12 ms·

EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

137 points by 00__00 4y ago

41amxn41 4y ago
[flagged]
ta1243 4y ago
Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal voted for it. Maybe they should have voted against it in council.
- 00__00 4y ago
  Good point.
  - sam_lowry_ 4y ago
    The Counsel vote was from the executive branch, the country vote is from the legislative branch.
- nhchris 4y ago
  The countries, or their representatives in the EU parliament? Because local elections are separate from the EU ones, so it's entirely possible for their opinions on legislation to diverge.
  - nirimda 4y ago
    The directive was approved by the European parliament and the Council of the EU. The Council of the EU is made up of the governments of the member states of the EU. Therefore, when one says "Portugal voted for the directive", one means "the government of Portugal voted for the directive in the Council of the EU". This was the wrong thing for Portugal (or indeed, any government) to do because no government can guarantee their parliament will change the law in a particular way, and the parliament might indeed prefer to eject the government rather than change the law. In this case, it has bitten Portugal and not Germany, but in principle it could bite any of them. It's a very strange process. It seems like provision should be made for a national veto at the implementation stage, or the entire process should be conducted at the EU stage and directly applicable. But the requirement for a translation into national law without the possibility of rejection at that point seems deeply problematic.
    - ta1243 4y ago
      My understanding in the US is that the Executive can sign international treaties, and those are not subject ot veto by the Legislative > In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law. [0] An EU law is an international treaty. Can the Senate kick out the US president and refuse to agree to the treaty he signed? [0] https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm
      - sacrosancty 4y ago
        [dead]
    - prmoustache 4y ago
      The government of the member states is not the parliament of the member states. Also between the date something pass at EU level and during the delay to transfer directive governments changes, parliament electives can be reelected, etc.
      - toyg 4y ago
        That's the case for any international treaty - which is effectively what these laws are.
        prmoustache 4y ago
        Not all of them. Regulations and decisions yes, Directives no. This one is a directive. "Regulations and decisions become binding automatically throughout the EU on their date of application. However, they may require changes in national legislation, and may require implementation by national agencies or regulators." "Directives on the other hand, must be incorporated by EU countries into their national legislation. Each directive contains a deadline by which EU countries must incorporate its provisions into their national legislation and inform the Commission to that effect." source: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying... That doesn't mean they have the right to ignore the directive and not decide on a law but there is definitely more leeway.
- nirimda 4y ago
  There is a problem with any legislative process that begins with the executive obligating the country to adopt certain specific laws, and only then asks the legislature whether those certain specific laws should become the law of the land. I don't fully understand the logic of this kind of legislative process. If the EU can make it binding on member states to introduce a certain law, why not perform the entire process at an EU level? If there is some benefit to delegating the task, then why not include the possibility of a national veto at implementation stage, when the nation is more fully informed? It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism.
  - oblio 4y ago
    > It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism. Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty). That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration. The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I know of, that can't introduce new laws.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      The US is very economically integrated with China. But it is not socially or politically integrated with China. Same could be said with US/Mexico, China/Taiwan, etc. The European Project sees social and political integration as ends themselves. It uses economic advantages as a way to convince voters to adopt policies that aren’t economically required.
      - oblio 4y ago
        > The US is very economically integrated with China. No, it's not. It is slightly economically integrated, and mostly in terms of physical goods. Are American IP laws applicable in China and the other way around? For example when licensing a Disney movie in the US, can I distribute it in China? Do you get warranty in China for any good sold in the US and vice versa? Do both countries use, by law, the same systems of measurements? That's what deep economic integration looks like.
- durnygbur 4y ago
  I presume countries like Finland and Denmark somehow oppose these rules, while countries like Bulgaria and Poland don't know what they are doing and slacked on the topics in this particular domain.
  - lakomen 4y ago
    When I download from zippyshare I always pick Denmark as the VPN country. Seems like they have good copyright laws.
Mindwipe 4y ago
I mean, yes, that is what happens to Member States who don't bring in legislation relating to the EU competencies when passed. That's... y'know, the point.
- 00__00 4y ago
  The fuller process is described as: Under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), if the Member State concerned does not comply with the reasoned opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Additionally, under Article 260(3) TFEU, the Commission can call on the Court of Justice of the EU to impose financial sanctions on the Member States that failed to fulfil their obligation to notify measures transposing a legislative directive
- raverbashing 4y ago
  Pretty much this. And it's not the first time this happens. And it's usually not an issue of "we don't want to" (I don't remember if any country overwhelmingly voted against it) but more of legislative delays (kicking the can) and such.
Y_Y 4y ago
> Today, the European Commission decided to refer 11 Member States to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failing to notify the Commission of transposition measures under two Directives with respect to copyright. > The Commission decided to refer Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal to the Court of Justice of the EU following their failure to notify complete transposition measures on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (Directive (EU) 2019/790). > Secondly, with regard to a more specific EU Directive on copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions (EU Directive 2019/789), the Commission is referring Bulgaria, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal to the Court of Justice for not notifying complete transposition of EU rules to the Commission That didn't need to be a tweet of a screenshot of some text really, did it? Also I count six countries there, you can't double-count a country just because there are two charges.
- lock-the-spock 4y ago
