The Man Behind the EU's Copyright Law is 'Surprised' By What's in the Proposal (qz.com) 117
Hours after the European Union Parliament voted to approve new controversial copyright laws that will transform how people in Europe and beyond use and profit from the internet, the man behind the legislation, Axel Voss, says he is unaware of what exactly he voted for. From a report: Emanuel Karlsten, a reporter for Sweden's Breakit news site, spoke with Voss, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and the EU's copyright rapporteur, after the vote. Karlsten asked about a last-minute amendment that will bar the filming of sports events. The MEP replied in a recorded conversation, "This was kind of mistake I think by the JURI committee. Someone amended this. No one had been aware of this." European Parliament press officer John Schranz at that point broke in to explain that he was aware of the provision in question, calling it "amendment 76." Schranz said that the amendment doesn't bar individuals from filming sporting events. Rather, "the main target" is online betting companies enticing viewers to their sites with video that they have no right to film. He objected to the fact that the "Greens and others" interpret the provision as having a much wider application.
But the MEP Voss admitted, "I didn't know that this was in the proposal so far, so of course I have to deal with it now. I do not consider that the commission and council will have this inside the proposal." Voss added that "because of the time pressure" and general focus on other, more notable aspects of the law, it's possible that the measure was insufficiently scrutinized.
But the MEP Voss admitted, "I didn't know that this was in the proposal so far, so of course I have to deal with it now. I do not consider that the commission and council will have this inside the proposal." Voss added that "because of the time pressure" and general focus on other, more notable aspects of the law, it's possible that the measure was insufficiently scrutinized.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the parliament members need a blockchained amendment display showing all changes to the last minute
Uhm, no.
It is typical for programmers and engineers to think of technical solutions to all problems.
"When all you have is a hammer..." and all that.
The solution is to make it illegal to make last minute changes to legal texts.
If you found issues and want to retract it so that it can be modified then it is all fine. Improvements should be welcome.
If you on the other hand tries to push it through quickly make sure that people who have been elected to represent the people don't have the time to read through it
Re: (Score:2)
hmm....now where have I heard that before....?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to pass it to see what is in it.
Not true (Score:2, Insightful)
That's simply not true. Stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
That's simply not true. Stop lying.
Under the new regulations posting a meme(i.e. transformative work), is considered "criminal infringement."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with the "destruction of the free Internet"?
Well how is the internet free, when you're sanction for having wrong-think opinions, and using images to create memes. I'll be clear, this entire thing stretches far beyond memes. Read the entirety of the text itself, it's been linked several times. It's like the STASI magically came back from the dead, giggled happily and started singing hymns to the USSR.
Re:Sloppy job is OK (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that (for the sake of argument let' say a "significant part" of) the members of the parliament/senate/population/... reads and understands the legislation they vote on, you are delusional. That's true for EU, USA or any other large body claiming to be a modern democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think t[...] the members of the parliament/senate/population/... reads and understands the legislation they vote on, you are delusional. That's true for EU, USA or any other large body claiming to be a modern democracy.
That's one of the best arguments against both governments containing legislatures and those conducting popular referenda that I have ever seen.
The Anarchist Anti-defamation League, monarchists, theocrats, and dictators of the world all take a break from fighting each other send their t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, one is a subset of the other.
Saying that USA isn't a democracy is like saying -1 isn't a number.
However, there is a specific party in the US that has pushed the whole "is a republic, not a democracy" to make extra stupid people vote for them.
Re: (Score:2)
The meaning of democracy has changed in the last few centuries to mean representative democracy usually and, yes the USA is a representative democracy where you vote for Representatives, Senators and members of the electoral collage.
Now an true example of a Democratic Republic is N. Korea, where there is one man with the one vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To quote myself,
Note the use of the word "usually". I call my country a democracy even though referendums are rare though it is more accurate to call it a representative constitutional parliamentary democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of words are used for multiple meanings and lots of words change meanings over the years. Check out the entomology of "nice", https://www.etymonline.com/sea... [etymonline.com] and gay no longer means a female prostitute or even happy.
Many Western nations are actually Democratic Monarchies. Republic, Head of State is a President or such. Monarchy, head of State is a King or such is how I was taught in school. Here the Queen (actually her Representative) is basically a rubber stamp though in theory she has a lot of powe
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "direct democracy".
And the other thing is "representative democracy".
But both are still "democracy".
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sloppy job is OK (Score:4, Informative)
Legislators rarely write legislation anymore, instead they get pre-approved proposal legislation directly from lobbyists.
It's amazingly unlikely that the MEPs felt that there was a problem on the internet that needed these particular "fixes" on their own. Occam's Razor says it's more likely that the big content and IP owners wanted a change and started handing out money.
Re: (Score:2)
I've listened to commentary of the people who were in the chamber when it was accepted, and apparently the pressure on the MPs was utterly insane. Mass media outlets all but openely threatened to skewer those who were expected to vote for it and would vote against in the upcoming elections.
