Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

permanentrepresentations.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#141

Post by isostatic »

makomk wrote: post #110
Mirioron wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, and that's bad. How is that bad? It's possible to change the law afterwards. With the EU it's basically impossible. Swedes would have to lobby politicians from a foreign country that they can't vote for nor can they speak the same language. That's terrible. > Copyright is clearly is one of those things that needs to be tackled at a level of government higher than the local town council, especially if you have…

To drive home just how bad this is in the EU, a few days ago the European Commission posted this astounding blog post on Article 13: http://archive.is/snRgE They pretend that they're helping ordinary citizens fight back against the big internet platforms by creating this law that only big platforms stand a chance of complying with. That they're helping tip the balance in favour of creators by forcing platforms to kil…

> They're also the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws

Same as the UK. While in theory backbenchers can propose new laws, in reality Christopher Chope exists.

> and there's essentially nothing we, as ordinary citizens, can do to replace the current members with people who might actually care about our interests

The commission president stood as the candidate for the largest grouping in 2014. Personally I'd have preferred it if ALDE and Guy Verhofstadt had received the most support, but EPP did, and our MEPs duely voted Juncker in. Just like the UK MPs voted in May as PM, or the U.S. electoral college voted in Trump. That's pretty transparent.

The rest of the commissioners are appointed in the exact same way that the U.S. executive is appointed - on the whim of the President. The difference is that the U.S. president gets to choose from an unlimited pool, but the EU president has to choose from a pool appointed by national PMs.

MEPs can block those appointments, just like the U.S. senate can block appointments.

Parliament can also kick out the commission, that's no more or less democratic than the UK system where MPs can kick out the government.

If we don't like the commission, then we as ordinary citizens, need to vote for someone other than the EPP, or persuade our MEPs to censure them.

Even Nigel Farage said "One of the few things the European Parliament can do is to hold the European Commission to account for its actions".

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#142

Post by yeahforsureman »

jaabe wrote: post #122
yeahforsureman wrote: post #17

What the hell, where's Sweden and Denmark? Or the much-hyped E-stonia? (Not that it would've made a difference.)

Why would we be against it? I know it’s an unpopular opinion on HN, but I don’t have a problem with Facebook and Google being made liable for the content on their platforms. Here is why: if you produce content, like music, you can put it on YouTube and YouTube will pay you for the views. They’ll only pay you for the content in your channels though, while themselves earning money from both the legal and illegal copies…

tl;dr Never let your pets bet!

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#143

Post by [deleted] »

jaabe wrote: post #122
yeahforsureman wrote: post #17

What the hell, where's Sweden and Denmark? Or the much-hyped E-stonia? (Not that it would've made a difference.)

Why would we be against it? I know it’s an unpopular opinion on HN, but I don’t have a problem with Facebook and Google being made liable for the content on their platforms. Here is why: if you produce content, like music, you can put it on YouTube and YouTube will pay you for the views. They’ll only pay you for the content in your channels though, while themselves earning money from both the legal and illegal copies…

[deleted]

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#144

Post by DelightOne »

vanderZwan wrote: post #125
DelightOne wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google News meets EU criteria, then why did they leave Spain after Spain introduced ancillary copyright? So goods and services are not handled the same? Or is the idea wrong?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know all the fine details. I merely dated a woman for four years who had a master degree in EU studies and picked up a lot of things about the general process. Those are fine questions, but you'll have to do your own research to answer them I'm afraid.

I understand. Will do. :-)

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#145

Post by icebraining »

jaabe wrote: post #122
yeahforsureman wrote: post #17

What the hell, where's Sweden and Denmark? Or the much-hyped E-stonia? (Not that it would've made a difference.)

Why would we be against it? I know it’s an unpopular opinion on HN, but I don’t have a problem with Facebook and Google being made liable for the content on their platforms. Here is why: if you produce content, like music, you can put it on YouTube and YouTube will pay you for the views. They’ll only pay you for the content in your channels though, while themselves earning money from both the legal and illegal copies…

Thinking this law only affects Google and Facebook is the problem.

Google and Facebook can afford to build those content recognition systems and pay those royalties. Can your local non-profit photo sharing community? Can a new video hosting service that makes less money because it doesn't surveil its users?

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#146

Post by isostatic »

ameister14 wrote: post #74
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proportional representation. The MEPs don't represent the entire country, they represent the specific people who voted for them. The fundamental principle of who people represent under PR is very different from FPTP. Under FTPT, the people living in a certain area vote for a "winner", who then represents the entire area. If 51% of the people vote for candidate A, and 49% vote for candidate B, then the wishes of 49% o…

So I vote for a party in the EU as a whole, and if enough people in my country or other countries do too, some candidate from some country gets elected?

You vote for MEPs (I believe all EU constituencies are multi-member constituencies)

Those MEPs are usually members of national parties, and members of groups of parties (and "eu party"). The latter would include EPP (conservatives), S&D (socialists), ALDE (liberals), ECR (eurosceptic conservatives), Greens, etc.

(My descriptions are probably a bit simplistic)

The makeup of the groups-of-parties at each election is shown at this picture

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/86b6bea58...

The 750 MEPs in parliament then vote in the Commissioner. As no group of parties has an absolute majority, it requires pan-ideology agreement. The rule is that the commissioner candidate of the largest group gets the first shot, and the MEPs approve or reject him. In 2014 the EPP were the largest group, with 217 MEPs. S&D were next with 189.

