York that someone from the EU flew in and walked in and did business with me. I'm not subject to the EU's quirky decision making process (or lack sometimes lack there-of).
You (not literal you) come to me... I don't come to you.

 

[Arty]

Personally...absolutely nothing but using it on my site. My problem is the judicial over-reach and the sheer hubris of the EU to think that their "laws" trump other countries laws.

So same thing US has been doing for decades. Its really hilarious - US has been meddling in other countries for decades thinking its their right, punishing companies for working with countries US considers evil, meddling in elections, now that suddenly others decide to do the same but on much smaller scale its a problem. How dare other countries do the same US has been doing for decades!

There is no over-reach. If you want to work with EU citizens you have to comply with EU regulations. You don't have to comply, but then you'll look like you have either something to hide or you are doing political statement, both are good reasons to abandon website (unless its political website).

 

[Mr Lucky]

I look at this no different than I had a physical store in New York that someone from the EU flew in and walked in and did business with me.

I would have thought it's more like you open a branch of your shop in Hamburg and attempt to operate under US law.

 

[Lukas W.]

I look at this no different than I had a physical store in New York that someone from the EU flew in and walked in and did business with me.

If I'd be able to do that without leaving my countries borders, where I expect my laws to hold, then yes, that would be right. But that's exactly the problem there is. Your visitor is in his legislation zone and you are in yours. As it is impossible for a user to tell which legislation zone he's entering in the internet (no casual user knows how to check where the server he's about to visit is located and even if, it would be a terrible effort, not even including proxying and stuff), I do agree on the standpoint of taking the responsibility away from the user and putting it on the website. If you don't want to deal with the laws of other countries, then you can very well restrict access to your web presence to only those countries you want to comply with. If you keep your doors open to everyone, then you have to comply to everyone's laws, it's that simple.

 

[Mr Lucky]

If you don't want to deal with the laws of other countries, then you can very well restrict your access to your web presence to only those countries you want to comply with.

I agree, but I wonder how this would work with US citizens such as armed forces stationed on a US base in the EU. I would have thought while on the base they are subject to US law, however when using the internet within that base are they seen as geographically within the US or in the EU?

 

[Lukas W.]

I agree, but I wonder how this would work with US citizens such as armed forces stationed on a US base in the EU. I would have thought while on the base they are subject to US law, however when using the internet within that base are they seen as geographically within the US or in the EU?

You're always subject to the legislation zone you're residing in. Military bases and embassies of the US outside the USA are not US ground, even though wrongly labelled as such. They're zones that are guaranteed certain rights by the harboring country, but that doesn't free them from all the laws, they're "just not enforced". In other words: The US soldier on the US military base in the EU is still subject to the GDPR, and as such, you must comply to protect his data. That no one would bother about enforcing these laws for him in reality, doesn't make him any less subject in theory and as such, you must comply as much as you would for an EU citizen.
To answer the technical question: Unless the base uses a proxy tunnel to the motherland, he's likely going to be seen as located in the EU purely by connection data. Which is, as explained above, not wrong though.

 

[Mr Lucky]

To answer the technical question: Unless the base uses a proxy tunnel to the motherland, he's likely going to be seen as located in the EU purely by connection data. Which is, as explained above, not wrong though

So he (or she) can't read the LA Times

 

[wedgar]

You're effectively subject to it regardless of what your country's laws say because the EU has control over data coming in and going out of their borders.

I would not be surprised at all if the EU started going Russia on non-compliant sites eventually and just blocking them (e.g., like Russia and Linkedin).



See above.

I don't see this effectively be enforced in the US by the US government or the courts in the US.

 

[Lukas W.]

See he (or she) can't read the LA Times

At least not the digital version of it, yes. Unless the LA times is willing to comply to the GDPR.

 

[TPerry]

US has been meddling in other countries for decades thinking its their right, punishing companies for working with countries US considers evil, meddling in elections, now that suddenly others decide to do the same but on much smaller scale its a problem. How dare other countries do the same US has been doing for decades!

Not the same thing. If a US company wants to do business in the EU, then they are expected to comply with EU laws. If an EU business wants to do business in the US, they are expected to comply with US law. Usually there is a relationship (business) "presence" of some type that is present. And in THAT case, I agree GDPR applies.
Not a really hard precept to understand.

