35 ms·
EU copyright law proposal rejected
- izacus 8y agoThis battle is nowhere near over, copyright holders are constantly bribing and pushing towards more and more draconian laws to keep competition out and maximize profits. Having said that, it's good to see EU didn't sell us out at the first chance.
- merinowool 8y agoThis is a scandal it has reached so high up. I think authorities should investigate everyone involved in conceiving this directive.
- KozmoNau7 8y agoThe copyright holders and their lobbyists are untiring in their push, because they only need their proposals to be successful once to go through, but we need to continuously get them voted down to retain our freedoms. It's very much an uphill battle.
- alkonaut 8y agoCan’t laws that are equivalent but opposite be formulated? Laws that specify what is legal and should not be considered infringing. Similar to US constitutional formulations “congress shall pass no law..”?
- kbart 8y agoSuch contra-laws are would be 'only' useful for casual citizens, so there's no way to get multi-million lobbying support for them by mega corporations.
- fghtr 8y agoThis is why we need to support organizations like EFF. Even if they are not multi-billion, they may be strong enough sometimes.
- marcosdumay 8y agoThat's one of the reasons wealth inequality is problematic.
- akuji1993 8y agoThe good thing also is, that the Worldcup will be over when the law is discussed again. You can spot pretty easily how laws like this are always pushed in a time where most people are occupied with something else, usually around summer. It's ridiculous how often that happens. Let's hope we don't have a big distraction coming up in September.
- lawlessone 8y agoBrexit was pushed through while loads of people from the UK that could have voted were in France at matches for the Euros. why the downvotes?
- Double_a_92 8y agoThat doesn't make sense though... Because the plan was NOT to brexit.
- monkeynotes 8y agoWhose plan? Cameron's plan for sure, but it's not all that far fetched to believe he was ill advised and manipulated by his party (a lot of Eurosceptics in the Tory party). Ever watched Yes Minister? I know it's satire, but it's more than believable.
- jcranmer 8y agoThe leading faces of the Brexit movement--people like Boris Johnston or Nigel Farage--were completely caught off-guard by the victory. Cameron's decision to resign immediately after the referendum loss also meant that the Brexit negotiations would be completely owned by the Brexiteers, as they ran out of people who could be blamed if/when things go south. What was desired by these leading anti-EU folks was not a victory, but a very close loss. They get to keep blaming the EU for every problem (useful, when the biggest gripe--immigration--was entirely under the control of the UK, not the EU). They get to demonstrate that they have too much support to be ignored, but they don't have the responsibility of actually enacting the agenda.
- quikoa 8y agoNice, that's one bullet dodged! Back to the drawing board doesn't sound very comforting.
- r3bl 8y agoThis isn't SOPA/PIPA, where the entire thing is bad and should be just tossed in trash. This is a copyright reform that needs to be adopted (its main purpose is to reduce inconsistencies in copyright laws across EU countries), and the fight is against two very specific articles (11 and 13) in the current version of it, through which there was an attempt at doing something bad for the Internet. That doesn't mean that the entire copyright reform is just rotten to the core. You'll notice that nobody asked for the entire thing to be abolished, just for those two articles to disappear.
- christkv 8y agoThe only long term solution is to create law that scuttles these kinds of articles in the future. When you play on the defensive you are leaving the definition power to the copyright lobby.
- walterbell 8y agoWhat are precedent laws or legal principles that adopted this approach, in any country, for copyright or licensing? e.g. trade agreement, national constitution, fair use, orphan works, compulsory licensing, RAND licensing, creative commons, public domain, freedom of speech, freedom of information act, right to know, accessibility for blind/deaf, access by libraries and archives, educational use, citation rights, remix models, national incentives for creativity and innovation, ...?
- christkv 8y agoThe fundamental problem is that EU law can basically ride roughshod over existing member laws undoing decades of organic law creation in each member country. This means that you have to kind of pass those laws at the EU level to ensure they don't get wiped out by something like article 11 and 13.