  Indeed. And just to flag that this is not at all unusual, rather it is a regular process of EU law making - the European Commission monitors and ensures that the 27 Member States all implement the jointly agreed laws. Most cases never go to trial/penalty stage, rather the infringement process itself serves to resolve the issue. See here the 'infringement cases ' statistics. 874 such cases opened in 2021. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law/infringement-procedure/2021-annual-report-monitoring-application-eu-law_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
1023bytes 4y ago
So is it a good or a bad change?
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  In my lifetime, all copyright changes have either been term extensions or measures that effectively strengthened copyright protections like the DMCA. So if I had to guess...
- nirimda 4y ago
  Copyright law changes aren't good or bad; they serve certain people's interest and harm others'. Is it a good change or a bad change? That depends on what you want out of the law.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    The quantity of people on either side is extremely unbalanced. A select few win, most of humanity loses.
- DoItToMe81 4y ago
  The EU has effectively copied the DMCA, so no.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    No which? Not good, or not bad?
    - squarefoot 4y ago
      If it even remotely resembles the DMCA, then it can't be good.
    - btdmaster 4y ago
      https://archive.org/details/dmca_20221007 https://archive.org/details/dmca_20221007
  - 4y ago
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
Was the vote for this the regulation the one which some members "pressed the wrong button"?
- lakomen 4y ago
  Yes
snvzz 4y ago
The damn copyright cartel. They want their insane laws everywhere.
account42 4y ago
> They protect rightholders from different sectors At the expense of everyone else. > stimulating the creation and circulation of more high-value content Doubtful.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  "Rightsholders", "stakeholders"... I cringe every time I read those words. Euphemisms for monopolists lobbying and weaponising the state in the defense of their monopolies.
  - forevergreenyon 4y ago
    they're families, lineages, of people living off 'having power' (but really, authority and prestige) the time has come for them to remember what power is (without authority)
eggy 4y ago
I haven't actually read the rules themselves, but not the how. How do they do what is enumerated below from the Tweet?: "These two Directives aim to modernise copyright rules for consumers and creators to make the most of the digital world. They protect rightholders from different sectors, stimulating the creation and circulation of more high-value content. 2/3 #copyrightdirective #article15"
toyg 4y ago
To people getting their knickers in a twist: Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal, with all due respect, are hardly beacons of anti-copyright maximalism. Chances are that most of them simply couldn't be arsed to write the relevant laws, over a timespan that included such facetious events as a 2-year-long global pandemic. If I had to prioritize lawmaking, I would also put some copyright bullshit at the bottom of the pile. Now they got their ears pinched, so they'll come around doing it - or not, in which case they'll pay a fine.
- paol 4y ago
  In the case of Portugal I can confirm you are correct - the non-compliance is due to legislative incompetence, not dissent.
  - manicdee 4y ago
    Perhaps playing dumb is the favoured form of dissent.
- hungryforcodes 4y ago
  More countries leaving the EU? It's not supposed to be a hostile union is it?
  - iakov 4y ago
    You can’t be serious. After the clusterfuck of brexit other countries will be very, very careful even thinking about leaving. And if some country decides to leave the union it wont be over a inconsequential fine and lawsuit.
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      > the clusterfuck of brexit The “clusterfuck” was due to the EU becoming hostile and super forced in the media.
      - 4y ago
sharperguy 4y ago
Avoiding things like this is exactly the kind of good thing thah could've come out of Brexit, except that every concievable government that could be elected there is likely to be worse on these issues rather than better.
sputr 4y ago
For everyone cringing at these new rules - just imagine what they would have been without Julia Reda (singular Pirate MEP at the time) who fought this law with everything that she had. We mustn't forget the many NGOs, and the fact that the Greens supported her in the fight. But Reda was something special.
- inputError 4y ago
  just fyi their name is Felix Reda now
- durnygbur 4y ago
  Germans coming both with the disease and a pinch of a cure. What's the role of German publishers and media companies in lobbying for the new rules? Had their activists been so special, they'd keep their copyright lobbyists chained and gagged somewhere domestically.
- slim 4y ago
  FYI his name is Felix Reda now
  - sputr 4y ago
    Damn, you're right. Lost track after the EU elections, didn't know this happened. Well, my point still stands – damn fantastic MEP.
durnygbur 4y ago
Copyright reforms pushed by American and German copyright bullies, lobbyists, predators, and stalkers. The days of your entertainment and content will come to an end. Unfortunately the bullies will likely remain unpunished.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rasz 4y ago
>..Poland They are trying to take away "personal copying exemption" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Noncommercial_file_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Noncomm... http://www.prawoautorskie.pl/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobisty http://www.prawoautorskie.pl/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobist... https://www-prawoautorskie-pl.translate.goog/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobisty?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-prawoautorskie-pl.translate.goog/art-23-dozwolon... >Art. 23. Permitted personal use 1. Without the consent of the author, it is allowed to use the already disseminated work free of charge for personal use. This provision does not authorize building based on someone else's architectural and architectural and urban work, and to use electronic databases that meet the characteristics of a work, unless it concerns one's own scientific use not related to a commercial purpose. >2. The scope of own personal use includes the use of single copies of works by a group of people who are in a personal relationship, in particular kinship, affinity or social relationship.
dathinab 4y ago
Most times this kind of thing happens it is _not_ because the member states in questions want to "resist" the regulation or anything like that. Instead it most times because they just failed to write down and pass a law, e.g. because they forgot, had to handle a pandemic, infighting not specific to the law dragging law making speed down and many similar issues. One example I vaguely remember was when law makers wrote the country laws for some regulation they wanted to push _beyond_ what the regulation required in a bad way which lead to the law being prevented in one way or another again, and again, and again until the time period to put the regulation into local law was over... So assumptions about countries being against a regulation, or "that they then shouldn't have voted for it" or similar can not be done without looking into the specifics of the country and regulation in question.

