3 ms·

It seems like it worked this time (it's not over yet). But they can try again next time. And again if it also fails. Will the response in opposition be as loud

by ajnin 8y ago

It seems like it worked this time (it's not over yet). But they can try again next time. And again if it also fails. Will the response in opposition be as loud ? They can try as many times as they want but they only have to succeed once, while we have to succeed 100% of the time. This fundamental imbalance is worrying.

vezycash 8y ago
Of course they'll try again. Next time, they'll probably claim copyright violations cause economic down turns and bankrupt firms Same way the three lettered guys capitalized on terrorism and child porn to disregard everyone's privacy.
xoa 8y ago
>It seems like it worked this time (it's not over yet). But they can try again next time. And again if it also fails. Will the response in opposition be as loud? It has to be in a democracy. Everyone is free to keep arguing for what they think are good ideas, and those who think they're not need to also keep at it. The struggle never ends, that's the civic duty of the people. Having said that, I think you might be missing one important strategy in this: >They can try as many times as they want but they only have to succeed once, while we have to succeed 100% of the time. This fundamental imbalance is worrying. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be implicitly assuming that opposition consists solely of attempting to maintain the status quo. In that scenario you're right that it's more difficult to keep the balance from shifting away from neutral over time. However, instead opposition can fight to actually actively move things farther in their preferred direction, and then even if they lose a certain amount of the time that still won't be disastrous. It's not necessary to win every battle if they're not purely defensive, just some of the time. I don't just oppose further efforts to maximalize IP, I want much (though not all) of the current bits reversed and brought back into more historical balance. I support efforts to reduce the terms back down towards 15-30 years (or alternatively to introduce dynamic pricing/terms), to completely eliminate math and business method patents, better fund examiners, etc. That's where the battle has to continue. Remember, you can flip your logic around there: we only need to get any given bit of overlong or incorrectly granted IP put back into the public domain once. Maximalists "have to succeed" at preventing it 100% of the time yes?
- Felz 8y ago
  There is a fundamental asymmetry where it's much harder to repeal a law that harms a bunch of people a little bit to benefit a few. The few can afford to invest resources in defense and have a much bigger stake than the many, who individually have no real reason to care. Public outrage works like a line in the sand, where the many get upset far out of proportion to what their stake is, to prevent death by a thousand cuts. But once you cross it, the defense crumbles. There's no model where seesawing back and forth between less and more copyright works: the many just can't organize as well as the few. That's why lobbyists only have to win once.
- ajnin 8y ago
  In a democracy, there are elections where the people voice their opinions and then the elected carry out the policies expressed during the vote. If instead we have a system where everyone has a voice, but in practice only the groups with the resources to invest millions of euros in lobbying can get their positions heard by the EU and made into law, then it is not a democracy. And those groups are not generally in favor of the common citizen. The balance is well tilted towards those who have the most money. The voice of one citizen weighs much less than the voice of a big corporation which can hire former EU bureaucrats as well-paid lobbyists. Maybe citizens should make a lobbying fund to fight on the public's behalf ?
  - syshum 8y ago
    >>In a democracy, there are elections where the people voice their opinions and then the elected carry out the policies expressed during the vote. That would be a democratically elected representative republic, not a democracy. The EU is not a democracy any more than the US is a democracy, there are democratic elements but it is not a democracy. This is the fundamental lie people tell themselves, that we (either the EU or the US) live in a democracy. We dont. > Maybe citizens should make a lobbying fund to fight on the public's behalf ? here in the US we have many such organizations, they are often demonized as well for being "special interest" and are point to as example of problem with "money in politics"

by ajnin 8y ago

vezycash 8y ago

Of course they'll try again. Next time, they'll probably claim copyright violations cause economic down turns and bankrupt firms Same way the three lettered guys capitalized on terrorism and child porn to disregard everyone's privacy.

xoa 8y ago

>It seems like it worked this time (it's not over yet). But they can try again next time. And again if it also fails. Will the response in opposition be as loud? It has to be in a democracy. Everyone is free to keep arguing for what they think are good ideas, and those who think they're not need to also keep at it. The struggle never ends, that's the civic duty of the people. Having said that, I think you might be missing one important strategy in this: >They can try as many times as they want but they only have to succeed once, while we have to succeed 100% of the time. This fundamental imbalance is worrying. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be implicitly assuming that opposition consists solely of attempting to maintain the status quo. In that scenario you're right that it's more difficult to keep the balance from shifting away from neutral over time. However, instead opposition can fight to actually actively move things farther in their preferred direction, and then even if they lose a certain amount of the time that still won't be disastrous. It's not necessary to win every battle if they're not purely defensive, just some of the time. I don't just oppose further efforts to maximalize IP, I want much (though not all) of the current bits reversed and brought back into more historical balance. I support efforts to reduce the terms back down towards 15-30 years (or alternatively to introduce dynamic pricing/terms), to completely eliminate math and business method patents, better fund examiners, etc. That's where the battle has to continue. Remember, you can flip your logic around there: we only need to get any given bit of overlong or incorrectly granted IP put back into the public domain once. Maximalists "have to succeed" at preventing it 100% of the time yes?

Felz 8y ago
There is a fundamental asymmetry where it's much harder to repeal a law that harms a bunch of people a little bit to benefit a few. The few can afford to invest resources in defense and have a much bigger stake than the many, who individually have no real reason to care. Public outrage works like a line in the sand, where the many get upset far out of proportion to what their stake is, to prevent death by a thousand cuts. But once you cross it, the defense crumbles. There's no model where seesawing back and forth between less and more copyright works: the many just can't organize as well as the few. That's why lobbyists only have to win once.
ajnin 8y ago
In a democracy, there are elections where the people voice their opinions and then the elected carry out the policies expressed during the vote. If instead we have a system where everyone has a voice, but in practice only the groups with the resources to invest millions of euros in lobbying can get their positions heard by the EU and made into law, then it is not a democracy. And those groups are not generally in favor of the common citizen. The balance is well tilted towards those who have the most money. The voice of one citizen weighs much less than the voice of a big corporation which can hire former EU bureaucrats as well-paid lobbyists. Maybe citizens should make a lobbying fund to fight on the public's behalf ?
- syshum 8y ago
  >>In a democracy, there are elections where the people voice their opinions and then the elected carry out the policies expressed during the vote. That would be a democratically elected representative republic, not a democracy. The EU is not a democracy any more than the US is a democracy, there are democratic elements but it is not a democracy. This is the fundamental lie people tell themselves, that we (either the EU or the US) live in a democracy. We dont. > Maybe citizens should make a lobbying fund to fight on the public's behalf ? here in the US we have many such organizations, they are often demonized as well for being "special interest" and are point to as example of problem with "money in politics"