And by that same precept, I don't expect a small shop in France, Belgium, or any other EU state to collect local/state sales taxes from me when I buy something from them over the internet (and by the GDPR arguments they should be collecting it and submitting it). Nor do I expect any EU specific company to hold out my FIT if I'm working there and drawing a salary from them and then submitting it to the US FEDGOV.

I would have thought it's more like you open a branch of your shop in Hamburg and attempt to operate under US law.

And under that case (getting an actual VPS/server there) I would be subject to them.... but show me where my "business" ever is in the EU. All transactional processes take place on the server (the storage) which has no presence in Hamburg.
Now, if I used something like CloudFlare, which has a physical presence in the EU/Germany then (again to me) you open a can of worms because a valid argument could be made of a physical presence there - depending on what you used CF for.

f you don't want to deal with the laws of other countries, then you can very well restrict access to your web presence to only those countries you want to comply with. If you keep your doors open to everyone, then you have to comply to everyone's laws, it's that simple.

Again.... this is where we will have to agree to disagree. The applicable law typically where the transactional process takes place. And that transactional process is (in my case) under US Jurisdiction. Or are you saying that if I buy something from an EU distributor (who has absolutely no US presence other than a website on the internet), I can (and should be able to) bring suit against him in my local jurisdiction courts (for tort actions or even criminal) even if his "business" has no presence here?
Do you realize how unrealistic that is?
There are 194 countries in the world (by most experts counts). Each of those countries has sub-sets of governments.
Let's just use the US as an example.
Fed Gov -> 50 States -> Texas -> 254 Counties - 3300+ cities (estimate).
And that's just for ONE state in the US.
In 2016 there were 3,142 counties and county-equivalents in the US alone. Now, multiply that by 194 (just to ball-park it).
So you are saying that a site owner is responsible for knowing (excluding city laws) roughly separate jurisdictional 609,548 laws?
Oops... forgot to add those countries laws themselves into there so now we are up to 609,742.
Or is it more reasonable to expect the business to comport to the laws of the land that they are "in" (and when referring to "in" for web sites, it's generally acknowledged that jurisdictional authority resides where the physical server resides when pursuing any seizure type orders, evidence seizure, etc).

I'm leaning towards the opinion of the blocking of all EU related IP's - but now with IPv6 it's much harder to do at the server level and requires hardware intervention to efficiently do it... again, a cost that the EU apparently expects ME to carry instead of putting responsibility on their users shoulders. And yes, the end user should bear responsibility also. That's part of what is wrong with society today - the belief that we have to protect the poor innocent person from the world.
I'm going to stop here as we are opening up an entirely different can of worms dealing with taking the rope down in society.

 

[Lukas W.]

Again.... this is where we will have to disagree. The applicable law typically where the transactional process takes place. And that transactional process is (in my case) under US Jurisdiction. Or are you saying that if I buy something from an EU distributor [...]

I don't know how you managed to get that mixed up, but the GDPR is not about trade. The situation you describe - that the jurisdiction of the seller applies, is part of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Unfortunately, this treaty does not include the handling of data, so you're very well out of luck here: there is no international rule that regulates, which law is to be applied. The resulting issue? The choice of law. And as you have two parties, one which is situated in the EU and one which is situated anywhere else in the world, there is a 50% chance that EU law is applied, which includes the GDPR. So in that case, you have to comply with the GDPR.

And honestly? At this point I'm pretty thankful for the GDPR, as it makes clear, that the law applies to everyone who tampers with EU citizens. I've received spam mails from different countries long enough and seeing the numbers drop rapidly in the last few weeks has given me a great feeling of satisfaction that we made a big leap in fighting spam with this. Sure, there's still automated scam, but at least US companies have to think twice now before buying e-mail lists and start sending me their ad-******** without me ever asking.

Do you realize how unrealistic that is?

Pretty realistic. It's not like the Euroean Union is a random "country". There is a reason they did this on a far bigger scale than national or federal law. It is one law for 28 countries, or ~512 million inhabitants. One law for nearly an entire continent. It's not the fault of the EU, that no other continent gets their **** together and manages to get a unified institution for laws up, honestly. And while I not agree with all things that were defined and regulated by the GDPR, I happily enjoy the fact, that our american friends are not above the western law anymore, and not only enjoy all the rights anymore, but now finally get some duty as well.