- walterbell 8y agoAn interesting experiment would be for a group of EU countries to agree on a modern innovation/copyright regime, for which they would prioritize national enforcement resources.
- whizzkid 8y agoI think that current implementations of update filters are not ready and satisfactory to make internet a better place, thus I am glad that it is rejected for now. When youtube content id matches 10 seconds of black screen as a copyrighted material, it shows that these systems are nowhere near production ready. I am all for fair use and credits when it comes to creators getting paid for what they deserve but, when you need couple of lawyers to dispute something as a student on internet against enterprises, then freedom and equality of Internet disappears.
- bkor 8y ago> I think that current implementations of update filters are not ready There's no one filter nor any way to do this. YouTube designed and implemented a system. Some other sites might have their own design. Most have nothing. Try to think about what's needed to create something like a filter. It's quickly obvious that it's a massive undertaking (expensive). If I'd be Google, I'd actually be happy with a strict law as YouTube has a filter. All other competitors would immediately have a huge disadvantage. Note: I quite like Formula 1 and I've noticed that people quite easily get around the YouTube filter. They make the video a bit smaller, add some moving stuff around it and they're done. This while the filter blocks valid use cases.
- laumars 8y agoThe vote was worryingly close though: In favour: 278 Against: 318 The pessimist in me can't see this getting rejected a second time :(
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoWhat I'm reading is that they'll mostly just adjust some part of this proposal until it does pass; whether Article 11 or 13 make it (which are the most controversial) then is to be seen. Yet, I'm worried now that those articles were just ludicrous distractions for the real problem. That is, it shouldn't pass without those articles, but those that would oppose it normally would now vote in favor of it because "at least it doesn't have those articles anymore". like how [politics] the current political climate and news coverage is pushing what used to be extreme-right standpoints more towards the more acceptable political middle. As in,"well at least we're not separating kids from parents anymore"[/politics]
- draugadrotten 8y ago> pushing what used to be extreme-right standpoints more towards the more acceptable political middle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window It's a political tactic used since at least Roman days.
- giomasce 8y agoWonderful, thanks to everyone that helped making some pressing on the MEPs, from Wikipedia to the last of the tweeters!
- nomercy400 8y agoSo, is the EU Parliament postponing it because they didn't like the media attention and want to try it again when there are other things that attract media attention in three months time, or because they actually think it is a bad idea?
- psergeant 8y agoHardly a homogenous group
- rsynnott 8y agoHow do you think a parliament works? It consists of multiple parties who generally don't agree with each other; it does not generally do things as a group.
- josteink 8y agoHe is right in that this was tried passed during the summer & world-cup when most people are not paying attention though. That's clearly not coincidental.
- paulie_a 8y agoWhy would the world cup be a factor?
- josteink 8y agoThe big masses are busy with the World Cup and not paying much attention to news in general. Not to mention that the newspapers themselves are reducing political coverage significantly to give room for the World Cup, so that those who still would like to pay attention have a reduced ability to do so.
- nhebb 8y agoFWIW, I think you're asking a legitimate question that should be thoughtfully answered instead of downvoted. I don't know what to call it other than "internet cause fatigue" but it does happen, and I believe that there are lawmakers and bureaucrats that take advantage of it by postponing votes and/or bringing the same issue to vote down the line under a different label.
- chmike 8y agoRemove articles 11 and 13 with too ambiguous and fuzzy limits. They provide an open door to abuse. It's time to change business models and evolve. Destroying the internet just to protect some profits should not be an option. Make subventions from states to newspapers illegal. Make scholar journals selling other peoples work in numeric form illegal. Terminate google news and equivalent services. Journals don't deserve that free publicity.
- merinowool 8y agoWhy having any of those articles anyway?