137 points by 00__00 4y ago

41amxn41 4y ago

[flagged]

ta1243 4y ago

Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal voted for it. Maybe they should have voted against it in council.

00__00 4y ago
Good point.
- sam_lowry_ 4y ago
  The Counsel vote was from the executive branch, the country vote is from the legislative branch.
nhchris 4y ago
The countries, or their representatives in the EU parliament? Because local elections are separate from the EU ones, so it's entirely possible for their opinions on legislation to diverge.
- nirimda 4y ago
  The directive was approved by the European parliament and the Council of the EU. The Council of the EU is made up of the governments of the member states of the EU. Therefore, when one says "Portugal voted for the directive", one means "the government of Portugal voted for the directive in the Council of the EU". This was the wrong thing for Portugal (or indeed, any government) to do because no government can guarantee their parliament will change the law in a particular way, and the parliament might indeed prefer to eject the government rather than change the law. In this case, it has bitten Portugal and not Germany, but in principle it could bite any of them. It's a very strange process. It seems like provision should be made for a national veto at the implementation stage, or the entire process should be conducted at the EU stage and directly applicable. But the requirement for a translation into national law without the possibility of rejection at that point seems deeply problematic.
  - ta1243 4y ago
    My understanding in the US is that the Executive can sign international treaties, and those are not subject ot veto by the Legislative > In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law. [0] An EU law is an international treaty. Can the Senate kick out the US president and refuse to agree to the treaty he signed? [0] https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm
    - sacrosancty 4y ago
      [dead]
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    The government of the member states is not the parliament of the member states. Also between the date something pass at EU level and during the delay to transfer directive governments changes, parliament electives can be reelected, etc.
    - toyg 4y ago
      That's the case for any international treaty - which is effectively what these laws are.
      - prmoustache 4y ago
        Not all of them. Regulations and decisions yes, Directives no. This one is a directive. "Regulations and decisions become binding automatically throughout the EU on their date of application. However, they may require changes in national legislation, and may require implementation by national agencies or regulators." "Directives on the other hand, must be incorporated by EU countries into their national legislation. Each directive contains a deadline by which EU countries must incorporate its provisions into their national legislation and inform the Commission to that effect." source: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying... That doesn't mean they have the right to ignore the directive and not decide on a law but there is definitely more leeway.
nirimda 4y ago
There is a problem with any legislative process that begins with the executive obligating the country to adopt certain specific laws, and only then asks the legislature whether those certain specific laws should become the law of the land. I don't fully understand the logic of this kind of legislative process. If the EU can make it binding on member states to introduce a certain law, why not perform the entire process at an EU level? If there is some benefit to delegating the task, then why not include the possibility of a national veto at implementation stage, when the nation is more fully informed? It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism.
- oblio 4y ago
  > It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism. Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty). That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration. The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I know of, that can't introduce new laws.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    The US is very economically integrated with China. But it is not socially or politically integrated with China. Same could be said with US/Mexico, China/Taiwan, etc. The European Project sees social and political integration as ends themselves. It uses economic advantages as a way to convince voters to adopt policies that aren’t economically required.
    - oblio 4y ago
      > The US is very economically integrated with China. No, it's not. It is slightly economically integrated, and mostly in terms of physical goods. Are American IP laws applicable in China and the other way around? For example when licensing a Disney movie in the US, can I distribute it in China? Do you get warranty in China for any good sold in the US and vice versa? Do both countries use, by law, the same systems of measurements? That's what deep economic integration looks like.
durnygbur 4y ago
I presume countries like Finland and Denmark somehow oppose these rules, while countries like Bulgaria and Poland don't know what they are doing and slacked on the topics in this particular domain.
- lakomen 4y ago
  When I download from zippyshare I always pick Denmark as the VPN country. Seems like they have good copyright laws.