As such the EPP candidate - Jean-Claude Juncker (who was elected at an EPP conference in March 2014) - was the first in line. The EU Council (heads of state of the 28 countries) asked the leaders of the various EU parties if he'd do, and the EPP and S&D agreed. The EU Council then voted 26-2 to approve him and pass him, and his policies, to the MEPs to be approved.

It's typical coalition building. Most proponents of FPTP don't like this sort of compromise (I.e. Juncker's policies had to not only satisfy the 29% of MEPs in his "party", but enough of the rest to maintain approval), but it's not an aberation.

Then the MEPs looked at his policies, debated, then voted for or against him, and with 422 of 750 votes, he was approved.

It might seem a little alien to those who are used to a FPTP system, or to a directly elected executive, but it's quite similar to the way the UK 2010-2015 government was formed.

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#147

Post by NeedMoreTea »

mstade wrote: post #139
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be figuring us out quite well. Most of the inter regional loathing is a sort of benign, almost friendly loathing, until you look south or north(depending on starting point)... North-south divide is a little more real, if you see what I mean. Well, England unites for soccer, Scotland, with their own footie team, hopes for England to go out on penalties, as always. :) For things where there's a British rath…

Hah, yes. Wales too I suppose. I wonder – do people from Northern Ireland root for Ireland or England? I'm only half referring to soccer with that question. ;o)

Yeah, let's not open that can of worms. It's tricky. :p

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#148

Post by porpoisely »

TACIXAT wrote: post #130
porpoisely wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about the California of the LA Riots? The california of constant race riots in high schools? A california with the largest white supremacist population, the largest ethnic mexican gangs, largest asian-ethnic gangs, largest black ethnic gangs, etc? A california of ethnic neighborhoods and segregation? https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rothstein-segreg... Not that we are any better on the east…

Not a racial paradise, but a relatively young place where there is less adherence to that stuff. LA riots were a long time ago. Largest white supremacist population? So what's that mean, a few thousand? My high school had what was labeled as a race riot by some media. [1 for a link to the event] On the other hand, looking past a shitty week, that high school was incredibly diverse, and I'm thankful I got to hang out…

What you are describing are diverse cities, not california as a whole. NY is even more diverse than than california if you just pick a diverse city and extrapolate that to the entire state.

If you want global, it doesn't get any more global than NYC. Not sure why you are pretending california or LA is special. The only thing california has going for it is great weather and constant flow of chinese money and a tech bubble propping it up. The east coast has pockets of diverse cities and suburbs as well. No different than california.

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#149

Post by avar »

raxxorrax wrote: post #128
avar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not at all what's happening. Structurally, those big countries can easily get outvoted, and to change EU law it needs to be proposed by the commission, which is voted in by the council, where all member states have an equal vote. It then needs to be passed by the parliament, where votes are proportional to population. There Germany and France have the most members, but just over 1/5 of the overall membership.…

The problem I have is that within these big countries, the policy doesn't have a majority. For me, that questions the democratic legitimacy for the european legislative process. Because it can evidently be abused to push through "unpopular" laws that only serve special interests.

A majority of what? A poll among the general population? support of local parliamentarians in those countries?

In either case, that doesn't per-se call the democratic legitimacy into question. The entire point of a representative democracy is that you elect competent people to make decisions for you, which by definition means that a lot of the time they'll decide to do X even though Y would be the outcome if the issue were to be put to a popular vote.

Re: Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

#150

Post by makomk »

isostatic wrote: post #141
makomk wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To drive home just how bad this is in the EU, a few days ago the European Commission posted this astounding blog post on Article 13: http://archive.is/snRgE They pretend that they're helping ordinary citizens fight back against the big internet platforms by creating this law that only big platforms stand a chance of complying with. That they're helping tip the balance in favour of creators by forcing platforms to kil…

> They're also the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws Same as the UK. While in theory backbenchers can propose new laws, in reality Christopher Chope exists. > and there's essentially nothing we, as ordinary citizens, can do to replace the current members with people who might actually care about our interests The commission president stood as the candidate for the largest grouping in 2014. Person…

No, it really isn't the same as the UK. For a start, the ability for backbenchers to propose laws isn't merely theoretical - they actually do it, and occasionally some of them become laws. This isn't possible even in theory in the EU. Also, our ministers are all elected politicians who can be voted out, and they have to defend their proposed laws on the record in the Commons just like the lowliest backbencher.

> The commission president stood as the candidate for the largest grouping in 2014. Personally I'd have preferred it if ALDE and Guy Verhofstadt had received the most support, but EPP did, and our MEPs duely voted Juncker in. Just like the UK MPs voted in May as PM, or the U.S. electoral college voted in Trump. That's pretty transparent.

The largest grouping in 2014, the EPP, had a mere 29% of the seats. The US electoral college can only select a president if a majority of the electors support him, and the same is more or less true of UK prime ministers. Also, MEPs aren't elected based on which candidate they support or even which political grouping they're a member of: they're elected based on which local political party they're part of. This all makes the selection process pretty arbitrary in practice, with the main thing influencing it being how exactly the actual political parties have allied themselves into factions this time around.

Post reply on HN