from the a-program-to-push-buttons-randomly-is-a-lot-cheaper dept.
The government of Poland has filed a complaint with the European Court of Justice against coypright rules adopted in April.
"This system may result in adopting regulations that are analogous to preventive censorship, which is forbidden not only in the Polish constitution but also in the EU treaties," Deputy Foreign Minister Konrad Szymanski told public broadcaster TVP Info.
Notably, Poland opposed the measure, and did so
despite the national newspapers running blank front pages the day before the key vote, with op-eds threatening retaliation against Polish politicians who crossed them.
The directive passed by five votes, but possibly it shouldn't have included the two most controversial provisions.
In the EU, if a Member of the Parliament presses the wrong button on a vote, they can have the record amended to show what their true intention was, but the vote is binding.
Today, the European Parliament voted to pass the whole Copyright Directive without a debate on Articles 11 and 13 by a margin of five votes.
But actually, a group of Swedish MEPs have revealed that they pressed the wrong button, and have asked to have the record corrected. They have issued a statement saying they'd intended to open a debate on amendments to the Directive so they could help vote down Articles 11 and 13.
Previous coverage
Europe's Controversial Overhaul of Online Copyright Receives Final Approval
EU Copyright Directive Vote Set for Tuesday
It Sure Sounds Like Elizabeth Warren Wants To Bring The EU Copyright Directive Stateside
Tens of thousands rally across Europe protesting EU Copyright 'Reform'
Protesters Will March Against the European Copyright Directive on the 23rd, Ahead of Final Vote
Related Stories
During the week of March 25, the European Parliament will hold the final vote on the Copyright Directive, the first update to EU copyright rules since 2001; normally this would be a technical affair watched only by a handful of copyright wonks and industry figures, but the Directive has become the most controversial issue in EU history, literally, with the petition opposing it attracting more signatures than any other petition in change.org's history.
[...] And on March 23, people from across Europe are marching against the Copyright Directive.
Last week we wrote a critical analysis of Elizabeth Warren's big plan to break up "big tech." As we noted, there was a lot in the plan that was nonsensical, unsupported by the facts or just plain confused. We'll be talking more about some of these ideas a lot over the next few years I imagine (stay tuned), but there was one line in Warren's plan that deserved a separate post: it appears that a part of Warren's big attack on big tech... is to give a massive handout to Hollywood. Here's the line:
We must help America's content creators — from local newspapers and national magazines to comedians and musicians — keep more of the value their content generates, rather than seeing it scooped up by companies like Google and Facebook.
That may sound rather basic and lacking any details, but what's notable about it is that the language reflects -- almost exactly -- the language used in the EU in support of the absolute worst parts of the EU Copyright Directive (specifically, Article 11 and Article 13). For example, this Q & A page by the Legislative Affairs Committee of the EU Parliament uses quite similar language:
The draft directive intends to oblige giant internet platforms and news aggregators (like YouTube or GoogleNews) to pay content creators (artists/musicians/actors and news houses and their journalists) what they truly owe them;
Why, that sounds quite familiar. Indeed, Warren's announcement even uses "keep more of the value their content generates," which appears to be a reference to the completely made up notion of a "value gap" between what internet platforms make and what they should be paying artists.
The EU votes on a confusing new copyright law Tuesday
On Tuesday, the European Parliament will vote on an overhaul of the EU's copyright system. The body will vote on a compromise announced last month that has received the backing of key European governments. An earlier version of the proposal was approved by the European Parliament last September.
The legislation is controversial, with two provisions receiving the bulk of the criticism. Article 11 aims to help news organizations collect more licensing fees from news aggregators like Facebook and Google News. Article 13 aims to help copyright holders to collect licensing fees from user-generated content platforms like YouTube and Facebook.
Both provisions are maddeningly vague—laying out broad goals without providing much detail about how those goals can be achieved. This is partly because the EU's lawmaking system occurs in two stages. First, EU-wide institutions pass a broad directive indicating how the law should be changed. Then each of the EU's member nations translates the directive into specific laws. This process leaves EU-wide legislators significant latitude to declare general policy goals and leave the details to individual countries.
Still, if the legislation's goals are incoherent or contradictory, then something is going to have to give. And critics warn that the package could wind up damaging the Internet's openness by forcing the adoption of upload filters and new limits on linking to news stories.
See also: Tomorrow's copyright vote explained (Julia Reda)
Europe's Controversial Overhaul of Online Copyright Receives Final Approval:
Articles 11 and 13 both approved by European politicians.
The European Union has given its final approval to the Copyright Directive, a controversial package of legislation designed to update copyright law in Europe for the online age.
Members of the European Parliament voted 348 in favor of the law, 274 against.
For advocates of the legislation, the directive will balance the playing field between US tech giants and European content creators, giving copyright holders more power over how big internet platforms distribute their content. But critics say the law is vague and poorly thought-out, and will restrict how content is shared online, stifling free speech in the process.
Politicians have been debating the legislation for more than two years now, with fierce lobbying from both tech giants and copyright holders pushing the argument back and forth. Despite some setbacks, though, the most controversial clauses of the Copyright Directive have remained intact, and were approved today with only minor changes.
