Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by FatPhil on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the copycat-copyright dept.

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.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Protesters Will March Against the European Copyright Directive on the 23rd, Ahead of Final Vote 24 comments

The European Copyright Directive: What Is It, and Why Has It Drawn More Controversy Than Any Other Directive In EU History?

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.


Original Submission

Poland Challenges EU Copyright Directive 19 comments

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


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:17AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:17AM (#817712)

    Squaw fetchum wood.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:34AM (3 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:34AM (#817728) Homepage Journal

      She hasn't been in politics long enough for that. She's going to need more bribe money to get the guys liquored up if she wants any wood.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 4, Touché) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:26AM (2 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:26AM (#817755) Journal

        She's been in politics a long time and because the DNC is a Hollywood subsidiary, she will of course be toeing the party line.

        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday March 21 2019, @07:25AM (1 child)

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday March 21 2019, @07:25AM (#817805) Journal

          The Democrats have a long history of being in bed with Hollywood. And Hollywood thinks copyright is not extreme enough. They really would like to have the death penalty imposed for piracy. This plank in favor of extreme copyright is one of if not my top complaint about the Democratic Party.

          If this report is true, it's sad to hear that Warren is under their thumb. I tend to believe it. Oh well, there are lots of other politicians vying for the Democratic nomination.

          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday March 21 2019, @10:19AM

            by Gaaark (41) on Thursday March 21 2019, @10:19AM (#817849) Journal

            Yes....I thought she might be one of the better politicians.

            But I'm Canadian, so haven't followed her much.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:31AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:31AM (#817726)

    A normal candidate has a huge fundraising problem. This is solved by making deals with various entities that do not want to put America first: foreign nations (China, Israel, Ukraine...), individual corporations (Disney, Apple, Amazon...), industry groups (NAR, RIAA, US CoC...), clubs with membership (Sierra Club, Brady United, Greenpeace...), unions (AFL-CIO, NEA, UFT...), and so on.

    Candidates that don't pander to these entities are quickly eliminated. For example, in the 2016 election, very briefly Scott Walker was a presidential candidate. He didn't get the cash, so he dropped out.

    Nothing ensures that a candidate with $billions will be any good, but one without $billions is certain to be lousy at best. Without those $billions, the candidate is a puppet with strings being pulled by financial supporters.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:38AM (6 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:38AM (#817731) Journal

      Candidates that don't pander to these entities are quickly eliminated.

      They're only cut off from the funding trough. You can still vote for them. If enough people do, even without the money, and contrary to popular belief, they still win the seat.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:01AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:01AM (#817739)

        If enough people do, even without the money, and contrary to popular belief, they still win the seat.

        All it takes is some russian hackers to steal the election from each and every one of these candidates, even when it is their turn to win.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:10AM (1 child)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:10AM (#817745) Journal

          Your Russian bullshit is getting mighty tiresome. The "hackers" will be domestic in origin. The republican/democrats have much more interest in stealing the election than the Russians. It only means that the opposition needs to win by a huge margin so fraud will be easy to prove.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:07PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:07PM (#817898)

            Moderation: -1 Whooosh

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:27AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:27AM (#817756) Journal

          +1 Sarcastic

          (I hope at least)

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:04AM (1 child)

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:04AM (#817779) Homepage Journal

          Don't worry, our Elections will never be hacked again. I'm moving very strongly against the Election Hackers. My D.A.R. P.A. is building a VERY SPECIAL Voting Machine. They're building it like the F-35. The hackers can be standing right next to our Voting Machine and won't be able to see it. So they won't be able to hack it. It's known as stealth. Something that China or Russia would love to have. They don't have it. And it's a very long time before they can get it. Winning!

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:15PM

            by Bot (3902) on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:15PM (#817899) Journal

            Good idea actually. The boxen being stealthy, you won't even be able to read the made in China plaque on the side, which is a bonus.

            --
            Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by ilPapa on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:34AM (2 children)

      by ilPapa (2366) on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:34AM (#817762) Journal

      For example, in the 2016 election, very briefly Scott Walker was a presidential candidate.

      Scott Walker was one of the rare candidates that did pander to those interests, but still couldn't raise any money. It had something to do with the fact that he was unlikeable, not vary bright, and even the people of his own (swing) state couldn't really stand him. Most of the things he did hurt the citizens of his own state but he helped the Koch Brothers out a lot. Remember when someone called him pretending to be a Koch brother and he started slobbering on the guy's knob right over the phone?

      They finally sent him packing out of politics, but he is currently an energy industry lobbyist and has made a nice niche for himself in the conservative loser welfare state.

      --
      You are still welcome on my lawn.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:52AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @06:52AM (#817792)

        Scott Walker was also dead obvious when he did it. He said that he wanted to expand the Renewable Fuel Standard in Iowa and that the RFS should be eliminated in Texas; both occurred in public events, within a week of each other, and were widely reported. He then tried to cover for it by basically saying that you have to lie and bend the truth when campaigning for president.

        FWIW, Ted Cruz did the same thing at about the same time, but at least he managed to pull himself out of it by not being so obvious.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @11:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @11:16AM (#817859)

        you spelled vary correctly, but didn't use it very well.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @03:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @03:29AM (#818689)

      Without those $billions, the candidate is a puppet with strings being pulled by financial supporters.

      And yet, that's exactly what Trump is. He's super-serving the elites, and if he wasn't, he wouldn't be in favor of our 7+ interventions overseas, putting Goldman Sachs goons in his administration, conducting mass surveillance on the populace, and continuing business as usual in general. Sure, he occasionally claims to oppose wars and takes populist positions, but he almost immediately backpedals. So, Trump is a fake populist, and the answer to fake right-wing populism is real populism from the left.

