5 ms·

I think this is the relevant paragraph in the document (page 27 in http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/inag/2017/07-11/IMCO_AG(2017)608048_E

I think this is the relevant paragraph in the document (page 27 in http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/inag/2017/07-11/IMCO_AG(2017)608048_EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/inag/...) linked from the article: "3. Competent authorities shall have at least the following enforcement powers: (e) where no other effective means are available to bring about the cessation or the prohibition of the infringement including by requesting a third party or other public authority to implement such measures, in order to prevent the risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers: - to remove content or restrict access to an online interface or to order the explicit display of a warning to consumers when accessing the online interface; - to order a hosting service provider to remove, disable or restrict the access to an online interface; or - where appropriate, order domain registries or registrars to delete a fully qualified domain name and allow the competent authority concerned to register it;" Seems similar to already existing measures against infringement of copyrights, except that thing about circumventing the courts, as Reda writes. Could this possibly mean websites such as Facebook could be blocked on the grounds of protecting consumers? The document defines 'widespread infringement' as "(1) any act or omission contrary to Union laws that protect consumers' interests that harmed, harms, or is likely to harm the collective interests of consumers"

digi_owl 9y ago
> Competent authorities Do such a beast even exist?
- pilsetnieks 9y ago
  It's "competent" in the legal sense, i.e. the ones having jurisdiction over the matter. It doesn't imply anything about actual competence.
tankenmate 9y ago
As if the ICANN compliance department don't already have enough on their plate squaring the circle over the WHOIS / GDPR / RA / RAA imbroglio. 'in with the good' 'out with the bad'
- gsich 9y ago
  The EU is right on this matter however. (ICANN)
snowpanda 9y ago
>and allow the competent authority concerned to register it It's actually worse than 'blocking', they get control of the domain.
- jopsen 9y ago
  In some way the aim here might to counter cyber squatting...
mattmanser 9y ago
"risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers" What a weaselly term. Bet they spent months trying to come up with something that didn't sound ridiculously biased/anti-consumer and that's the best they came up with. So obviously corrupt.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Let me translate: "business which we want to cultivate a protected local equivalent of" China figured it out; the EU is just playing catch-up.
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    It's not the EU that benefits out of this, it's the US. The US owns all the copyrights. In 10/20 years time if the US falls off its number 1 perch, this will law will be quietly dismantled and it'll be open season on our collective cultural heritage instead of pandering to the US's crazy protectionist copyright laws. It'll probably result in a golden age of culture in the EU instead of being ruthlessly oppressed by the US. The irony being a lot of US "copyright" is based on EU folk tales and music they took with them and copied.
  - sprafa 9y ago
    Jesus, there's no comparison there. Really, you think the EU is planning to build a firewall?
- jopsen 9y ago
  > So obviously corrupt Sources please. The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites. From what I could see Julia Reda (MEP - German Pirate) wasn't unhappy about the intents of this legislation. Merely concerned about: A) Website blocking without judicial oversight B) Existence of website blocking infrastructure C) Inability to force compensations D) No restitution of illicit profits I suspect (B) is already a reality, but yeah, I'm no fan. I agree that (A) is concerning, but wording suggests this can ONLY be applied when "no other effective means" are available. As I understand it that implies it can only be used when the owner can be found, sued or prosecuted by other means. I read that as this applies to faceless scam sites without an address or anyone willing to take responsibility. As for (C) and (D) I would love to see more of that. But the idea in her blog post that illicit profits (B) could be used for found consumer protection agencies is not something I agree with.
acqq 9y ago
In the EU countries there are already blockades of some sites which allow people to access the links to the copyrighted content privately uploaded by some web users. Specifically, I know that providers get the court backed demands to block the sites, and they do that. But if you consider, youtube is exactly the same kind of site, having the copyrighted content uploaded by some web users there since Youtube exists and -- nobody blocks Youtube. And Youtube even still profits from that content as it serves its own ads on it. And do the biggest pay the taxes? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/04/google-pay-306m-italy-tax-deal/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/04/google-pay-... "Google will pay €306m (£259m) to settle a tax dispute in Italy and end a criminal investigation into whether it avoided paying the full amount on its revenues in the country for more than a decade." Italy is just one of the EU lands.
- jopsen 9y ago
  Youtube has a company behind it that can be sued. The sites blocked are typically things that nobody will take responsibility for. Note: this law also says, "where no other effective means are available". Prosecution in court or civil law suites are certainly "effective means". But for some websites they are not available.

