4 ms·

This isn't a fight between elites and the proles - most people who are framing the result today as such have not read the text of article 11 and 13. And I don't

by ABCLAW 8y ago

This isn't a fight between elites and the proles - most people who are framing the result today as such have not read the text of article 11 and 13. And I don't blame them, most articles on the matter conspicuously refuse to link the text, for some reason. This is a fight between titans of industry in two different verticals. Content is upset that publishing is getting all of the money - and a brief examination of the valuations in those respective industries shows they're probably right on that front. Is this the optimal tool to right those scales? Probably not, but it certainly isn't constructed to kick Grandma's bakery and blogroll website off the internet at the behest of Big Bread. To the extent that Articles 11 and 13 have problems (and they do) they should be addressed, but the fearmongering makes it very difficult to actually talk about those issues and their context properly.

Semaphor 8y ago
> most articles on the matter conspicuously refuse to link the text, for some reason. Julia Reda (German MEP for the Pirate Party) had most of the up to date info for the whole fiasco since it started. And she also provided new versions of the texts whenever they became available.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  Yes, her work is commendable in bringing information to the public. I don't quite agree with her tone or conclusions in this matter, but I'm glad there are solid IP-centric advocates like her as MEPs. Unfortunately, a ton of articles basically copy her opinions or findings without the source material, so they get distorted.
pera 8y ago
They reworded Article 11 and 13 (now 15 and 17) so many times that I wouldn't be surprised if "most people" haven't read the final text... In my opinion the original version with the amendments was simply insane; the work of technologically illiterate lawmakers in conjunction with copyright lobbyists. The final version makes an awkward attempt to fix some of the criticism by simply making things more vague, so each member state can decide how draconian they want to go with its enforcement. Calling the political discourse that opposes these articles "fearmongering" is disingenuous.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  >Calling the political discourse that opposes these articles "fearmongering" is disingenuous. I don't have an issue with political discourse that opposes these articles, given that I criticize them in almost every post I've written in this thread. I've criticized fearmongering, because it has immediate unwarranted deleterious effects on the European tech scene. Fearmongering is also very lucrative and sensational press material, so there's a need to speak out against it: it comprises the overwhelming majority of reporting on the issue.

by ABCLAW 8y ago

Semaphor 8y ago

> most articles on the matter conspicuously refuse to link the text, for some reason. Julia Reda (German MEP for the Pirate Party) had most of the up to date info for the whole fiasco since it started. And she also provided new versions of the texts whenever they became available.

ABCLAW 8y ago
Yes, her work is commendable in bringing information to the public. I don't quite agree with her tone or conclusions in this matter, but I'm glad there are solid IP-centric advocates like her as MEPs. Unfortunately, a ton of articles basically copy her opinions or findings without the source material, so they get distorted.

pera 8y ago

They reworded Article 11 and 13 (now 15 and 17) so many times that I wouldn't be surprised if "most people" haven't read the final text... In my opinion the original version with the amendments was simply insane; the work of technologically illiterate lawmakers in conjunction with copyright lobbyists. The final version makes an awkward attempt to fix some of the criticism by simply making things more vague, so each member state can decide how draconian they want to go with its enforcement. Calling the political discourse that opposes these articles "fearmongering" is disingenuous.

ABCLAW 8y ago
>Calling the political discourse that opposes these articles "fearmongering" is disingenuous. I don't have an issue with political discourse that opposes these articles, given that I criticize them in almost every post I've written in this thread. I've criticized fearmongering, because it has immediate unwarranted deleterious effects on the European tech scene. Fearmongering is also very lucrative and sensational press material, so there's a need to speak out against it: it comprises the overwhelming majority of reporting on the issue.