Mindwipe 4y ago

I mean, yes, that is what happens to Member States who don't bring in legislation relating to the EU competencies when passed. That's... y'know, the point.

00__00 4y ago
The fuller process is described as: Under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), if the Member State concerned does not comply with the reasoned opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Additionally, under Article 260(3) TFEU, the Commission can call on the Court of Justice of the EU to impose financial sanctions on the Member States that failed to fulfil their obligation to notify measures transposing a legislative directive
raverbashing 4y ago
Pretty much this. And it's not the first time this happens. And it's usually not an issue of "we don't want to" (I don't remember if any country overwhelmingly voted against it) but more of legislative delays (kicking the can) and such.

Y_Y 4y ago

> Today, the European Commission decided to refer 11 Member States to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failing to notify the Commission of transposition measures under two Directives with respect to copyright. > The Commission decided to refer Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal to the Court of Justice of the EU following their failure to notify complete transposition measures on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (Directive (EU) 2019/790). > Secondly, with regard to a more specific EU Directive on copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions (EU Directive 2019/789), the Commission is referring Bulgaria, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal to the Court of Justice for not notifying complete transposition of EU rules to the Commission That didn't need to be a tweet of a screenshot of some text really, did it? Also I count six countries there, you can't double-count a country just because there are two charges.

lock-the-spock 4y ago
Indeed. And just to flag that this is not at all unusual, rather it is a regular process of EU law making - the European Commission monitors and ensures that the 27 Member States all implement the jointly agreed laws. Most cases never go to trial/penalty stage, rather the infringement process itself serves to resolve the issue. See here the 'infringement cases ' statistics. 874 such cases opened in 2021. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law/infringement-procedure/2021-annual-report-monitoring-application-eu-law_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/applying...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

1023bytes 4y ago

So is it a good or a bad change?

AlexandrB 4y ago
In my lifetime, all copyright changes have either been term extensions or measures that effectively strengthened copyright protections like the DMCA. So if I had to guess...
nirimda 4y ago
Copyright law changes aren't good or bad; they serve certain people's interest and harm others'. Is it a good change or a bad change? That depends on what you want out of the law.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  The quantity of people on either side is extremely unbalanced. A select few win, most of humanity loses.
DoItToMe81 4y ago
The EU has effectively copied the DMCA, so no.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  No which? Not good, or not bad?
  - squarefoot 4y ago
    If it even remotely resembles the DMCA, then it can't be good.
  - btdmaster 4y ago
    https://archive.org/details/dmca_20221007 https://archive.org/details/dmca_20221007
- 4y ago

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago

Was the vote for this the regulation the one which some members "pressed the wrong button"?

lakomen 4y ago
Yes

snvzz 4y ago

The damn copyright cartel. They want their insane laws everywhere.