digi_owl 9y ago

> Competent authorities Do such a beast even exist?

pilsetnieks 9y ago
It's "competent" in the legal sense, i.e. the ones having jurisdiction over the matter. It doesn't imply anything about actual competence.

tankenmate 9y ago

As if the ICANN compliance department don't already have enough on their plate squaring the circle over the WHOIS / GDPR / RA / RAA imbroglio. 'in with the good' 'out with the bad'

gsich 9y ago
The EU is right on this matter however. (ICANN)

snowpanda 9y ago

>and allow the competent authority concerned to register it It's actually worse than 'blocking', they get control of the domain.

jopsen 9y ago
In some way the aim here might to counter cyber squatting...

mattmanser 9y ago

"risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers" What a weaselly term. Bet they spent months trying to come up with something that didn't sound ridiculously biased/anti-consumer and that's the best they came up with. So obviously corrupt.

leggomylibro 9y ago
Let me translate: "business which we want to cultivate a protected local equivalent of" China figured it out; the EU is just playing catch-up.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  It's not the EU that benefits out of this, it's the US. The US owns all the copyrights. In 10/20 years time if the US falls off its number 1 perch, this will law will be quietly dismantled and it'll be open season on our collective cultural heritage instead of pandering to the US's crazy protectionist copyright laws. It'll probably result in a golden age of culture in the EU instead of being ruthlessly oppressed by the US. The irony being a lot of US "copyright" is based on EU folk tales and music they took with them and copied.
- sprafa 9y ago
  Jesus, there's no comparison there. Really, you think the EU is planning to build a firewall?
jopsen 9y ago
> So obviously corrupt Sources please. The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites. From what I could see Julia Reda (MEP - German Pirate) wasn't unhappy about the intents of this legislation. Merely concerned about: A) Website blocking without judicial oversight B) Existence of website blocking infrastructure C) Inability to force compensations D) No restitution of illicit profits I suspect (B) is already a reality, but yeah, I'm no fan. I agree that (A) is concerning, but wording suggests this can ONLY be applied when "no other effective means" are available. As I understand it that implies it can only be used when the owner can be found, sued or prosecuted by other means. I read that as this applies to faceless scam sites without an address or anyone willing to take responsibility. As for (C) and (D) I would love to see more of that. But the idea in her blog post that illicit profits (B) could be used for found consumer protection agencies is not something I agree with.

acqq 9y ago

In the EU countries there are already blockades of some sites which allow people to access the links to the copyrighted content privately uploaded by some web users. Specifically, I know that providers get the court backed demands to block the sites, and they do that. But if you consider, youtube is exactly the same kind of site, having the copyrighted content uploaded by some web users there since Youtube exists and -- nobody blocks Youtube. And Youtube even still profits from that content as it serves its own ads on it. And do the biggest pay the taxes? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/04/google-pay-306m-italy-tax-deal/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/04/google-pay-... "Google will pay €306m (£259m) to settle a tax dispute in Italy and end a criminal investigation into whether it avoided paying the full amount on its revenues in the country for more than a decade." Italy is just one of the EU lands.

jopsen 9y ago
Youtube has a company behind it that can be sued. The sites blocked are typically things that nobody will take responsibility for. Note: this law also says, "where no other effective means are available". Prosecution in court or civil law suites are certainly "effective means". But for some websites they are not available.