6 ms·

As bonkers as this may seem, I suspect it will fall flat on it's face the second it's put before a court. For example, someone defends their right to use the t

As bonkers as this may seem, I suspect it will fall flat on it's face the second it's put before a court. For example, someone defends their right to use the title or quote from an article from some other news gathering organisation. Someone will need to convince a judge that it's OK for The Sunday Times, or Der Spiegel to do that, but it's not OK for Reddit or Hacker News to do that. And eventually, someone will need to convince a court that it's OK for Charlie Booker to broadcast a Cassetteboy video mash up on the UK's Channel 4, but it's not OK for Cassetteboy to upload that same video to youtube. It is true that the CJEU doesn't hold case law and precedent in the same high regard as other courts, but neither does it ignore them. The ECJ and CJEU serves as a check on government in the same way the courts do in most other countries. I think it is unfortunate that the EU parliament has approved this law. But I struggle to see how it will stand up in court. That said, it will take a very brave person or organisation with deep pockets and a steel will to challenge this law. However, if this law is upheld in court, then I think we can consider the EU a failed experiment. So abhorrent is this legislation that I, an ardent "Remaniac", would rather see the EU fail and take my chances with whatever comes next, than let the EU stifle free speech and the free flow of information and ideas in this way.

gnusci 8y ago
My 5c here. Maybe they just don't have much to do, so they need to justify their salaries, and they need to have some presence in the WWW to let us know that they are out there.
- tomelders 8y ago
  Hmmm. I'm not so sure. The EU parliament is usually pretty savvy on civil rights and freedom issues like this. I'm genuinely surprised that this law passed. However, it's hard to fathom the EU parliament sometimes because it's such a broad and diverse bunch of people and interests forced into such a small political space. If someone asked me to play devils advocate for this decision, I'd probably appeal to people's fear of foreign disinformation campaigns and the impact they're having on western democracies. I could probably cobble together a semi-compelling argument about how Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, have inadvertently handed the enemies of the west the most powerful propaganda tool in all of human history, and those enemies are using it to great effect. Or how marketing companies have convinced millions of parents worldwide to not vaccinate their children through the internet. Or how organisations like Monsanto astroturf the web and misquote or misrepresent scientific reports or news articles to make it seem like Greenpeace promote and advocate using DDT. I'd then go on to argue that information can and must be free to share, but nefarious misinformation should not be free from punishment nor protected by law. And so, the age of anonymous and unaccountable publishing platforms must come to an end. If they don't want to be held accountable for the content they publish, then that's fine. But that just means we restrict the type of content they're allowed to publish. After all, we have advertising standards that the press and broadcasters adhere to. We have rules around when and how "traditional" media can report on politics. So the Youtubes, Twitters, Reddits, and Facebooks of the world can either fall in line with those rules, or carry on as they are but simply refrain from anything that could be perceived as advertising or political reporting... which is pretty much everything except dick picks I think. Now, I'm pretending to defend this law. Don't assume I believe any of what I just said. I actually think this law abhorrent. And while I do have concerns about the unrestrained power and influence of the web, I don't think this law is the answer to my concerns. But if I put my mind to selling this law to people who don't know as much about the web as I do, I think this kind of argument would be effective. On some people at least. And MEP's aren't technical people. They're political people. And I think it would be pretty easy to scare them into backing this law whilst appealing to their sense of justice, fairness, and honesty.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - atmosx 8y ago
    > I'd then go on to argue that information can and must be free to share, but nefarious misinformation should not be free from punishment nor protected by law. I'd argue that 80% of statements made by political actors are about spreading misinformation (or fake news), misinterpreted (misreading latest wikileaks reports) or deliberate lies to drive a point home (immigrants are driving the UK economy down!). For example when the US reps states "we found nuclear guns in Iraq" is it a valid statement or nefarious misinformation. Does prior experience by an actor amount for anything? Who gets to decide?
Too 8y ago
> And eventually, someone will need to convince a court I think this is exactly what they want. They don't want to automatically tax every teenage kid making memes. They just want to create a legal minefield so whenever they decide a link is not ok they will have a law that backs them up. In a way it's good because most fair use most likely will fly under the radar just as it does today, but on the other hand it's also scary that you never really know when you are passing the threshold and might face an army of lawyers. It's very much like patent trolls. They strike like lightning on a sunny day if you happen to build a mildly successful product that can be remotely associated with their patent.
- piokoch 8y ago
  Yes, this law is Stalinism-Leninism in its purest form. This law make sure that everyone is guilty and then those who are not "behaving", "not respect European values" (whatever it means today) can be charged and silenced. EU having such leaders as Junecker, who is not able to stay sober even during official meeting with all EU presidents and US president and bureaucracy pushing such laws will soon or later explode.
whizzkid 8y ago
> However, if this law is upheld in court, then I think we can consider the EU a failed experiment What an unexpected conclusion you are jumping into. I think EU is the only capable authority in the world so far who is not afraid to challenge big corporations in favour of people. (mobile charges, customer rights, Google, Intel, Telefonica, etc..) I completely agree that there are big problems around EU when it comes to lobbyists around Brussels. In my personal opinion they should be banned from influencing EU decisions. But, just because there is an issue with the car, does not mean that we need to burn the car completely. Better option is to help fixing the car.
- tomelders 8y ago
  Any country that legislates against free speech ans freedom of expression with such a brutal and blunt law such as this should be considered a failed experiment.
  - JAlexoid 8y ago
    What? Taking my copyrighted work and publishing it is somehow a matter of freedom of speech and expression? Do you also consider vandalism a form of freedom of expression?
    - _Tev 8y ago
      Stop pretending this is only about "publishing copyrighted works"
JAlexoid 8y ago
> Someone will need to convince a judge that it's OK for The Sunday Times, or Der Spiegel to do that, but it's not OK for Reddit or Hacker News to do that. Newswires aren't free and come with a copyright agreement.
DanBC 8y ago
Just checking, but have you read article 11?

