EU votes on Article 13 today or tomorrow
 

Article 13 will create new filters for EU internet

https://creativecommons.org/2019/03/...yright-filters

https://saveyourinternet.eu

It's more than just Article 13 (maybe it got renamed to Article 17 on Friday) that is getting decided upon. It will be the whole EUCD...

And Article 11 will require that each outgoing link be paid for.

And Article 12a will ban posting photos or video clips from sporting events, perhaps other events too.

The politicians in favor of the EUCD have, from what I read, been parroting flat out lies spread by a few lobbyists. I wish it were that they were few in number but it will be a close vote, at best.

Sincere thanks for clarifying.

Lessig routinely implies that the more extreme copyright gets, the fewer people will support copyright at all-- and that he thinks that's a shame. He is convinced (and having read a few books of his, I can understand) that copyright is a good thing-- but not if it continues to be so extreme.

If this passes, it's not only going to hurt freedom and business in the EU. It's going to make Europeans hate and disrespect copyright more than ever. I support reform, I can't say I will blame them if the government is stupid enough to actually pass this. But I'm sure Lessig is right.

The live stream might be available here at 11:30 UTC

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/home.html

Citizens and SMEs lost, 384 to 274.

Some real problems for SMEs are in the works. I suppose we'll now find out who the 384 (348 + 36) were. It's now bad, the fight shifts to determining just how bad it will get.

Edit: there is a small, hypothetical chance to fix things, but it would require a first of a kind event in EU history:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/e...t-vote-we.html

Is this the forum where I can point out that this does a lot to justify Brexit?

I thought the EU was a good idea. I think this proves it isn't. No no no, it's not a critique of the idea itself, it's a critique of the idea as it is playing out in real life. They've created a union of European nations that is under a Corporate/Soviet-like regime for information. Maybe forget the EU altogether.

But I have no horse in that race, it's idle curiosity.

This is a tragedy, good luck everybody. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/0...ontroversy-any

The EFF has a good follow-up summarizing the dire situation and the farces which enabled it:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/0...t-happens-next

I thought the same thing when I read about it. FWIW I'm close to the fence in that argument, but remain on the leave side because the EU seems to me too willing to make wide-ranging decisions on things that could easily and peacefully be decided at a national or local level, and not obviously democratic when it does. This decision is starting to look like an example of that.

I think it's important for the world to send a very clear message to the EU, and particularly Germany and France-- about the consequences of doing this to its citizens. We can't rely on our governments to create sanctions against them, though as citizens of the world we can place our own sanctions against the media companies and against these governments. The ECJ will have to approve this, while the effect of the copyright directive on journalism should still run afoul of Title II Article 11:

The second point is dramatically curbed by the copyright directive.

I'm already cutting European purchases out of my shopping as much as possible. This doesn't include Iceland, Norway or Switzerland, who (among others) are not members. Switzerland maintains more autonomy, but it is compromised to some degree by being one of the largest traders with the EU and being subject to various agreements.

I normally buy things from France, the UK, Portugal and Greece. I lived for a time in the UK, and I have spent Euros in the Republic of Ireland.

The EU, as well as China and Russia, have declared war on the internet-- a global network for communication between the citizens of the world. In my opinion, economic sanctions are a reasonable response. I'm very open to ideas that are more practical or likely to succeed in a favourable outcome, but this seems like an obvious place to start-- the more that people participate, the stronger the message to the EU and the ECJ will be.

Those sanctions can and ideally should also be against the media multinationals themselves, who lobbied for this. You don't have to wait for your country to participate-- you can do it yourself, whenever you want. As for partial boycotts, it would be more effective to have millions participating as much as they are able, than to have thousands participating fully in some kind of contest for who boycotts the closest to 100%.

sigh.

the people criticizing this law are very probably right to do so, but this statement is simply false.

what was falsely dubbed "link tax" applies to quoted content ("snippets"), not the link itself.
maybe some electronically clueless lobbyists think they can save the news industry with that.

Because that is what the EU was designed to do. Merge the continent into one Socialist/Fascist state with one government, one currency and eventually one language. Over time the countries (states) will continue to lose their identity until they are all the same, then non-existent. Italy will become south coast European Union, France west coast European Union, Germany central European Union, etc...

Similar thing was done in the USA around 100 years ago, it was started before that. States lost their independence/rights to an ever growing national/federal government that renders the nations capital supreme ruler and the state governments almost useless/meaningless.

I find the "fight" for individuality of nations to be silly and inefficient. Here in the US, for example, we rejected the far superior metric system for an arcane system based on the length of some ancient king's thumb joint. One language? That will take even longer but it would certainly improve communication and I can't see how that would be a bad thing especially when the EU and elsewhere (excepting the US) has shown learning multiple languages is not a problem. So why not have one international language? It isn't 1870 anymore. As for government there will never not be a need for local administration so what's the big deal?

Article 13 is about money and maneuvering for economic monopoly, pure and simple. Nobody will benefit but the eventual dominating few.

Freedom from the tyranny of mob rule. Freedom to choose how to live, for each nation, state, city, town etc... Using your above statement, why have nations at all, perhaps all nations should be dissolved in favor of a global government of which all humans are members? Now imagine in that scenario tyranny of the mob and tyranny of the mind assuredly taking over, what then would people do if they wanted to escape that tyranny, where would they go? Also, Natural Laws demonstrate that smaller is better, anything too big will eventually fail, whether its populations, economies, species, etc... So the larger the government, the faster it will fail, do we want that as well?

PS: sound principles have no time stamp or expiration date. Principles of SunTzu as an example are just as applicable today as they were then, Jefferson's beliefs are also just as valid today as then, perhaps even more so.

Indeed, the freedom that can only be gained from moving jurisdiction disappears when everything is under the same jurisdiction.

Fewer jurisdictions = fewer freedoms and less diversity of culture. It's a horrible idea, that the world is foolishly cheering on as it tramples earth.

The operating system equivalent is "make everything Windows."

People, we of all should know better!

Regarding so-called "World Government" we have had such ever since the League of Nations simply because that was when the world began to act globally due to technology that vastly increased transportation and communication speed. That has only increased. Just as most people living in northern regions don't dress exactly like those in tropical regions or vice-versa for the obvious reasons it is never going to happen that government can ever be some cookie cutter duplication everywhere for what should be obvious reasons. It is a non sequitur to say that A) Global homogeneity is anything bigger, or that B) anything about it naturally implies early failure.

Comparing a world with homogeneous basic standards like language and measurements (not even necessarily including which side of the road we are supposed to drive on) to Windows is laughably absurd, since Windows is by design a closed, proprietary system. No world government is likely to evolve without agreement between it's parts which implies some system of voting and who would vote to be enslaved in a system with no redress or recourse?

The fundamental forces that led to the creation of the EU are real and valuable. It may well have been implemented with some serious flaws, most likely is, but the forces will still be there whether it continues as it is, evolves, or is scrapped. One of the reasons such flaws get into the charter is exactly this unreasoning fear that makes people assume it changes anything but how people cooperate and do commerce by making it easier and more responsive. It is the constant battle between keeping things exactly as they are and progress. Hey if you prefer living in a Yurt, hopefully you live in a system that allows you to build whatever sort of home you prefer as long as it doesn't endanger your neighbors. If zoning prevents you from such choices in the city, it is highly likely in some rural environment that is still possible and I don't imagine in my wildest nightmares that is ever going to change unless we never colonize other planets and continue to grow in population until all the earth is paved over and subdivided. The first may be quite possible but the second is ridiculous.