account42 4y ago

> They protect rightholders from different sectors At the expense of everyone else. > stimulating the creation and circulation of more high-value content Doubtful.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
"Rightsholders", "stakeholders"... I cringe every time I read those words. Euphemisms for monopolists lobbying and weaponising the state in the defense of their monopolies.
- forevergreenyon 4y ago
  they're families, lineages, of people living off 'having power' (but really, authority and prestige) the time has come for them to remember what power is (without authority)

eggy 4y ago

I haven't actually read the rules themselves, but not the how. How do they do what is enumerated below from the Tweet?: "These two Directives aim to modernise copyright rules for consumers and creators to make the most of the digital world. They protect rightholders from different sectors, stimulating the creation and circulation of more high-value content. 2/3 #copyrightdirective #article15"

toyg 4y ago

To people getting their knickers in a twist: Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal, with all due respect, are hardly beacons of anti-copyright maximalism. Chances are that most of them simply couldn't be arsed to write the relevant laws, over a timespan that included such facetious events as a 2-year-long global pandemic. If I had to prioritize lawmaking, I would also put some copyright bullshit at the bottom of the pile. Now they got their ears pinched, so they'll come around doing it - or not, in which case they'll pay a fine.

paol 4y ago
In the case of Portugal I can confirm you are correct - the non-compliance is due to legislative incompetence, not dissent.
- manicdee 4y ago
  Perhaps playing dumb is the favoured form of dissent.
hungryforcodes 4y ago
More countries leaving the EU? It's not supposed to be a hostile union is it?
- iakov 4y ago
  You can’t be serious. After the clusterfuck of brexit other countries will be very, very careful even thinking about leaving. And if some country decides to leave the union it wont be over a inconsequential fine and lawsuit.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    > the clusterfuck of brexit The “clusterfuck” was due to the EU becoming hostile and super forced in the media.
    - 4y ago

sharperguy 4y ago

Avoiding things like this is exactly the kind of good thing thah could've come out of Brexit, except that every concievable government that could be elected there is likely to be worse on these issues rather than better.

sputr 4y ago

For everyone cringing at these new rules - just imagine what they would have been without Julia Reda (singular Pirate MEP at the time) who fought this law with everything that she had. We mustn't forget the many NGOs, and the fact that the Greens supported her in the fight. But Reda was something special.

inputError 4y ago
just fyi their name is Felix Reda now
durnygbur 4y ago
Germans coming both with the disease and a pinch of a cure. What's the role of German publishers and media companies in lobbying for the new rules? Had their activists been so special, they'd keep their copyright lobbyists chained and gagged somewhere domestically.
slim 4y ago
FYI his name is Felix Reda now
- sputr 4y ago
  Damn, you're right. Lost track after the EU elections, didn't know this happened. Well, my point still stands – damn fantastic MEP.

durnygbur 4y ago

Copyright reforms pushed by American and German copyright bullies, lobbyists, predators, and stalkers. The days of your entertainment and content will come to an end. Unfortunately the bullies will likely remain unpunished.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rasz 4y ago

>..Poland They are trying to take away "personal copying exemption" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Noncommercial_file_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Noncomm... http://www.prawoautorskie.pl/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobisty http://www.prawoautorskie.pl/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobist... https://www-prawoautorskie-pl.translate.goog/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobisty?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-prawoautorskie-pl.translate.goog/art-23-dozwolon... >Art. 23. Permitted personal use 1. Without the consent of the author, it is allowed to use the already disseminated work free of charge for personal use. This provision does not authorize building based on someone else's architectural and architectural and urban work, and to use electronic databases that meet the characteristics of a work, unless it concerns one's own scientific use not related to a commercial purpose. >2. The scope of own personal use includes the use of single copies of works by a group of people who are in a personal relationship, in particular kinship, affinity or social relationship.

dathinab 4y ago

Most times this kind of thing happens it is _not_ because the member states in questions want to "resist" the regulation or anything like that. Instead it most times because they just failed to write down and pass a law, e.g. because they forgot, had to handle a pandemic, infighting not specific to the law dragging law making speed down and many similar issues. One example I vaguely remember was when law makers wrote the country laws for some regulation they wanted to push _beyond_ what the regulation required in a bad way which lead to the law being prevented in one way or another again, and again, and again until the time period to put the regulation into local law was over... So assumptions about countries being against a regulation, or "that they then shouldn't have voted for it" or similar can not be done without looking into the specifics of the country and regulation in question.