- hmd_imputer 8y agoFirst #GDPR, now #Uploadfilter... What is next? A totally censored internet? The EU is becoming more and more absurd with its regulations that do nothing but hinder technological advancement. Already way behind than the East Asian countries as well the US and Canada...
- aepiepaey 8y agoWhy bring GDPR into this? Unlike the upload filter it's actually good for regular people (though not so much for certain corporations).
- superkuh 8y agoYour assumption here is that regular people need to have their bad decisions to use shit services mitigated by government using threats of violence. It is bad for people. It allows them to keep using bad, centralized, censoring, services without acknowledging the problems that causes. It prevents alternatives from springing up both indirectly because they can continue to make bad choices without consequence, and directly because the heavy new regulatory load makes start-ups harder and gives giant corps (and their giant legal teams) an advantage. Additionally, you imply that regular people are not impacted. People are businesses. They don't stop being regular people when they run a business.
- scrollaway 8y agoGDPR is the sole reason I'm actually able to delete accounts reliably on every website I visit. That I'm actually able to retrieve my username from websites where I previously had deleted my account but where I want to recreate it (cf. https://twitter.com/Adys/status/1011637415893766144 https://twitter.com/Adys/status/1011637415893766144). It's actually served me to know why some company I've never heard about has my personal data on file. It's empowered me to ask them what they have on me, and to tell them to fuck off with it if I don't like it. GDPR is fucking amazing and as a business owner impacted by GDPR, I am proud to comply with it. Just as many people are proud to pay their taxes because of what is done with them. Edit: Depressing to see people are downvoting real world experience in favour of FUD.
- Already__Taken 8y agoLooks like votewatch.eu has gone done, I presume from all of us checking what MP's we're going to have the school.
- azernik 8y agoBack up!
- derriz 8y agoI have to say (and I am not a fan of modern copyright law at all) that I'm undecided about this law. I guess the contrarian in me requires more analysis and reasoning than I've found in the top google search results or following some of the links posted here on Hacker News. In fact I'm aware that I often take positions based on disliking the presentation of arguments and this is a personal flaw. But I have to say most of the pieces I read rub me up the wrong way by seemingly just repeating arguments from authority or presenting interpretations without any logical reasoning built on primary sources (i.e. the text of the directive). Many of the pieces, even by respected sources, seem very click-baity where it seems there is competition to come up with the most apocalyptic claims. The directive will lead to the end of the internet itself seems to be the bar. When I finally found a piece which actually quoted text from article 13, for example, it didn't seem to explicitly support many of the claims. Is there a mandate or even reference to upload filters in the text of the article? Does it reference memes at all? I'm happy to be correct if there is. But if there isn't, I don't see an obvious path from the primary text to these sort of claims. The actual text of the article that I've seen quoted seems to simply codify the status quo that currently exists in nearly all countries. Which is that content aggregators are oblidged to cooperate with copyright holders to block copyright infringement. Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without "killing the internet". Don't all countries with copyright laws already provide legal mechanisms for holder to force content aggregators to remove infringing material? If that's the case, then this is simply a typical EU directive - which just represents some sort of minimum standard based on the existing laws in the 28 countries. As I said, I'm happy to be corrected if someone can provide an argument based on the text. Please reply with links or references instead of down voting :)
- bad_user 8y agoI would argue that controversial laws have to be at least delayed in order for all the points to be address. I would rather not change anything instead of risking broken legislation that does more harm than good. > Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without "killing the internet". Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to take down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources. This is not the same issue as with GDPR. Even if companies need to invest resources in being GDPR compliant, it can be argued that business models relying on the ignorance of users are criminal enterprises and that GDPR-style consent should have been asked for without having a law for it, being common sense in a world where people don't understand the repercussion of their actions when using technology. But copyright? That's a government granted monopoly and like all government granted monopolies it can do more harm than good. It can be argued that copyright is flawed, especially given the forever extending duration, currently being life plus 70 to 120 years, which is absolutely ridiculous. Give us 20 years, like patents and then we can discuss about extra protections otherwise fuck media companies lobbying for even more protections.
