6 ms·

Once an unpopular proposal is shot down backers of said proposal back off for a bit. They bring up the idea repackaged some months/years later. They fight the

by skh 8y ago

Once an unpopular proposal is shot down backers of said proposal back off for a bit. They bring up the idea repackaged some months/years later. They fight the battle again. Eventually, after enough votes the measure will pass. People can only remain vigilant for so long.

StavrosK 8y ago
Since this is driven by the entertainment industry, a solution would be to just stop consuming entertainment. They've been fucking with copyright long enough trying to get their old business models to stop failing, why are we still giving them money?
- Semaphor 8y ago
  I stopped buying music from any artists whose label is a member of RIAA or IFPI many years ago.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Which labels are not members? I wasn't aware there were any.
    - Semaphor 8y ago
      Small labels. All kinds of niche music is not affiliated with the big associations. Ketzer Records is one, for example. That's one from the metal subgenre (Black/Pagan, Death, Doom, Ambient). I assume all niches have their own small labels.
- deogeo 8y ago
  People need to realize this - every cent you give to the copyright industry will be used against you.
  - kiba 8y ago
    Everything is copyrighted by default?
    - RodericDay 8y ago
      you're tech literate piracy is a thing 1+1=???
    - deogeo 8y ago
      But not all copyright holders lobby for such laws.
      - dmitriid 8y ago
        Those copyright holders who don't lobby for this often represent 1% of 1% of content, as is the case in music, for example.
- walterstucco 8y ago
  Do it.
tzs 8y ago
In most of these kinds of situations, the unpopular proposal is actually addressing some real problem that probably should be addressed. Those who find the proposal terrible rally against it, but usually don't offer alternatives to address the problem. They may win, but then since the underlying problem was not addressed another proposal will arise. And since the opposition to the last one didn't contribute any new ideas to solving the problem this new proposal is usually similar to the old one. And where is the general public in all this? The first time when they are told the proposed solution is terrible they can get behind that and call and write and sign petitions at the opposition's urging. The proposal is shelved and the public is told they won. But they know that there still is an underlying problem to be solved, and signed on to oppose the bad proposal with the expectation that a better proposal would be offered, because the general public does actually want the underlying problem solved. By the second or third time the now modified in small ways original proposal comes around, each time with the same "no to this, but we aren't going to offer an alternative solution" opposition, people are starting to think that maybe the proposal is the only way to solve the underlying problems because that's the only way that ever gets proposed. This sort of thing happens with laws in a variety of fields, at all levels of government. National security, housing, transportation, crime, healthcare, education...in all of them you can find bad things eventually passed because the people vigilantly fighting those things didn't offer any answers themselves, just reasons not to accept other's proposed answers.
- deogeo 8y ago
  Where the 'problem' is that the copyright cartels, despite reaping growing, record profits, want even more money. Maybe after this law passes, they'll decide they finally have enough, and will stop tightening copyright laws?
- mcv 8y ago
  The problem here is that copyright protections are too strong, and the companies who based their business models on it have too much power. This proposal does not address any of that, this proposal is a symptom of the problem. If we want the symptom to go away, we need to address the real problem. Of course to the copyright companies, there's not really a problem, they just see people share stuff online that they believe they should be making money on. The problem is that they can't reasonably do that, so they try to do it unreasonably through this proposal. The "problem" they want to address is not really a problem; copyright companies are healthy and powerful and raking in plenty of money. They just want more of it. They see it as a problem that people are creating new content online, some of which is derivative of their content, and they want to stop it. What they see as a problem, most people see as a good thing. That's the fundamental problem here. Giving them what they want is not going to fix anything for us.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
The reason I'm surprised is because the EU must know it is becoming less and less popular by the day, so why would you insist on pushing this? I get the corporate interests, but is it worth slowly disintegrating the EU over?

by skh 8y ago

StavrosK 8y ago

Since this is driven by the entertainment industry, a solution would be to just stop consuming entertainment. They've been fucking with copyright long enough trying to get their old business models to stop failing, why are we still giving them money?

Semaphor 8y ago
I stopped buying music from any artists whose label is a member of RIAA or IFPI many years ago.
- jandrese 8y ago
  Which labels are not members? I wasn't aware there were any.
  - Semaphor 8y ago
    Small labels. All kinds of niche music is not affiliated with the big associations. Ketzer Records is one, for example. That's one from the metal subgenre (Black/Pagan, Death, Doom, Ambient). I assume all niches have their own small labels.
deogeo 8y ago
People need to realize this - every cent you give to the copyright industry will be used against you.
- kiba 8y ago
  Everything is copyrighted by default?
  - RodericDay 8y ago
    you're tech literate piracy is a thing 1+1=???
  - deogeo 8y ago
    But not all copyright holders lobby for such laws.
    - dmitriid 8y ago
      Those copyright holders who don't lobby for this often represent 1% of 1% of content, as is the case in music, for example.
walterstucco 8y ago
Do it.

tzs 8y ago

In most of these kinds of situations, the unpopular proposal is actually addressing some real problem that probably should be addressed. Those who find the proposal terrible rally against it, but usually don't offer alternatives to address the problem. They may win, but then since the underlying problem was not addressed another proposal will arise. And since the opposition to the last one didn't contribute any new ideas to solving the problem this new proposal is usually similar to the old one. And where is the general public in all this? The first time when they are told the proposed solution is terrible they can get behind that and call and write and sign petitions at the opposition's urging. The proposal is shelved and the public is told they won. But they know that there still is an underlying problem to be solved, and signed on to oppose the bad proposal with the expectation that a better proposal would be offered, because the general public does actually want the underlying problem solved. By the second or third time the now modified in small ways original proposal comes around, each time with the same "no to this, but we aren't going to offer an alternative solution" opposition, people are starting to think that maybe the proposal is the only way to solve the underlying problems because that's the only way that ever gets proposed. This sort of thing happens with laws in a variety of fields, at all levels of government. National security, housing, transportation, crime, healthcare, education...in all of them you can find bad things eventually passed because the people vigilantly fighting those things didn't offer any answers themselves, just reasons not to accept other's proposed answers.

deogeo 8y ago
Where the 'problem' is that the copyright cartels, despite reaping growing, record profits, want even more money. Maybe after this law passes, they'll decide they finally have enough, and will stop tightening copyright laws?
mcv 8y ago
The problem here is that copyright protections are too strong, and the companies who based their business models on it have too much power. This proposal does not address any of that, this proposal is a symptom of the problem. If we want the symptom to go away, we need to address the real problem. Of course to the copyright companies, there's not really a problem, they just see people share stuff online that they believe they should be making money on. The problem is that they can't reasonably do that, so they try to do it unreasonably through this proposal. The "problem" they want to address is not really a problem; copyright companies are healthy and powerful and raking in plenty of money. They just want more of it. They see it as a problem that people are creating new content online, some of which is derivative of their content, and they want to stop it. What they see as a problem, most people see as a good thing. That's the fundamental problem here. Giving them what they want is not going to fix anything for us.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

The reason I'm surprised is because the EU must know it is becoming less and less popular by the day, so why would you insist on pushing this? I get the corporate interests, but is it worth slowly disintegrating the EU over?