TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

EU Council of Ministers Approves Copyright Directive

97 点作者 amima大约 6 年前

8 条评论

rayiner大约 6 年前
This is a good illustration of EU legislative structure:<p>&gt; The legislation was voted through by a majority of EU ministers just a few minutes ago, despite opposition from Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Finland, and Sweden.<p>Nonetheless, those countries will have no choice but to implement national laws to comply with the EU directive: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Francovich_v_Italy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Francovich_v_Italy</a><p>&gt; Francovich v Italy (1991) C-6&#x2F;90 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which established that European Union member states could be liable to pay compensation to individuals who suffered a loss by reason of the member state&#x27;s failure to transpose an EU directive into national law. This principle is sometimes known as the principle of state liability or &quot;the rule in Francovich&quot; in European Union law.<p>Indeed, EU members lack the sovereignty even of U.S. states. The US federal government can pass laws directly binding on the citizens of every state, but cannot compel state governments to pass and enforce particular laws. The EU can do both (the former through regulations, the latter through directives). In the US, the inability of the federal government to hijack state legislative and enforcement machinery to its own ends is seen as an important measure of accountability—you can always blame state legislators for state laws. (You see this in the areas of drug and immigration law. Sanctuary cities can exist because the federal government cannot force state organs to enforce federal law. Likewise, legalized marijuana at the state level.)
评论 #19665767 未加载
评论 #19665827 未加载
评论 #19665859 未加载
评论 #19665773 未加载
评论 #19665758 未加载
评论 #19665630 未加载
mcv大约 6 年前
I fear this may end up being the end of full Youtube access for Europeans. Youtube must either have a license with all possible rights holders, which is everybody, or content uploaded by Europeans must be checked by impossible filters, and I suppose content uploaded from elsewhere must be checked by those same filters before it can be shown to Europeans. So basically we&#x27;re only going to get corporate content from Youtube.<p>A small consolation is that it may also kill Facebook in the EU, giving more room for smaller, open source, distributed social networks like Diaspora, Mastodon and Friendica. If it&#x27;s true that this only holds for profit-driven sites, as someone claimed in an earlier discussion about this.
评论 #19665028 未加载
评论 #19665231 未加载
评论 #19664966 未加载
评论 #19665024 未加载
评论 #19665137 未加载
评论 #19665145 未加载
评论 #19667795 未加载
评论 #19665147 未加载
评论 #19665139 未加载
preommr大约 6 年前
I am 90% this means nothing and I disagree this won&#x27;t affect big companies and will only affect small startups like some of the other comments here.<p>The law basically says that the company has to try it&#x27;s best to prevent copyrighted material. If you&#x27;re a small company, you can put together some simple algorithm and claim that&#x27;s all you can really do. Big shots like youtube have the capital to be proactive and pay for things like real people to monitor claims. They&#x27;re at a bigger risk for not doing enough.<p>Either way, the bar would be high enough that I don&#x27;t think anyone is really going to be affected by this.
评论 #19665505 未加载
评论 #19665432 未加载
评论 #19666017 未加载
评论 #19665468 未加载
mrep大约 6 年前
The interesting bits of article 17 which was 13 from the actual document [0]:<p>&gt;If no authorisation is granted, online content-sharing service providers shall be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public, including making available to the public, of copyright-protected works and other subject matter, unless the service providers demonstrate that they have:<p>&gt;(a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, and<p>&gt;(b) made, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, best efforts to ensure the unavailability of specific works and other subject matter for which the rightholders have provided the service providers with the relevant and necessary information; and in any event<p>&gt;(c) acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice from the rightholders, to disable access to, or to remove from, their websites the notified works or other subject matter, and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with point (b).<p>[0]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.europarl.europa.eu&#x2F;doceo&#x2F;document&#x2F;A-8-2018-0245-AM-271-271_EN.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.europarl.europa.eu&#x2F;doceo&#x2F;document&#x2F;A-8-2018-0245-A...</a>
评论 #19665929 未加载
评论 #19665838 未加载
rasengan大约 6 年前
My worry is that the directive will be used in unique ways to censor content.
评论 #19665000 未加载
kevin_b_er大约 6 年前
This marks the end of user generated content in Europe, as it is pretty much impossible to comply with the demand to filter all content at the behest of the copyright cartel.
评论 #19669040 未加载
评论 #19666952 未加载
评论 #19665951 未加载
duxup大约 6 年前
It will be interesting to see how this plays out legally. I wonder if from nation to nation if enforcement actually gets even more absurd than the actual law would indicate. It seems like the member states laws could leave lots of wiggle room &#x2F; confusion.
shapiro92大约 6 年前
but the question is how will they enforce this? let&#x27;s say there are X units of content that based on the directive should not be available to Europeans through platform Y.<p>How will they know? unless someone reports the content its impossible for any EU system to catch that.
评论 #19665558 未加载