It passed
It passed⌠the vote to pass this to the next stage and enter negotiations with the Council.
1 Like
You suspect or you suggest?
One question is âwhy memeâs?â
And why is funding going into this?
Chinaâs internet censorship has a meme problem
There is also Fair Use
All these are important aspects IMHO. I am sure one trojan noticed that Troy got along just fine without a wooden horse.
1 Like
I have to disagree with that as i said in my older post. The council amendments do virtually nothing in practice. They just make it sound better but the end result would be the same.
Also if being vocal and using the EU´s procedures to amend a problematic law is detrimental then i do not know what to say.
It is the basic typical procedure as defined by EU laws. If that is the wrong way to go then there is no democracy left in the EU.
It depends if you want copyright or not. The opposition is taking more of an anti-copyright stance which good or bad doesnât fit well with 99% of everyone else.
Iâm not saying that at all, my first post in this thread I said you should contact your representative about this if you want to and let your voice be heard, its a core part of the EU and part of the process for legislation.
My objection isnât that people are being vocal, its that the ones telling people to be vocal donât appear to be giving everyone all the facts, they are treating it as black and white, this law cannot exist at all in any form or the internet will die in a fire. When this just isnât necessarily true.
They were making it look like if this passed this vote that that was it, there wasnât anything that could be done (saying they can stop it again after it did pass of course). They left out all the opposition amendments to this, they left out that the process is far from over initially. They are attempting to push the narrative that its an all or nothing end of the internet law which is far from the truth.
People complain about RMSâ made up phrases for things and donât bat an eye to it going on in other things like this. It can be off putting, and weâre talking about a law that may have a wide ranging affect to the enforcement of digital copyright, yet the campaign (if you can call it that) is all out Orwellian conspiracy themed. Iâm not convinced that theyâve handled it well so far.
In addition to the links i have above that list the various back and fourth and documents up to the point of this vote here. Here is a link to the legislative observatory which will keep track of exactly where in the process this is, and related documentes etc.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2016/0280(COD)#tab-0
We are here
There is a fair number of steps to go, including a number of steps where this proposal can be amended, either changing bad parts of the proposed legislation, or removing bad parts of the legislation if they are well argued.
Keep in mind the commission have to convince both the council and parliament.
I do not see why you are saying this. Reda and everyone else campaigning make it perfectly clear that the process is in an early stage with various steps to go. That is why it is now the best point to be vocal about it and make meaningful amendments instead of ending 2 years in the future just trying to vote against badly made law, canceling it and not progressing at all.
This declaration was literally on Reda´s first post. Why wait for years to end up with just a void disapproval of a law as a whole on the parliament and not make it good now. The savetheinternet campaign has a fully summary of the procedure. The EDRi as well.
Anti- or for- copyright there are specific reasons that the opposition is describing on why creativity and innovation is not served (which is the actual motive behind copyright), how it can be easily exploited from less honest actors, why it creates ethical issues on the aspect of civil liberties (with the excess monitoring) and why for some points it is not even practically enforceable. It does not reject the law as a whole. Everyone knows that the copyright law in the EU needs to be changed cause it is archaic. What is being criticized are these two specific articles that create those issues.
Thanks for this info, even with these changes itâs still terrible. Seems like there was some social exploration and technical testing with the cookie policy stuff (similar to how 1E+100 been information gathering on the back of their machinations) now we see the what the main course is going to be like (ditto).
Lets all opt out instead http://pirateswithoutborders.com/#letter1
Janice Atkinson silenced during a debate.
Interview with Janice Atkinson
I recommend fast forwarding the parts where Alex is talking. Atkinson is amazing. Winston Churchill is looking down with envy.
The law has a new nickname âThirteen Elevenâ
One thing to watch for is what happens when the bureaucracy gets hold of whatever passes. They make the regulations.
https://www.mrllp.com/blog-Statutes-Regulation-and-Bureaucratic-Decrees
Problem with that view is that Copyright is not optional under international law, its enforced through a series of trade agreements, these go so far as to define what is protected under Patent and Copyright law, and the duration of such protection, therefore to change this it is required to not just change ones domestic laws but to also withdraw from these international treaties.
I am not sure that it is possible in the case of an EU member state to remain a memebr and not abide by some the EU versions of such treaties, certainly it would be problematic to the idea of a common customs zone with no border checks and controls if one country had no patent protections, say czech, and anyone could open a factory in Czech and make âpirateâ versions of Toyotas and VWs and export them into Germany and France.
