181–190 of 204 posts
The interesting part was while not the whole EU does the protest? It would send a clearer message.
AFAIK my country's EU representatives are against, so Wikipedia in the Netherlands might not see a need as rallying citizens doesn't change a thing without a clear call to action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why couldn't we have our own rules regarding copyright, like up until now? You didn't actually have that up until now either. > now the Germans and the French rule our country Citation very much needed, unless you mean nominally German and French companies delegating factories and subsidiaries to your country, in which case, that's the point. > and you people praise the EU for that while my grandfathers died for us…
> You didn't actually have that up until now either. Yes, and we liked it. > Citation very much needed, unless you mean nominally German and French companies delegating factories and subsidiaries to your country, in which case, that's the point. See how countries are represented in the EP. > I think if you'd ask them, they died for their children to have a better life, and not having to fight any more wars. Also, a l…
The Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, or, in short the "Copyright directive" was from 2001. You adhered to that on joining in 2004.
The current proposal build on and extends that, so, in conclusion, you didn't actually have that up until now.
> See how countries are represented in the EP.
Fortunately another poster did your homework for you: "In the countries with 10 million population, you have roughly 500k people per MEP. In Germany & France, it's 850k."
But regardless, MEPs are part of European parties, which, to exist, need to represent a cross section of EU countries. EU matters are sometimes instigated by countries, but signed off on by international political blocks. There are anti-EU parties for you to vote on.
> On top of that, our country is economically tightly tied to Germany and France and their investors
A terrible thing that, employment and economic stability. Fortunately, you can elect a government that throws them out, together with the EU, and nationalise all their property and do it your way. Venezuela did exactly that, and you could join them in their glorious ascent to complete sovereignity.
> The EU has just shown everyone that it will absolutely and purposefully destroy anyone
Citation needed, and I sure hope you're not thinking of "Brexit" as some sort of example here.
> The whole thing by itself has nothing to do with nationalism!
Except for the "our people" and the "noble blood of our forebears" and the "insidious foreign influences" bits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Article 13 is bad enough without needing to make up absurd interpretations of it. EU law is enforced on the basis of proportionality, and the wording of the proposed directive already covers that. There's never going to be some legal obligation to remove something like the quote you just posted. Furthermore, since it's a directive each member state will need to implement it in a way that's compatible with both the di…
That might be true from the law perspective, but a major objection to copyright filters is that they go beyond the requirements of copyright law and ignores fair use. Youtube filter being a prime example. If you include the above quoted snippet of the song in a youtube video, the probability that it will receive a copyright claim is close to 100%. Fair use is a legal defense that a person can use in court, but the pu…
Youtube filter is there not only to follow the law, but also to please their advertisers/copyright holders.
Their latest change in the filter made Youtuber life so much worst and Youtube definitively know how they depends on theses Youtubers (and are lucky to have them). Thing is the cash come from advertisers/copyright holders and that's a much bigger issue for them right now.
To me that filter is beyond the requirements of the law, not for the law itself, but for the advertisers/copyright holders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You didn't actually have that up until now either. Yes, and we liked it. > Citation very much needed, unless you mean nominally German and French companies delegating factories and subsidiaries to your country, in which case, that's the point. See how countries are represented in the EP. > I think if you'd ask them, they died for their children to have a better life, and not having to fight any more wars. Also, a l…
> Yes, and we liked it. The Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, or, in short the "Copyright directive" was from 2001. You adhered to that on joining in 2004. The current proposal build on and extends that, so, in conclusion, you didn't actually have that up until now . > Se…
But we don't want to be a country that nationalises stuff. The point is on the exact opposite of the political scale. We (the citizens) didn't want to sell it away dirt cheap in the first place.
> Fortunately another poster did your homework for you: "In the countries with 10 million population, you have roughly 500k people per MEP. In Germany & France, it's 850k."
How are German and French citizens relevant to the laws of my country, why do they have a say about it in a vote? I don't want to vote about Germany either.
