New european copyright law

[Tagor]

Is Arocalpse older than 3 years and does the new european copyright directive apply? If so, is there any plan on how to handle it when it eventually comes into effect? I just wondered about how Arocalypse is going to deal with this issue.

Edit: Sorry, I just noticed that Arocalypse might be off the hook due to not being for profit and making any money.

[Apathetic Echidna]

I haven't heard about the new laws but I'm fairly sure Arocalypse might have been started around April 3, 2016

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

The site is about three years old, but not sure if we have any worries. If someone posts copyrighted material, then I'm not liable. I can't prevent that, even if I tried.

[Tagor]

The problem is that all commercial sites will be responsible and can be sued for everything their users upload, so if this was a commercial site, you'd have to ensure nobody can upload copyrighted material for example through upload filters. Further information: https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/eu-copyright-final-text/

[SoulWolf]

I haven't seen anyone talk about how it affects website owners who don't reside in the EU and who aren't hosted there. I mean... the EU surely can't make laws on behalf of the whole world, can they?

 

I know we have them to thank for those irritating "This website uses cookies!" bars that waste screen space (which I will never, ever implement on my sites, and I'm not in EU and none of my stuff is hosted there, so I like to think they can't really do anything... or can they?).

[DeltaAro]

11 hours ago, SoulWolf said:

I haven't seen anyone talk about how it affects website owners who don't reside in the EU and who aren't hosted there. I mean... the EU surely can't make laws on behalf of the whole world, can they? 

Still most US-based sites do display the annoying cookie disclaimers.

11 hours ago, SoulWolf said:

I know we have them to thank for those irritating "This website uses cookies!" bars that waste screen space (which I will never, ever implement on my sites, and I'm not in EU and none of my stuff is hosted there, so I like to think they can't really do anything... or can they?). 

Since not 10% but rather 90% of sites use cookies, it's not a real choice. You have to be a privacy fundamentalist to say “Okay, nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com say they use cookies! So I won't read them anymore!” but in that case… you're probably knowledgeable enough to get around it anyway, so it doesn't matter.

 

If they really wanted do something about it for the average user, it would've been far better to more aggressively ban the most shady tactics or to regulate the browser level (like enforcing a short cookie expiry time).

[Momo]

On 3/31/2019 at 12:02 PM, DeltaV said:

Since not 10% but rather 90% of sites use cookies, it's not a real choice. You have to be a privacy fundamentalist to say “Okay, nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com say they use cookies! So I won't read them anymore!” but in that case… you're probably knowledgeable enough to get around it anyway, so it doesn't matter.

 

Ok, so, as someone who's probably considered a privacy fundamentalist and also someone in IT... GDPR was largely good, but slightly overbearing and poorly worded as relates to the actual technologies at play. Basically, whenever you store anything that would identify a user you have to inform that user. Since cookies are specific to a user, they can be used to identify that user and so... here we are. It's an unfortunate end result, but also not that big a deal in the long run I guess. I would rather have the law than not even as someone who has had to implement that bar multiple times now...