gnusci 8y ago

My 5c here. Maybe they just don't have much to do, so they need to justify their salaries, and they need to have some presence in the WWW to let us know that they are out there.

tomelders 8y ago
Hmmm. I'm not so sure. The EU parliament is usually pretty savvy on civil rights and freedom issues like this. I'm genuinely surprised that this law passed. However, it's hard to fathom the EU parliament sometimes because it's such a broad and diverse bunch of people and interests forced into such a small political space. If someone asked me to play devils advocate for this decision, I'd probably appeal to people's fear of foreign disinformation campaigns and the impact they're having on western democracies. I could probably cobble together a semi-compelling argument about how Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, have inadvertently handed the enemies of the west the most powerful propaganda tool in all of human history, and those enemies are using it to great effect. Or how marketing companies have convinced millions of parents worldwide to not vaccinate their children through the internet. Or how organisations like Monsanto astroturf the web and misquote or misrepresent scientific reports or news articles to make it seem like Greenpeace promote and advocate using DDT. I'd then go on to argue that information can and must be free to share, but nefarious misinformation should not be free from punishment nor protected by law. And so, the age of anonymous and unaccountable publishing platforms must come to an end. If they don't want to be held accountable for the content they publish, then that's fine. But that just means we restrict the type of content they're allowed to publish. After all, we have advertising standards that the press and broadcasters adhere to. We have rules around when and how "traditional" media can report on politics. So the Youtubes, Twitters, Reddits, and Facebooks of the world can either fall in line with those rules, or carry on as they are but simply refrain from anything that could be perceived as advertising or political reporting... which is pretty much everything except dick picks I think. Now, I'm pretending to defend this law. Don't assume I believe any of what I just said. I actually think this law abhorrent. And while I do have concerns about the unrestrained power and influence of the web, I don't think this law is the answer to my concerns. But if I put my mind to selling this law to people who don't know as much about the web as I do, I think this kind of argument would be effective. On some people at least. And MEP's aren't technical people. They're political people. And I think it would be pretty easy to scare them into backing this law whilst appealing to their sense of justice, fairness, and honesty.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- atmosx 8y ago
  > I'd then go on to argue that information can and must be free to share, but nefarious misinformation should not be free from punishment nor protected by law. I'd argue that 80% of statements made by political actors are about spreading misinformation (or fake news), misinterpreted (misreading latest wikileaks reports) or deliberate lies to drive a point home (immigrants are driving the UK economy down!). For example when the US reps states "we found nuclear guns in Iraq" is it a valid statement or nefarious misinformation. Does prior experience by an actor amount for anything? Who gets to decide?

Too 8y ago

> And eventually, someone will need to convince a court I think this is exactly what they want. They don't want to automatically tax every teenage kid making memes. They just want to create a legal minefield so whenever they decide a link is not ok they will have a law that backs them up. In a way it's good because most fair use most likely will fly under the radar just as it does today, but on the other hand it's also scary that you never really know when you are passing the threshold and might face an army of lawyers. It's very much like patent trolls. They strike like lightning on a sunny day if you happen to build a mildly successful product that can be remotely associated with their patent.

piokoch 8y ago
Yes, this law is Stalinism-Leninism in its purest form. This law make sure that everyone is guilty and then those who are not "behaving", "not respect European values" (whatever it means today) can be charged and silenced. EU having such leaders as Junecker, who is not able to stay sober even during official meeting with all EU presidents and US president and bureaucracy pushing such laws will soon or later explode.

whizzkid 8y ago

> However, if this law is upheld in court, then I think we can consider the EU a failed experiment What an unexpected conclusion you are jumping into. I think EU is the only capable authority in the world so far who is not afraid to challenge big corporations in favour of people. (mobile charges, customer rights, Google, Intel, Telefonica, etc..) I completely agree that there are big problems around EU when it comes to lobbyists around Brussels. In my personal opinion they should be banned from influencing EU decisions. But, just because there is an issue with the car, does not mean that we need to burn the car completely. Better option is to help fixing the car.

tomelders 8y ago
Any country that legislates against free speech ans freedom of expression with such a brutal and blunt law such as this should be considered a failed experiment.
- JAlexoid 8y ago
  What? Taking my copyrighted work and publishing it is somehow a matter of freedom of speech and expression? Do you also consider vandalism a form of freedom of expression?
  - _Tev 8y ago
    Stop pretending this is only about "publishing copyrighted works"

JAlexoid 8y ago

> Someone will need to convince a judge that it's OK for The Sunday Times, or Der Spiegel to do that, but it's not OK for Reddit or Hacker News to do that. Newswires aren't free and come with a copyright agreement.

DanBC 8y ago

Just checking, but have you read article 11?