4 ms·
It's not that absurd; remember the SOPA protests of 2012? It prevented the US from enacting retarded legislation, no reason it couldn't work against EU too.
by tomatotomato37 8y ago
It's not that absurd; remember the SOPA protests of 2012? It prevented the US from enacting retarded legislation, no reason it couldn't work against EU too.
- Mirioron 8y agoWikipedia did this on one vote of article 11 & 13.
- raverbashing 8y agoYes, hence why the current text has an exception for them (They should still campaign against it though) Except for art 11. Art 11 is shooting news orgs themselves in the foot, as evidenced by previous experiences in Spain and Germany.
- vesinisa 8y agoBut Wikipedia is not even covered by the exceptions. They would have to fill all of the following criteria to not need apply upload filters: 1. Available to the public for less than 3 years, 2. Annual turnover below €10 million, and 3. Fewer than 5 million unique monthly visitors. They fail 1 & 3 for certain. Possibly 2 as well (e.g. in 2017 WMF paid $33 million in staff salaries alone.)
- raverbashing 8y agoNo, read the actual text, there's an explicit exception for online encyclopedias and other non-profit websites
- pexaizix 8y agoEU busybodies are unaccountable, unelected and practically live in another dimension. There's no way something like the SOPA protests could work here.
- c3o 8y agoIn fact, they already did: The ACTA protests.
- rmoriz 8y agoTrue. But mostly due to anti-americanism. I was strongly against ACTA because it was kind of a black box, I supported one of the biggest events in Germany against it. But I had hopes that we could change the way such big contracts are getting designed and agreed upon. How naively I was...
- isostatic 8y agoMEPs are elected. They are accountable via votes every 5 years.