- stakhanov 8y ago...listening to BBC Radio 6 today, I was pretty shocked about how they only portrayed it in a positive light. Their spin was that it's all about making sure YouTube can no longer pretend they're not benefitting from copyrighted material being uploaded illegally, and how Paul McCartney thinks that's a great thing for artists.
- kace91 8y agoHint: BBC is media. They'll be benefited by the change, supposedly.
- timrichard 8y agoThey prefer to screenshot and summarise other media. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
- bogle 8y agoRadio 4's Today show had Jimmy Wales and William Orbit on with Justin Webb (08:32 GMT). Rory Cellan-Jones introduced it pretty well as the Beeb's Tech correspondent. Their thoughts, roughly summarised: copyright is good as creators need to get paid; mandatory upload filters aren't going to work and will certainly be a barrier for smaller players. Generally an excellent discussion. Wales said we needed to look at how artists are being paid by, for instance, Google but as they already have upload filters in place this isn't useful leverage.
- aembleton 8y agoYou can listen here. Just skip to 2:33 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b85mct#play https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b85mct#play
- bluecalm 8y agoSeeing how close it was I am really pessimistic about EU and further integration. I want my country to have a shot at sane copyright/patent/tax laws. If they fail I want other countries to have that shot, maybe at least one succeed and I could move there. With one centralized government there will be nowhere to run if things like UK prison-for-wrongthink or German/Spanish copyright and censorpship laws are implemented.
- Tomte 8y agoThat argument scales up and down, which makes it pointless without an accompanying argument about absolute size. Why is your country's current extent and size optimal? Why not split it up, maybe even down to sovereign towns? Why not unify it with one of your neighbours?
- bluecalm 8y agoI am all for giving more power to the local governments. The more local it gets the better. That being said at least on a country level there are people who speak the same language and are brought in somewhat similar culture. There is much bigger chance the laws are going to be acceptable for me if they are made by people who live here, know our history and are brought in our culture. For example after 45 years of in-fact occupation by the Soviets people here won't easily accept censorship and wrong-think laws. Those things are too fresh in memory. It might be easier for our politician to vote for that in EU parliament when they are safely away from home (they didn't from what I understand) but they would think twice voting for it here. Another thing is that people follow country level politics much closer than they follow EU politics which seems to be very detached. What usually happen is "GDPR got voted in EU, we need to adjust our laws" without any kind of public discussion about if we even want that law to begin with. It may work somewhat better in USA where at least there is one language and some common element in education system (history, civics etc.). Here it just seems that People's Party Committeein in Brussels is making up laws and we are supposed to just accept it.
- bojan 8y ago> without any kind of public discussion about if we even want that law to begin with. That is an omission of your politicians for not involving the public into the discussions, as there certainly are deep debates at the EU level that your elected politicians participate in.
- nkkollaw 8y agoWow, not by a huge margin. I'm sure it will pass sooner or later. It's really amazing how people have to keep these idiots that are _supposed to_ be there to guard our interests in check. As long as parties are allowed to accept contributions, things like this will happen. It should be absolutely forbidden to give any politician any money--both while campaigning and in case of victory. That way they would actually work for us and not corporations.
- squarefoot 8y agoIt is extremely important not to lose focus on the problem because they're going to try again and again to pass it, one way or another. They'll never stop: it's about profit both for the corporations bribing for those laws and the politicians being bribed to push for them, so they'll just keep pushing until they find the right weapon of mass distraction to keep the public attention away. Also it is important to keep in mind the old tricks used to pass bad laws: they push initially for worse laws then after public protest they slowly step back to the initial goal to pretend people were listened to, so that not only they get what they wanted, but the public is also being fooled into believing their protest were successful and they have politicians who actually listen to them. How lucky!
