Who is John Galt? The man who decided to stop the engine of the world, and did. I think he's about to make an appearance.
EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
81–90 of 183 posts
Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
#82This is sad and disgusting, our speech is being limited completely unfairly and without our consent and we're being told that it's a good thing. The fact that they're trying to package it as some sort of well-deserved revenge against silicon valley big tech is just tasteless. The EU's big gripe against these companies is their tax situation, if they really wanted to change that then they'd be looking into a unified a…
> ...completely unfairly and without our consent and we're being told that it's a good thing. This is, more or less, the present and future of the EU on all matters. They are now trying to raise a supranational army (try to imagine what legitimate purpose that could have). They encourage member states to suppress political dissent, and wield power spitefully against those who oppose them (see all of the various cruel…
> see all of the various cruel and malicious acts and positions EU leaders take against Britain for deigning to resist the expansion of EU powers
I have yet to see even one example of that, given how many opt-outs the UK was granted and how much the UK actively encouraged the expansion of the EU.
Heck, the mere existence of Article 50 as an option puts it ahead of the behaviour of the federal government of the USA in the American Civil War.
It’s not the fault of Brussels or Berlin that the single largest party in Westminster:
* Invoked article 50, a 2-year process, a few months after it’s own Permanent Representative to the EU wrote that it would take ten years
* Followed this with a surprise general election, which unnecessarily lost them seats
* Set a bunch of “red lines” which were incompatible with their own goals
* Made no attempt to win over any skeptics in their own party, or in their opposition, after losing seats
* Spent 18 months trying to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, where the “Irish backstop” was their own solution to the RoI/NI border, because of their own red lines and the red lines of their supply and confidence partner, the DUP, who they only needed the support of because of losing seats in an election they didn’t need to call
* Chosen as Foreign Secretary a man who later said “fuck business” because they didn’t like his plan
* Were then surprised by the Westminster MPs, who had fairly consistently been ignored and lied to by the UK government, voting down the agreement by the largest margin on record
* Was unable to agree with itself if it did or didn’t need to plan for no deal because the conversations typically went “they need us more than we need them” “no” “that’s just project fear”
* Only seriously considered “no deal” in December 2018, describing it as “unforeseeable” despite having been warned of it for about two years continuously; and as a result contracted a ferry company with no money and no ferries who copied their terms and conditions from a fast food delivery company, to run services between a mothballed UK port that needed dredging and an already-at-capacity EU port
* Just had 3 (plus 8 opposition, total 11) MPs resign, including one Tory from a Tory safe seat, whose goal is now the destruction of the Tory party
What the EU has done is, apparently, start planning to send food parcels to the UK. The Express newspaper apparently calls that plan “blackmail”. I don’t even understand how anyone can say that without breaking into laughter.
Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
All we need now is an independent content id system that companies might use to check content against. Doing nothing will leave this to the wrong parties to implement and turn into a control point. IMHO a simple open platform could allow content creators to register their content. Anyone could then choose to check content id against such a platform. In case of conflicts, that platform would be the place to resolve th…
The problem with automated systems is that they can't distinguish between copyright infringement and legitimate use, for example for satire.
I'd say there are established rules on this for fair use. You might adding some meta information with attribution and doing automated checks on e.g. the scope of the use in the context of the new work. This is a greenfield currently; people are very sloppy with attributing or even acknowledging each other's content. Also, rights to the content is something you could manage in a registry by e.g. stating that content reuse with attribution is allowed by the content owner.
All I see in discussions on this topic right now is this apocalyptic thinking which in my view is not a productive, at all. Where's the counter solution or the improved proposal? The debate on this only seems to get going when legislation is about to be passed; which is typically too late. Youtube as a victim is not going to cause me to shed tears.
Vague amateur interpretations of interpretations of what somebody said on a blog leading to ridiculous conclusions about what it all means are just noise. This is not the end of free speech, satire, or the internet. Wasn't the case for GDPR either. I see this as just a necessary step to get out of the abusive mess that is the status quo of today where people just do whatever without regard for copyright.
Sure this proposal is less than ideal and the process for creating it is flawed. There are probably many ways things can be improved further; how the impact for honest businesses and individuals can be mitigated; etc. Lets have that debate instead of doing nothing and hoping this topic goes away (which of course it won't). In my view concrete improvements might be a lot easier to get support for in the EU and other countries like the US with powerful lobbies for changing the law on this front (this is not an EU problem) than arguing for nothing to happen.
Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
|Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Short of making a call to violence, I will never hear from an authority about anything I say or post online. The same can't be said for much of Europe. In fact, didn't the EU courts just rule that criticism of Mohamed should be banned?
> In fact, didn't the EU courts just rule that criticism of Mohamed should be banned? No. https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/26/q-have-e...
Per the article, the EU court ruled that EU nations are individually permitted to ban criticism of Mohammed, as long as the criticism is ruled less valuable than the feelings of the people who dislike the criticism.
It's legal to call Hitler a murderer in Austria, but not to call Mohammed child molester.
Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Yeah, no. This (blasphemy laws) would be unthinkable in the US: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
Again, Europe is many different legal systems, and blasphemy laws are not everywhere. I don't like that limitation to freedom of speech anymore than you, but all countries, including the US have limitations such as libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, etc.
Libel and slander aren't illegal, they're civil matters.
Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, Europe is many different legal systems, and blasphemy laws are not everywhere. I don't like that limitation to freedom of speech anymore than you, but all countries, including the US have limitations such as libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, etc.
>Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. The EU is a legal entity. Europe is the continent/area. The EU does not protect freedom of speech more than the U.S.
The EU is not a country and does not have its own laws. Things like this copyright directive will get turned into 28 distict member state level laws. Directives only set the common denominator for these laws.
Also, the EHCR is an organization of the Council of Europe which is entirely unrelated to the EU. This is a weaker association of states including Turkey and Russia.
Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In fact, didn't the EU courts just rule that criticism of Mohamed should be banned? No. https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/10/26/q-have-e...
The truth of the matter is that this woman said Mohammed was a paedophile for fucking a 9 year old (which is even correct according to the Quran). She was convicted in Austria for blasphemy. The EU said the conviction was correct. This should be terrifying to anybody who supports free speech. The ECHR is supposed to be a human rights court but they are allowing member states to convict people for blasphemy.
As much as the Austrian conviction and this whole discussion about blasphemy and "religious freedom" makes me P.O., she was convicted of paying 500 Euros.
Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody complaining about the law has actually read the law . Julia Reda doesn't want you to read the law she's opposed to, she wants you to be opposed to it based on the "link tax" and "upload filter" nicknames that have been coined for it.
> Julia Reda doesn't want you to read the law she's opposed to, she wants you to be opposed to it I've skimmed the relevant passages and it didn't seem to me like she's claiming anything that's not true. You can play the word game of if that particular phrase was there or not, but the intent is clear for anyone, except perhaps those with vested interest in having this passed.
The narrative of focusing on "those with vested interest in having this passed" is ignoring those with a vested interest in it not being passed. Julia's meeting list on her website is a Who's Who is Google and organizations Google is a part of or funding.
I would argue I have a vested interest in having this passed: I want an Internet which isn't predominantly controlled by one corporation which steals content from everyone else and passes it off as their own. I have no employer or funding source based on this, I don't work for anyone in the movie, music, news, or tech industry, I just want a better Internet, and the EU both in antitrust and copyright reform, seems to be delivering it.
Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more. Yeah, no. This (blasphemy laws) would be unthinkable in the US: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
This and the "insult the president" sound both like cases of the offender being an asshole. I mean, there is a difference between criticizing an idea - or a person - and being purposefully insulting about it. Surely there is a way to draw a line in between that preserves free and civilized discourse.
Civility and tone policing is the refuge of the privileged scoundrel. It's akin to the literacy tests that prevented black people from voting in the US, which used to be legal in the US that
Re: EU Countries Back Copyright Reforms Aimed at Google, Facebook
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more It is absolutely not. That's a preposterous assumption. If it was the case then no European state could send people to prison or fine them for having an opinion, yet look at France, where insulting the president is a crime and denying "official" history has landed people in jail (I don't condone either of these, it's just about principle)…
Its not exactly the same but its a felony to threaten the president in the US. US freedom of speech is not close to absolute with all kinds of exceptions made over the years, from yelling fire in a theater to verbal harassment.
> from yelling fire in a theater
I don't understand why so many people think this isn't protected. The courts ruled it was.