Julia Reda, an MEP from Germany's Pirate Party, said the passing of the law marked "a dark day for internet freedom."
What changes, if any, will this cause where you work?
Previously: EU Copyright Directive Vote Set for Tuesday
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @10:56AM (7 children)
'..But actually, a group of Swedish MEPs have revealed that they pressed the wrong button, and have asked to have the record corrected.
And how much do these Clowns get paid to perform at this poor fucking excuse for a circus?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @11:22AM (2 children)
As a matter of parliamentary procedure, it would be interesting to understand how this happened.
No and Yes are pretty distinct options.
The folks pushing the bill could have arranged the vote so no means yes and then told their supporters to beware.
Then a few misvotes by the uninformed might push it over.
The idea that you can vote one way and have it reported another is a great tool of removing accountability.
If that is actually permitted, it seems a sign as to how far this body has gone to the dark side.
I'm hoping to see Google timeout for the EU and a big stink and then some accountability.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @11:43AM
The English language works in very roundabout ways sometimes. Ask an inexperienced speaker:
"Do you mind if I close the window?"
And he might answer:
"Yes, go ahead.", not minding at all.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by choose another one on Tuesday May 28 2019, @05:37PM
It happened because the order (and numbers) of stuff they were voting on was changed at last minute and not everyone was properly briefed on the change.
Well, that is the cock-up version, the conspiracy version is beautifully illustrated by this image:
https://i0.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/JUNCKER-MEME-copy.png?w=540&ssl=1 [wp.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @12:05PM (2 children)
Ten orders of magnitude more than their shrunken little brains deserve.
Hello from Poland, where I pay exactly zero attention to local political clowns, while the Orange Master of Ceremonies and Chimp in Chief presides over the civilized world. Not that I pay attention to rotten bastards, anyway.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @01:00PM (1 child)
Happy to see that the media have trained you to pay so much attention to our president, but perhaps you should live boldly and pay attention to whether your elected politicians are acting in your interest. The media may call you a populist, nationalist or even a nazi then, but it will be for your own good and you have a chance of influence there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @01:55PM
Oh, was kidding. Don't pay attention to the orange one except some tonight shows for the kicks. If you paid real attention to that fucker, you'd just waste life.
(Score: 2) by Pax on Tuesday May 28 2019, @04:44PM
"And how much do these Clowns get paid to perform at this poor fucking excuse for a circus?"
ABOUT £120,000 PER YEAR
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday May 28 2019, @11:43AM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @12:08PM (4 children)
So the root password either is “yes”, or it is “no”?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @01:08PM (3 children)
hunter2
(Score: 3, Funny) by janrinok on Tuesday May 28 2019, @02:22PM (2 children)
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday May 28 2019, @02:29PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @10:33PM
For those who don't get the reference.
http://bash.org/?244321 [bash.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @01:49PM (1 child)
have fun
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @06:28PM
Smoke and mirrors are the main building blocks of any "democracy".
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @10:29PM (1 child)
Since early 2000s we had some like 4 parties at govt (maybe under a bit different names, but the same people and actions), and some more than once.
Usually the scheme is following:
1. Politicians vote for the law which violates privacy.
2. But look citizens, this is not our thing, it's a previous government's law! What? We voted for it... look here, a bird!
3. Repeat.
This way we got (chronologically):
1. A law denying creating own transmissions by unused "local" phone networks. It was shown by the propaganda as fight with phreakers. In fact it was a failed attempt to make monopoly for Internet access.
2. Phone billing retention virtually out of control.
3. One of the longest metadata storage times.
4. An "Anti-gambling law" giving government ability to block sites. Fortunately it's Poland, the "national firewall" is the main provider's DNS server.
5. An "Anti-terrorist" law giving government ability to do take down everything they think is a "terrorist content".
While still having anti-democratic laws for "offending religion-related feelings" and "defamation" which is used more in political fights than to fight fake libel, being a direct descent from times when we were deep in eastern block, only ported to a new "big brother".
The voting for Article 17 was near the "anti-terrorist" act, and most politicians who voted against copyright voted for "AT", as it was their goal.
Now, we have a voting for MEPs, so politicians needed to show a nice image for citizens. If it is needed to censor content, they use... yes, the "intellectual property" excuse too.
And don't trust media here. Any publishers, as they all are in pockets of conflicting parties. It is just too expensive to make an independent media to do it without sponsors.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:16PM
Have hope. They're trying to legislate against reality and it never works. Reality just won't obey human law.
I would say also that this is politicians who may very well know better taking the bribes of the rich idiots who refuse to accept reality. The politicians take the money and pass the laws that the idiots demanded, knowing full well that they are unenforceable, impractical, damaging, and in violation of a whole bunch of fundamental rights. They're counting on the courts to strike the laws down, or a veto (is there an EU president or other body who has veto power?), or a popular uprising, mass protests and that sort of thing. Or failing all that, they know the law just won't work.
Rather spare everyone the exercise in futility, but how?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 29 2019, @12:38PM
of course they don't want to pay for copyrighted material. they don't have the money. why do you think they call it "Po-land?"
Washington DC delenda est.