- some_account 8y agoI doubt it's about profit. The internet is the only mass medium not being completely controlled by corporations. It's the only medium where truth can still be found about the real reasons why things occur. Link tax and other new laws will make sure that networks that spread truths goes underground.
- nerdponx 8y agoSounds like that's about profit to me.
- pabloski 8y agoProfits and censorship. The oligarchs want money and want to shut the mouths of those who denounce their crimes. And yes, it isn't only Russia who has a problem with oligarchs.
- simias 8y agoSounds like tinfoil hattery to me. Simple greed and technological illiteracy seem much more straightforward and don't involve a conspiracy about "the real reasons why things occur" [creepy music in the background]. It's especially ridiculous since of late the internet seems to have been much more efficient at shoveling garbage to gullible people than enlightening the proletariat. I've even seen some proponents of the bill lament that the lobbying by the "GAFA" (google, apple, facebook and amazon) won, so I'm sure some of them actually believe that they're fighting the good fight against the multinational behemoths who are trying to pillage European resources. It's relatively easy to justify the bill if you take it purely at face value without thinking about the consequences: the big players like Google make a ton of money by linking to other people's work without redistributing any of the profits to the creators, let's fix that. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and clueless politicians. That or it's the Illuminati, who knows.
- 6ue7nNMEEbHcM 8y agoIf you'd ask me personally I think Article 15 is far worse than Article 13. Computer programs are also copyrighted so this would make really hard time for anyone trying to maintain the business once it grows. If this is passed (if I understand this correctly) a subcontractor could sue you for extra money you gained on some of his contributions. It's like contracts no longer define how much you owe to people because everything may change if you succeed. How do you reinvest the money in such conditions? Do you hold some cash just in case someone pops up demanding more money?
- matte_black 8y agoSo don’t hire an EU contractor.
- bluecalm 8y agoI think that when you hire someone you are not: entering into a contract for the exploitation of the rights because you are the of the rights yourself. The person you hired to write a program for you doesn't have any rights to it. That being said, the whole article is ridiculous. If it passes you will be on the hook for % of the profits you make possibly forever if you licensed any kind of work to run your business. Maybe they should add another article where you can apply to get some of your money back if you don't make or lose money trying to run your business.
- 6ue7nNMEEbHcM 8y agoThanks for slightly optimistic reply in this regard. But I think it will all come down to how this will be implemented in member states (and I'm sure it will be far from common in EU), here where I live not all rights are transferred as part of the contract, some rights are non-transferable. Nevertheless it's scary how this is developing, I wonder who will be deciding about "fairness" of compensation, will it be courts deciding how much some services are worth... I wonder if UK will accept it, if not I'd expected lots of business moving there from EU.
- madhadron 8y ago
- bjrnio 8y agoDoes anyone know if (and how) you can check which MEPs voted for and against it? Does that data get published somewhere?
- asb 8y agoInteresting how The Guardian are choosing to report this: "YouTube and Facebook could escape billions in copyright payouts after EU vote" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/05/youtube-could-escape-billions-in-copyright-payouts-after-eu-vote https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/05/youtube-c...
- scribu 8y agoI think they're right to point out that there are corporate interests on both sides, but I also think they're doing the public a disservice by failing to mention the effect on smaller companies and even on regular internet users.
- cedivad 8y agoSo the internet won... By a 6% margin.
- Kliment 8y agoList of votes is on pages 7-8 of this document: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bPV%2b20180705%2bRES-RCV%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2f...
- coolspot 8y ago+ 278 - 318 0 31 Too close. They will try again.
- Jacq5 8y agoThis is still quite a defeat IMHO. The vote was won just by a margin of 40 votes. The real deal will cover up in September. If the margin gets smaller - were kinda busted. If the negative votes increases - well, the internet might be saved. Now only money talks and who takes which side will decide onto the rest.
- shmerl 8y agoCongratulations! But they'll come back with some new garbage, they always do. So there will another need to repeal something like that.