Re: (Score:3)
I've listened to commentary of the people who were in the chamber when it was accepted, and apparently the pressure on the MPs was utterly insane. Mass media outlets all but openely threatened to skewer those who were expected to vote for it and would vote against in the upcoming elections.
Any particularly enlightening source you'd like to share?
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for once again showing the world what a pile of steaming bovine excrement legislators around the world really are.
FTFY. If you think that there is any legislative assembly in the entire world where everyone actually reads the things they vote on then I have a government to sell you.
Order 66 (Score:3)
"I didn't know about Order 66 when I voted for it!"
Re:Order 66 (Score:5, Funny)
"I thought I was just going to get some fries, not extermination of the Jedi order! Who even has that on the menu!"
Re: (Score:1)
"You have to vote for it to see what's in it." --Rat-faced politicians
A different view (Score:2, Insightful)
I voted âremainâ(TM) in the Brexit referendum. I emailed MEPs about this proposal, and how harmful it could be. The only reply I received was from Farageâ(TM)s office: they said they would vote against. Nobody else apparently cared.
Perhaps I need to re-think my position.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A different view (Score:4, Informative)
Even the UK government has attempted to modernise copyright law to an extent, to make it somewhat more realistic and proportionate in light of modern technology. For example, in 2014 a private copying exception was introduced that legalised actions like format-shifting where someone had a legally obtained, permanent copy of a work and the copy was only made for their own private use.
The EU, in contrast, has been very consistently pro-big-copyright for a long time. When that UK private copying exception was struck down by a High Court judge in 2015, it was largely on the basis of failure to comply with EU law requiring fair compensation to rightsholders should a member state introduce such an exception without also demonstrating that any harm was minimal.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking into that particular matter and it seams that the High Court judge actually decided to not make a reference to CJEU since the High Court ruled that "the exception had been introduced unlawfully". https://www.twobirds.com/en/ne... [twobirds.com].
However regardless of if this particular law was shut down due to EU or not there is nothing that guarantees that such an exception would be possible after a full Brexit. Or that the copyright holders does not lobby full time against the British Government as well.
My stanc
Re: (Score:2)
But the reasoning behind that ruling (the whole de minimis thing) derived from EU rules, which said that any exception to be introduced by a national government should be balanced by compensation to rightsholders unless it was shown that no significant harm was done. The government at the time did take that position, but because they didn't actually have hard data to support it, their opinion wasn't considered sufficient by the court, and they decided not to challenge the result.
In other words, Big Media ma
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the law was just a language Axel (Score:2)
just didn't speak.
I understand that some "politicians" are not very smart. It's not like there were open public discussions of the implications of law for months on many different web sites /s.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians probably aren't spending most of their reading time on websites, but rather going through thick reports, proposals, notes from committee meetings on a subject, etc. Reading material of which there is a *LOT*. In that situation it's easy to overlook some important detail(s), or misunderstand the implications of some of what's on the table.
That said, it's a poor excuse imho. If you don't understand what you're voting for, then vote against, abstain, or decide with your colleagues you need more
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that mostly an American thing?
interpret the provision (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One way to fix the problem is to make it a policy that all bills have to be read out loud in the assembly before they are voted on. It would not only remove the excuse that they didn't know what was in the bill but it may also make the bills significantly less wordy. 8^)
Insufficiently scrutinized? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is he fucking serious?
This is a world class governing body passing laws that affect people literally all over the globe... and their excuse was "we didn't have time to sufficiently scrutinize these before voting for them."?
This is... fucking insane to be light about it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Just what I was thinking (but without the **). Brexit is looking better and better.
Re:Insufficiently scrutinized? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is he fucking serious? This is a world class governing body passing laws that affect people literally all over the globe... and their excuse was "we didn't have time to sufficiently scrutinize these before voting for them."? This is... fucking insane to be light about it.
Isn't this standard practice for governing bodies? Rand Paul in the US recently complained about a 700 page spending bill, complained that neither he nor his colleagues were given time to read it. I've heard the same from the UK parliament.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, this is how modern governments works. Lobbyists say use this, do that, and let me give you the quick summary so you don't have to read all the crap. Then critters vote on what they think something is and/or based on previous agreements to scratch each other's backs. It's how most societies work so you shouldn't be surprised when officials do it too. When was the last time you fully read an agreement you signed or fully researched an article before commenting on it? When I bought my house, they sc
Re: Insufficiently scrutinized? (Score:1)
You do realize you dont have to sign the electronic pad right? If you ask them, most medical offices have no problem handing you the paper form to read and sign. My wife works in a medical office with these signature pads and its never a problem saying no and getting a paper form. Ive never had any problem saying no at any of my doctors either.
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky you. I went to cancel a bank account (that I had from at a previous bank before a merger), and the system wouldn't even print the cancelation contract before I signed the pad. Sometimes it's not that the office won't show you the contract, it's that the software itself doesn't even consider it a possibility.
It is a USA practice, mainly (Score:2)
To have pages stuffed into legislation minutes before a deadline to pass it.
