So they just… f*ck off and die.

Nicht alle fossile Kraftwerke laufen mit Dampf.

Die kochen nicht mit Wasser?

Problem ist, dass die fossilen Kraftwerke immer noch existieren müssen. Wenn du zu manchen Zeiten kaum erneuerbare Energie hast, dann muss die Kapazität da sein, um den Bedarf anders zu decken.

Das heißt, dass du zu den Kosten für eine kW/h erneuerbarem Strom noch die Kosten für die ganze fossile Infrastruktur addieren musst, weil die Kraftwerke immer noch gebaut und gewartet werden müssen.

CO₂-mäßig hat man auch ein Problem. Die fossile Stromerzeugung funktioniert über Dampf. Man muss also erst gewaltige Mengen Wasser zum Kochen bringen, bevor man die Turbinen anschmeißen kann. Praktisch muss man Wasser am Köcheln halten, auch wenn die Erneuerbaren auf dem Papier gut liefern. Die Reduzierung des CO₂-Ausstoßes ist also viel kleiner, als es der Anteil der Erneuerbaren vermuten ließe.

Hmm. It was a big issue at the time. In truth, I’m really not sure how it works in France. Anyway, the big fight going on is really about minimal previews. Unfortunately, there is no disinterested reporting on the issue. The media is very much profit-maximizing.

The recitals aren’t part of the law, but should only guide the interpretation. Also, this is a directive. That means it directs the member states to make law, but has no direct effect, as such.

My brother in Lemmy, this is what stopping Big Tech looks like.

Europe made laws that say that Google and others need to pay if they want to link to EU publishers. Well, maybe the price they are asking is not worth it.

You’re right about the firewall energy, but that’s simply how these laws work. The point of copyright, as well as age verification and other such laws, is to control who may access certain information.

Because that’s one key feature in the “2019 European directive adopted into French law”. It’s also what the Google fine was about.

Also, X isn’t really suitable for copy/pasting entire articles, like is done on lemmy. So that’s probably not it.

Misunderstanding. The news media is suing X. I pointed out what news media does without paying.

They’ll play whack a mole for decades, just like they have been for P2P file sharing.

Some differences to that, though.

• Downloaders can be prosecuted. That raises the question of what happens to kids or their parents who use non-compliant sites.

• Blocked servers are inaccessible to adults, too, which raises freedom of information issues. These servers don’t contain illegal information, after all.

• Large scale piracy is illegal pretty much everywhere, meaning that the industry can go after the operators and get the servers offline. Not so here.

You think people should pay X to link to tweets? Or generally for quotes?

Ok. Smaller platforms like this here lemmy server don’t do anything because it’s expensive, or they are ethically opposed. They have no business in Australia and fines can’t be collected. Australian kids (and adults who want to be anonymous, or don’t like the government-mandated changes) flock to these platforms.

What now?

More like: They want to sell the cake and be paid when you recommend it to others.

Mind that news media don’t pay when they link to social media, quote people, or even report what other media has reported. The real question is, if this law has any beneficial effect for society. I don’t see how.

Oh, he’s saying that snippet view lets us have sites like lemmy. I didn’t get how cracking down on that would help lemmy.

It should only show the title and the link imo.

That’s infringement in Europe, which makes it effectively a link tax.

Huh? How you mean?

It’ll be more than a question. But again, how will Australia enforce that? Even if Australia provided a free API for age checks, it would still be a hassle to implement it. Are eg Fediverse devs going to do that?

Australian law enforcement can seize servers that are physically in Australia. It can also cut off cash flow for any business with paying customers in Australia. And all the rest? Even aside from free VPNs, there is a lot of internet that they can’t touch.

They can lean on the likes of Youtube or Facebook to steer people in a more government approved direction. But as soon as people become annoyed or bored, they just go elsewhere beyond government control. If ID requirements are onerous for ordinary people, they will avoid compliant sites from the start.

The government could make Australian ISPs use a blacklist or a whitelist. Serious enforcement is possible, but not without going full totalitarian.

Ok, and how will it be enforced at all?

German Amazon has it free with ads.

Not quite. You can’t turn movies into books or games, or vice versa, for example. Sometimes such projects get stuck in limbo. Or think about how everyone hated the final season of Game of Thrones. Can’t do anything about that in our life times.

At least it’s not slacking off anymore.

The “battle” is the result of copyright people trying to use open source people for their ends.

In the past, for software, the focus was completely on the terms of the license. If you look at OSI’s new definition, you will find no mention of that, despite the fact that common licenses in the AI world are not in line with traditional standards. The big focus is data, because that is what copyright people care about. AI trainers are supposed to provide extensive documentation on training data. That’s exactly the same demand that the copyright lobby managed to get into the european AI Act. They will use that to sue people for piracy.

Of course, what the copyright people really want is free money. They’re spreading the myth that training data is like source code and training like compiling. That may seem like a harmless, flawed analogy. But the implication is that the people who work and pay to do open source AI have actually done nothing except piracy. If they can convince judges or politicians who don’t understand the implications then this may cause a lot of damage.