- dalbasal 8y agoI am always impressed by the support efforts to curb copyright expansion, as it relates to practical freedoms of expression, information and control over the internet. It's a nuanced issue, international and unrelated directly to any major political wing or ideology. So, the fact that it attracts a dedicated and effective activist base is both surprising and heartening. This for the "cause" least likely to get you laid. Thank you to whoever is involved. You are fighting for me and I appreciate it. I'm going to make a habit of writing MEPs and generally getting behind you guys. I want my next comment on the subject to be in the first person (we). But..... I feel like we're at a real structural disadvantage. Copyrights (up generally) are under constant expansive efforts. Expanding rights. Expanding duratii. Expanding enforcement. Practical enforcement edforts that will result in dragnets (like this, now defeated proposal). The saintly activists are working to defeat restrictions, but they can't win every fight. This proposal will be back, in modified form. It's a ratchet. Sometimes we don't lose. Other times we lose. There are no wins, just defense against loss. For a practical example: YouTube is the biggest video site, and it does not honour fair use. You can't (easily, anyway) automate fair use detection, so it gets caught in the copyright violation dragnets. In practice this weakens fair use rights. I'm sure pressure from copyright holders played a role on YouTube's policy decisions. Is there (or can there be) an activist effort that puts pressure on YouTube (just for example) to protect fair use rights, and freedom of expression generally. Are there wins we can aim for? Is an effort to shorten copyright duration feasible? I think the economic argument is on our side, even if we accept the other side's premises. Is a fair use expansion campaign possible?
- walterbell 8y agoWe need new business models for new media, which are not based on artificial scarcity. Then new media can afford to outspend old media. It's unfortunate that the current flag-bearers for new media are funded by advertising, rather than creativity and innovation unlocked by fair use and remix culture.
- bjelkeman-again 8y agoI hope efforts like the Dutch De Correspondent works out in the long run. I know readers that love their work and happily pays for it. http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/05/dutch-news-organization-de-correspondent-is-getting-more-money-toward-its-global-expansion/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/05/dutch-news-organization-de-...
- poe876 8y agoEU should be abolished. What a waste of taxpayers money, resources and energy. Fucking scambag bureaucrats.
- pasbesoin 8y agoThey'll never stop. And, they're using your own money against you. Sales revenue, all the higher and more profitable as they tighten their control. Your tax dollars. Here in the U.S., there is an ongoing conversation about the continued efforts to "criminalize" IP infringement. Not only do the "big players" already have the advantage in terms of the ability to pay -- potentially endlessly -- for attorneys. They are trying to get the government, with its deep pockets and salaried attorneys, to take over prosecution of civil law infringements. Which also means less government attention to crime that may actually concern you, its citizens, more. Now, if the world were getting better, one might debate whether these are useful changes. Instead, it seems most people who take the time to understand this, and who aren't benefiting from tacking on another 20 years to Micky Mouse's exclusivity, find the changes both absurd and a hindrance to real productivity and creativity. Workers in the U.S. have had to compete not only against lower wages, but also against lower costs of producers who don't respect and pay for the IP they use. Some of the same companies that scream bloody murder about infringement in the U.S., turn around and use those producers abroad because of their lower costs. They're using your own money against you. (And, I've got nothing against the rest of the world catching up. I do resent and oppose the arbitrage practiced by such entities, in combination with convenient legal and political collusion, to greatly enrich themselves while perhaps even impeding real progress.) P.S. Regarding the "tricks" used to escalate their control, mentioned by the parent commenter. One of those is the current proliferation of "trade agreements". One member is convinced, bribed, coerced to increase an IP "right". The trade agreement includes an automatic mechanism for "harmonization" between members. The other member states use said "harmonization" as the cause that increases that right in their own state. People living in the latter may never have agreed to e.g. another extension to length of copyright. But suddenly they have it, via "harmonization". And politicians saying, "The treaty made us do it." This has all been discussed before, on the Web. But I haven't seen it surface prominently, in a while, and it bears repeating for those who are just becoming familiar with the issue.
