SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
On Friday, the EU Commission published a piece on Medium that suggested that Google has taken over the minds of millions of citizens, rendering them incapable of thinking for themselves in their opposition of Article 13. The piece was later deleted with a note implying that people simply aren't capable of understanding the subtle nuances of the English language.
Last week the European Parliament and European Council agreed on the final text of the EU Copyright Directive.
Supporters of Article 13 say this will lead to a better deal for the entertainment industries at the expense of Google's YouTube, since it will have to obtain proper licenses for content uploaded to platform, while taking responsibility for infringing uploads.
Opponents, on the other hand, believe that the Article 13 proposals will be bad news for the Internet as a whole, since they have the potential to stifle free speech and expression, at the very least.
It's important to note that Article 13 opponents come in all shapes and sizes, some more militant than others. However, last Friday the EU Commission took the 'one size fits all approach' by labeling every dissenting voice as being part of a "mob", one groomed, misinformed and misled by Google. [...]>
I'm not sure who in the world [h]as the expectation that lawmakers be clear and unambiguous in all their communications. But even putting that aside, it might be fun to have a quick game of logical fallacy spotting on both sides of this spat. Alas one might start with some anti-EU-commission bias, thinking that they don't understand how the internet works, as they appear to think that you can "delete" things that have appeared on the internet. Aww, how cute! -- Ed.(FP)
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 22 2019, @06:50PM (3 children)
To eliminate copyright, patents, and trademarks BUT NOT TRADE SECRETS one must Amend Constitutions.
"Constitutions" plural.
Good luck with that copyright, patents and trademarks which are mandated by repressive regimes.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday February 22 2019, @07:21PM (2 children)
Not necessarily. In the U.S. for example, the Constitution AUTHORIZES IP laws, but it does not MANDATE them.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 23 2019, @11:59AM (1 child)
-ion?
That Britain has Habeas Corpus is due to its King having been pressured to sign some manner of document that more-or-less began the Habeas Corpus legal tradition roughly nine-hundred years ago, but it's name escapes me just now.
Canada has its Charter Of Rights And Freedoms.
_Neither_ has an actual _Constitution_.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 24 2019, @08:03PM
It's a side effect of the way the respective governments evolved.
The UK evolved from a monarchy (and the monarchy still exists today) which was sharply limited by the Magna Carta. So in that sense, the modern government in the UK is rooted in a belief in divine right. Canada was a colony of England, and so shares that to this day as a commonwealth nation (as does Australia)
Since the U.S. was explicitly rejecting the monarchy in any form, a constitution was needed as a root agreement to create a legitimate government. However, in the years since, rampant violations of the Constitution (some technical, others practical) place the govbernment on shaky grounds as far as legitimacy goes and effectively re-invoke (effectively if not literally) a belief in divine right.
I'll leave comparisons between 'divine right', prosperity gospel, and watery tarts throwing swords (and their legitimacy) as an exercise for the reader.