In civilized countries like Australia, UK, legislation is first "tabled" then often goes to committee for review, and finally debated an voted on. There is a process.
The EU, however, appears to be crazy. We saw that with the software copyright saga.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in "civilized" countries, they can push through a 500+ page omnibus bill by invoking closure while the opposition is still reading the final bill.
Re:Insufficiently scrutinized? (Score:4, Informative)
They didn't pass a law, they passed an amendment to proposal.
This is a very long way from the end of the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they're clearly showing their level of competency towards this process.
Re: (Score:3)
AmiMoJo was correct. This was a significant step in the European Parliament, but that does not in itself result in a new law being enacted. The next stage is a "trilogue" between the three main branches of the EU administration, the Parliament, Council and Commission.
The problem is partly that the Council and Commission are much less democratic than the Parliament and have form for pushing heavily pro-big-copyright agendas, but the good news is that there will still be at least one further chance for the Pa
Re: (Score:2)
Err....really?
I don't see how this will effect myself or anyone else in the US....or any other country outside the EU...?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is he fucking serious?
He's a legislator. They are widely known around the world to not read what they are voting on, not pay attention, and in some governments not even be in the parliamentary chambers to discuss legislation.
Pick any legislation more than about 5 pages and you'll find a news article somewhere interviewing some senator or other legislator who doesn't understand the text even though they voted on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe and Beyond? (Score:2)
voted to approve new controversial copyright laws that will transform how people in Europe and beyond use and profit from the internet,
"and beyond" can safely be stricken from the article. How the European nations hobble their Internet access will likely not change how everyone outside the EU will use and profit from the Internet.
I know that here in the U.S. I won't and don't give even a rat's ass about "obeying" EU laws.
Re: Europe and Beyond? (Score:3)
"How the European nations hobble their Internet access will likely not change how everyone outside the EU will use and profit from the Internet."
Oh it affects me. That stupid cookie bullshit is maddening, especially on mobile sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"We have to pass the bill so you can see ... (Score:1)
Reminds me of another poorly-thought-out piece of legislation: "we have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it." And the PATRIOT Act before that, although that was more of a "please don't read the bill we just passed or you'll be outraged at the shit we just pulled on you."
This is why the EU is useless & dangerous (Score:4, Informative)
Basically the people running things are professional busybodies and buttinskies.
They basically rubberstamp everything that comes through.
None of them actually read what they're pushing. They have aides do that and tell them yes/no. And all the aides are essentially "bought".
And the people actually making the decisions are unelected by the people and completely unaccoutable to ANYONE.
So these people are primarily there because they LIKE dicking around in other people's lives...oh and the big paycheck...
Re: (Score:2)
Snip
And the people actually making the decisions are unelected by the people and completely unaccoutable to ANYONE.
Except that's not the case. Every MEP (Member of the European Parliament) is elected by the citizens of their home country; just like the members of any national parliament. MEPs are up for reelection in 2019 so if the people don't like how their MEP voted on this (or any other) issue they can vote him/her out of office and put another candidate in their place; just like any national parliament.
The "How The EU Works" video you linked to (in this and other threads) is just a propaganda piece from UKIP; a gro
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody please vote down this collection of unfounded flamebait.
Re: (Score:1)
Because governments like the UK and US are at least (on some levels) elected by, and accountable to the people.
If your MEPs or these various committee chairs are malfeasant, there's exactly FUCK-ALL you can do about it. You have ZERO redress.
https://youtu.be/RbUGej05bLA [youtu.be]
Watch this video. It basically explains the structure of the EU baldly enough.
How the EU works. (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/RbUGej05bLA [youtu.be]
Give it a watch.
Just saying...for now. (Score:2)
We don't need no stinking First Amendment! The people and their vote will keep those in power from slowly twisting censorship to their benefit!
Controlling the flow of information (Score:4, Insightful)
People who have a lot of power, people who own newspapers, politicians who rely on those people and other people at that level, are quite concerned about the Internet. The Internet is designed to facilitate the free flow of information. That means "curated" information, packaged with approved, "correct" messages (designed to make people more pliant and easier to govern) is harder to project onto the masses.
Expect this sort of thing to continue. "Mistakes" that continuously occur in favor of the "curators" of correct thought are not mistakes. This is a constant, continuous push, and will never end until the Internet is fully curated as well.
Re: (Score:2)
People who have a lot of power, people who own newspapers, politicians who rely on those people and other people at that level, are quite concerned about the Internet. The Internet is designed to facilitate the free flow of information. That means "curated" information, packaged with approved, "correct" messages (designed to make people more pliant and easier to govern) is harder to project onto the masses.
Ahh, yes. And that's why they don't want Google to grab their curated information and give it away for free without doing anything themselves. I can see why you think that is evil - by why doesn't the formerly not evil company collect the "free" information themselves and just gives it to the public? I mean those evil newspapers can do it without relying on other evil newspapers, why can't Google?