- TravisCooper 8y ago100% THIS. Great details here. Glad to see this posted and we need to make as many people aware of the details in your post as possible.
- jejones3141 8y agoGlad to hear it, but eternal vigilance etc. Keep an eye on them.
- duxup 8y agoThank goodness, that thing was horrific. It even read like ISPs were supposed to filter user content. It was Copyright > everything else > freedom of speech (granted I get that's a US phrase but you get my point).
- dev_dull 8y agoThis not only a problem with the EU, but with concentrated power in general. It wouldn't be cost effective to lobby every single government to pass this type of legislation, but when you concentrate it into a single place, suddenly intense lobbying becomes cost effective. I have a similar attitude to the US Federal government and why I think state rights are supreme. You lose economies of scale, but gain a distributed and hard(er) to corrupt system.
- jopsen 8y agoYet, both of these policies (article 11 and 13) have been tried out in a few countries. IMO concentration of power merely means that you need to be more careful with it. The EU will rarely be critized for standardizing boring regulation. I keep thinking that in the post brexit world maybe the EU should strive away from controversial topics for a few years. But I could be wrong :)
- sampo 8y agoHere is how different countries voted: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/8wbbsy/analysis_of_the_copyright_vote_per_country/ https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/8wbbsy/analysis_of_... And here is how different parties voted: https://i.redd.it/xcr22o59g5811.png https://i.redd.it/xcr22o59g5811.png
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- azernik 8y agoFor those who want to see detailed breakdowns (by European party grouping, by national party, by country, etc.) see http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-copyright-in-the-digital-single-market-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-decision-to-enter-into-inte.html http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-copyright-in-the-digital-si... (note - you'll need to create a login). Interesting takeaways: 1. As is usual, party discipline was very strong on the national-party level, but usually weak on the level of the European political grouping. 2. The center-right EPP grouping voted by a large majority for the regulation. 3. There was a very strong national divide between France (>80% in favor) and every other large state (small majorities against). 4. Party discipline on the European level among the Socialists (S&D) broke down completely, leaving them split about 50/50. For example, German SPD voted unanimously against; the French, British, Italian, and Spanish socialists by large majorities in favor; and most of the socialists from small states voted against. 5. The liberals (in the European, FDP sense), were split within parties at a high rate. 6. The nationalist far-right (the French party formerly known as the Front National, Lega Nord, etc.) and the Eurosceptic right (e.g. UK Conservatives, the governing Polish PiS, etc.), which usually vote similarly, split along national-party lines.
- jopsen 8y agoMany commenters here point out that this is not necessarily the end, and that lobbyist will keep trying. Seemingly implying that this is an eventuality. I don't think so, if we keep fighting we can win this. I for one plan to keep applying pressure to members of the legal committee. Realistic optimism is not a cause for complacency. But we must also recognize that this is battle we can win, as to not give up without a fight. For all the faults of our democracies let's recognize that it worked today :)
- nl 8y agoPeople seem to be viewing this through the eyes of US copyright proposals (longer terms, stronger enforcement etc). That's not was this was at all. It was a change in the liability structure to make platforms liable for content published on their platform. It was basically about news. European news organisations hate that people are getting news via Google and Facebook so they want to restrict that.
- isthatart 8y agoOpen Science fan here, I have some concrete questions about this copyright, publishers and linktax story, for example: (0) - will Scihub be affected? (1) - will arXiv link instead of the published article link be affected? (2) - will the social media companies start to apply filters to the search results and timelines???
- isthatart 8y agoAfter more reading, it is horrible. Even if the answers seem to be (0) no (1) maybe (2) yes, the main point of interest for researchers is that they will become publishers slaves, or else they have to not publish (anything which might result in a copyright filter). Give not publish, or be a slave.