- Copyright terms must extend at least 50 years, unless based on the life of the author. (Art. 12 and 14)[5]
- Copyright must be granted automatically, and not based upon any âformality,â such as registrations, as specified in the Berne Convention. (Art. 9)
- Computer programs must be regarded as âliterary worksâ under copyright law and receive the same terms of protection.
- National exceptions to copyright (such as âfair useâ in the United States) are constrained by the Berne three-step test_
- Exceptions to exclusive rights must be limited, provided that a normal exploitation of the work (Art. 13) and normal exploitation of the patent (Art 30) is not in conflict.
And there is enormous economic incentive for countries like america to enforce this international âintelectual propertyâ framework, as entire industries in the US from the Film Industry, software, pharma and to a lesser degree industries like auto subside on their large portfolio of patent and copyright protections to keep competitors out and maintain supernormal profits, particularly at the expense of developing countries whom do not own a portfolio of patents like rounded corners on rectangular phones (that was worth a few billion to apple).
Iâve bookmarked the video to watch later. Iâm not going to hold my breath that Iâll agree with you. Akinson is my MEP and has said and done alot in the past that would suggest her flirtations with the far right should be viewed as a cause for concern. She was even kicked out of UKIP for bringing the party into disrepute (expenses fraud within her team). The last time I watched her speak she just seemed like a lady on a rant and certainly not of the same calibre as many other UK public speakers - let alone Churchill.
âŚBut we do like sending people to the European Parliment who will cause mischief 
EDIT; I watched the speech where she gets cut off. My opinions of her have not changed. As she wasnât debating the topic of this thread Iâm going to leave it at that else weâll risk derailing this thread.
1 Like
From the Uncle Dane discord channel:
Monkey (Ryan): Hey @everyone !
I feel this is extremely important for people living in the EU, like myself!
On 20 June, the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) voted for the Article 13 Censorship Machine. But the battle has just begun: it must now be won in the European Parliament plenary. Contact your MEPs now! Tell them you need them to protect your Internet against surveillance and censorship machines!
The European Commission and the Council want to destroy the Internet as we know it and allow big companies to control what we see and do online. Should Article 13 of the Copyright Directive proposal be adopted, it will impose widespread censorship of all the content you share online. The European Parliament is the only one that can step in and Save your Internet.
Imagine Uncle Dane without TF2 Content?
Imagine Twitch without any gameplay?
Imagine DeviantArt without any fanart?
Imagine SoundCloud without any remixes?
Learn more and contact your local MEPs NOW!
Thanks guys!
penor84
107
WrenchGolden77
đŞ71
Wrenched67
MissThinking63
WrenchAussie66
penor84
WrenchSkin68
2âŁ64
SentryLevel3
6667
đ°71
Tpose73
8âŁ69
DED_THE_BUSTER71
uncleVape67
1âŁ64
ResidentSleeper65
ResidentSleeper71
ResidentSleeper70
Those emotes are going up fast.
2 Likes
Frankly, I think itâd be funny to watch them pass this and try to enforce it.
Itâs the same concept as driving on the California freeways: The sign says 65, but if everyone does 85, they canât pull us all over.
2 Likes
no but they can pull over a few (even just flashing your lights works most of the time) and everyone will be doing the speed limit
Not saying i hope it happens but if they go heavy handed enough with this then it will have a chilling effect on the population
Fair point. The chilling effect is what we really need to worry about, but Iâd like to remind everyone that the citizens of the EU voted these MEPs in, so they are literally getting what they asked for.
I have trouble finding sympathy for people upset by authoritarian actions whey they vote people with those views into power.
Most of the time they become authoritarian after they get elected. Nobody wants someone in power who wants to rule over you instead of with you.
Im gonna leave it at that. dont wanna derail the thread
1 Like
THF the parties that actually support this you would pretty much expect to do things like that. Voting for neo-liberal parties in the parliament get you exactly this. It is not a matter of sympathy but such things do not really come out of the blue and you should not be surprised if you are an European voter.
The only parties that are not clear on their stance are ironically the right wing eurosceptic parties that have a populist rhetoric but when the time comes for an actual vote the tend to support big business interest. Most of them actually supported this law or deliberately keep an unclear stance to vote for whatever suits them in the end depending on popular views.
The elections are once every 5 years. Have you seen how many times a politician can flip-flop in a single week
In the UK the turnout for the euro elections is low, people think it does not matter, we also generally ignore EU laws until tabloid spins it into a disaster story e.g. no more bent bananas*. This allows more complex stuff like the topic of this thread to largely go unnoticed.
*you can also see where this lethargy and terrible reporting leads 