5 ms·

"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

"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.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites. It sounds more like an attempt to give somebody powers to block potentially copyright infringing sites, under the pretense of consumer protection, through the roundabout justification that consumers "collectively" benefit from strict enforcement of copyright.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    The copyright infringing sites can already be blocked, so this can't be about that. It seems likely to me that it's actually about consumer protection, unlike the existing copyright legislation.
- arghwhat 9y ago
  But who decides what an "effective means" is, and which are available? Without judicial oversight, this seems rather easy to bypass. I personally find filtering of any sort to be fundamentally wrong. A website is nothing but information, and find censoring/filtering to be wrong on counts of violating free speech and free access to information. I believe that illegal content should be handled by going after those that operate the site, rather than touching the distribution channel.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    What if the persons operating the site are unknown or living in a country where what they are doing is not illegal? I don't support outright blocks or the specifics of this new legislation, but I think there are cases where the distribution channel is the right point to intervene; e.g. by displaying an interstitial "This site has been found to be a scam, don't give them your money. Do you want to continue anyway?".
    - arghwhat 9y ago
      I don't think "This site has been found to be a scam" should be done in the distribution channel, but rather like Google's safebrowsing initiative... Just, maybe not Google-operated. To me, I think I would imagine a website doing something illegal to be more akin to a newspaper ad that sells something illegal. It's not illegal for me to bring a newspaper home from a country with ads about services that are legal where the newspaper is from, but illegal in my home-country. So, why should bringing the ad over digitally be any different? The illegal may only occur once the service is ordered/used, and only so if it is illegal to be the recipient/import (sometimes things are illegal to sell, but legal to buy).
eksemplar 9y ago
Do you have any evidence to support your claims of corruption or are you just loud mouthing based on what you feel is true? I ask because the EU already has the ability to block sites infringe on copyrights. To me this law is one of the reactions taken to the fact that foreign powers are using completely faked news papers and social media pages to influence out elections. Right now consumers have very little ammunition against companies like Facebook. In the EU we have the right to everything they’ve gathered on us and to demand they delete it, but if they went full retard we couldn’t legally block them. Now we can.
- pawy 9y ago
  Do you realise what Chaos you are bringing up on us ? Internet has always been full of shit. It's up to us to educate and teach people who are weak to this kind of behaviour. Black List websites = Censorship. Internet is not a product, it's our freedom. To all people who try to "regulate" this, piss off.
  - arghwhat 9y ago
    Amen.
  - simias 9y ago
    I'm torn on this issue. On one hand american-style free speech where you can basically say anything you want as long as you don't target a specific individual is tempting. On the other hand you don't have to look very far online to find groups of people online who get in too deep into a web of lies, disinformation and confirmation bias that leads to some extremism with real world consequences. This is especially a problem since it's very hard to limit access for the underage population who's a lot more prone to being influenced by extremist ideologies. But of course the counterpoint is that this would create an infrastructure which could be abused to manipulate the population. I think there's a compromise to be found here but I don't know where to start.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

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.

microcolonel 9y ago
> The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites. It sounds more like an attempt to give somebody powers to block potentially copyright infringing sites, under the pretense of consumer protection, through the roundabout justification that consumers "collectively" benefit from strict enforcement of copyright.
- yorwba 9y ago
  The copyright infringing sites can already be blocked, so this can't be about that. It seems likely to me that it's actually about consumer protection, unlike the existing copyright legislation.
arghwhat 9y ago
But who decides what an "effective means" is, and which are available? Without judicial oversight, this seems rather easy to bypass. I personally find filtering of any sort to be fundamentally wrong. A website is nothing but information, and find censoring/filtering to be wrong on counts of violating free speech and free access to information. I believe that illegal content should be handled by going after those that operate the site, rather than touching the distribution channel.
- yorwba 9y ago
  What if the persons operating the site are unknown or living in a country where what they are doing is not illegal? I don't support outright blocks or the specifics of this new legislation, but I think there are cases where the distribution channel is the right point to intervene; e.g. by displaying an interstitial "This site has been found to be a scam, don't give them your money. Do you want to continue anyway?".
  - arghwhat 9y ago
    I don't think "This site has been found to be a scam" should be done in the distribution channel, but rather like Google's safebrowsing initiative... Just, maybe not Google-operated. To me, I think I would imagine a website doing something illegal to be more akin to a newspaper ad that sells something illegal. It's not illegal for me to bring a newspaper home from a country with ads about services that are legal where the newspaper is from, but illegal in my home-country. So, why should bringing the ad over digitally be any different? The illegal may only occur once the service is ordered/used, and only so if it is illegal to be the recipient/import (sometimes things are illegal to sell, but legal to buy).

eksemplar 9y ago

Do you have any evidence to support your claims of corruption or are you just loud mouthing based on what you feel is true? I ask because the EU already has the ability to block sites infringe on copyrights. To me this law is one of the reactions taken to the fact that foreign powers are using completely faked news papers and social media pages to influence out elections. Right now consumers have very little ammunition against companies like Facebook. In the EU we have the right to everything they’ve gathered on us and to demand they delete it, but if they went full retard we couldn’t legally block them. Now we can.

pawy 9y ago
Do you realise what Chaos you are bringing up on us ? Internet has always been full of shit. It's up to us to educate and teach people who are weak to this kind of behaviour. Black List websites = Censorship. Internet is not a product, it's our freedom. To all people who try to "regulate" this, piss off.
- arghwhat 9y ago
  Amen.
- simias 9y ago
  I'm torn on this issue. On one hand american-style free speech where you can basically say anything you want as long as you don't target a specific individual is tempting. On the other hand you don't have to look very far online to find groups of people online who get in too deep into a web of lies, disinformation and confirmation bias that leads to some extremism with real world consequences. This is especially a problem since it's very hard to limit access for the underage population who's a lot more prone to being influenced by extremist ideologies. But of course the counterpoint is that this would create an infrastructure which could be abused to manipulate the population. I think there's a compromise to be found here but I don't know where to start.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]