Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

 
This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (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.