      I mean, it makes sense. Why the hell would a billionaire - someone who indisputably benefited immensely from the status quo - want to fundamentally change the system? The only candidates who even have a chance of trying to seriously change the system are those who refuse to accept corporate money and who also don't engage in bundling. Sanders has led the way in this regard, with the sheer number of small dollar donations he has received. Thus, until we get money entirely out of politics and have public financing of elections, we need to insist that candidates only accept donations from ordinary people.

      And as for corrupt Democrats who do accept corporate money, they should be primaried out of office by better candidates who actually want to help the people, as is the goal of organizations like Justice Democrats.

      The situation is not hopeless; you're just not paying attention.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:34AM (#817729)

    Hollywood is the government's primary propaganda machine. And the democrats, well! Serious back scratching goes without saying Of course they need protection.

    It's as if the democrats want Trump to win again. We could prevent that by voting the GOP/DNC out!

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:56AM

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:56AM (#817737) Homepage Journal

    Folks, 405,000 brave Americans died to save us from European rule. Now Liz from Massachusetts, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, wants to put us under European law. Very foolish. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on media. We must take care of our own. We must have universal media -- universal studios. We’re going to have media for everybody. Everybody's got to be covered. I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. The Democrats are pushing for European-style universal media while thousands of people are marching in the E.U. because their universal system is not working. Dems want to put in Burdensome regulations for really bad media. No thanks!

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:41AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:41AM (#817769)

    OK, what fucking propaganda shop has put this shit up on the front page of a formerly respectable news aggregation site? Is SoylentNews controlled by the RNC, or it's master, Sean Hannity of Frox Newbs? Or is it the fucking Ghost of thankfully dead Andrew Brietbart? Perhaps Vladimir thinks that stupid partisan submissions like this will aid in the destruction of American Post-war hegemony. And to think, we could have had a nice Aristarchus submission, where at least we would know what we were getting, and who was giving it to us, even though it is severly slanted to values of truth, justice, equality, and the American way. #DevinNunesCow!!! #FreeAristarchus!!!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:49AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @05:49AM (#817775)

    But the devil is in the details, as always.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:52PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:52PM (#817892)

      The stated goal (protect content creaters) could be nobel if you ignore the idea that copyright is a deal between producers and consumers.

      But the actual goal (protect big content providers but ignore the little ones and especially the deal) is not anywhere close to nobel.

      The irony is that the Internet is a whole new game which makes it possible for the little creater to make a living.
      As a Democrat, Ms. Warren should be all over this.
      But the established movie and recording industries don't want to have to adapt to a better world.
      So she seems to be off in a hole.

      Copyright reform needs to address fair use in the age of the Internet (a few notes does not make a song), accountability for false takedowns (can you say takedown timeout?), and the regulatory capture of the Congress (Mickey Mouse copyright extensions).
      Hopefully her plan will make some progress in some of these areas and not make things worse.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @07:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @07:27PM (#818533)

        Actually I meant the goal to kill go-ogle and failbook.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Thursday March 21 2019, @07:16AM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday March 21 2019, @07:16AM (#817800) Journal

    Article 12 makes clear that the copyright reform is not really meant to support the creators. Article 12 states that the publishers shall get part of the money that currently goes to the creators.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:08PM (4 children)

    by VLM (445) on Thursday March 21 2019, @12:08PM (#817882)

    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.

    Generally you can search a politicians name on "Times of Israel" journalism site, and they'll let you know if a candidate prioritized Israeli / Jewish interests above their own country. The Times of Israel strongly indicates she's an "Israel-firster" and represents Jewish causes over her own constituents.

    I'm not anti-semitic so I'd never disagree with such a fine journalistic outlet. Still, my experience is those people hate the USA and especially hate white people, so if the enemy of your people loves a candidate, they're generally not any good.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:46PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @01:46PM (#817918)

      Israeli != Jewish

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @02:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @02:47PM (#817962)

        But stupid == VLM

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @10:14PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @10:14PM (#818192)

      I'm not anti-semitic

      hahahaha tell us another one!!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @01:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22 2019, @01:58AM (#818260)

        It was precisely:

        I'm not anti-semitic, so . . .

        Which is only a varient of:

        I'm not anti-semitic, but . . .

        Which everyone knows is just a more specific rendering of:

        I'm not a racist, but . . .

        Which when translated, means:

        I'm a racist

        Well done, VLM. Some of us already knew!

  • (Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Thursday March 21 2019, @03:23PM (1 child)

    by Tokolosh (585) on Thursday March 21 2019, @03:23PM (#817984)

    Disney's handling of the Star Wars franchise is powerful reason for the elimination of copyright.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2019, @06:19PM (#819102)

      combined with both DC and Marvel franchises being endlessly rehashed should be the nails in the coffin :)

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:43PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @04:43PM (#818030)

    On the one hand, we have a sitting senator with a strong history of supporting citizens over corporations. On the other hand we have a site that needs clicks inferring what her policy might be based on a single sentence.

    If only it was easy to figure out where to put my trust.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @09:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @09:47PM (#818180)

      A strong history of THAT indeed. Stop pretending.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @03:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2019, @03:08AM (#818684)

      Meh, the fact that she's using propaganda terms [gnu.org] like "content creators" - especially in this context - is already concerning, regardless of the specific flavor of draconian copyright laws she would support. I'll believe she's against draconian copyright laws when she explicitly comes out and takes action against them.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @10:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21 2019, @10:21PM (#818195)

    Warren is not the worst Democrat candidate but she seems like yet another standard politician. I could be wrong, but I'll be voting for Sanders since he has a good record of standing up for the people. We don't have to switch to making every business worker-owned, but we do need Universal Healthcare and better support for continuing education.

(1)