> Except for the "our people" and the "noble blood of our forebears" and the "insidious foreign influences" bits.
Nothing noble about it. There is nothing wrong with cherishing your heritage, especially in case of people just a generation or two away. ;-)
Are you denying history? Our national history has undeniably significantly shaped our whole culture - movies, theatre, language, literature, music, art, ways of parenting and education and so on... Basically the whole Czech culture is build on top of the fight against foreign oppression and the will to gain sovereignty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_National_Revival
Our people == citizens, nothing else. When I say nation, I mean people with common cultural background and in most cases citizenship. I don't care about immigrants, economical migrants and even refugees and I support helping them in any way possible, BTW - they're free to live with us, by our rules (or their, if they're citizens already).
It's good big well known brands like Wikipedia are doing something but seeing the language list (German, Czech, Slovak, Danish) only German is in the top 3 of languages spoken in EU (except English, which will not count in near future anyway). There is missing Swedish and French, and given how French are into protesting, it's sad they didn't join this initiative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR does not allow you to block people who do not consent. Well, it's never gone to court yet, so I guess you can't say for sure. But that's how it's widely interpreted.
Consent is meaningless if it is forced. Also, if the law allowed that, you would simply get a large banner saying "To access this website you agree to all our privacy invasion and to sell us your soul. We are not asking you, just informing you."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He said that's why the EU was started . Now you are talking about the EU in the 90's. A modern take on the EU now or in the 90's doesn't change anything about how and why it was started. He said something that was simply untrue.
> He said that's why the EU was started. Now you are talking about the EU in the 90's. And in the 60s, and 70s...re-read my comment. It is clear you are being intellectually dishonest, and no point in continuing this discussion with you.
Okay, firstly, calm down.
Secondly, I missed that part of your post the first time I read it.
Either I didn't read it thoroughly because I'm at work and my attention is divided (for which I apologise); or you edited your own comment before you replied to me, in an attempt to discredit what I'm saying.
As I'm not as uncharitable as your are in interpreting the intent of other people's posts, I'll assume the mistake was on my part and you are not just a troll.
I'd appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's democratic at all. In case of my small country, almost literally no one wants this law - but that doesn't matter, we're a small country. The whole thing feels terribly wrong - 10 million people, the 100% majority of this rather big geographical location that is even separated by mountains on all sides, are just overruled, while they don't even understand the language these politicians are talking i…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_... In the countries with 10 million population, you have roughly 500k people per MEP. In Germany & France, it's 850k. If you add up the seats of the 6 countries with roughly 10 million people, you get 126. If you add up the seats of Germany and France, you get 175. So the small countries are definitely not irrelevant. Can a single country decide on a matter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He said that's why the EU was started. Now you are talking about the EU in the 90's. And in the 60s, and 70s...re-read my comment. It is clear you are being intellectually dishonest, and no point in continuing this discussion with you.
> And in the 60s, and 70s...re-read my comment. It is clear you are being intellectually dishonest, and no point in continuing this discussion with you. Okay, firstly, calm down. Secondly, I missed that part of your post the first time I read it. Either I didn't read it thoroughly because I'm at work and my attention is divided (for which I apologise); or you edited your own comment before you replied to me, in an at…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I downvoted it because the comment has no substance besides "EU bad". It adds nothing of value to the discussion. Explain why the EU is an "oversized bureaucracy".
> I downvoted it because the comment has no substance besides "EU bad". It adds nothing of value to the discussion. A pretty unfair characterization. I found value in of itself, even if that value was merely "this opinion exists" > Explain why the EU is an "oversized bureaucracy". In order to explain why you must define how big a bureaucracy must be in order to be considered oversized. Unless two parties can agree on…
I used to believe that, but the problem is, there's a lot of evidence that the EU is a more classic style of bureaucracy - it sticks to rules when they work in the favour of what the bureaucracy wants, and tears them up the moment the rules would work against them.
There are lots of examples of this in action. The eurozone bailouts. The reclassification of low Irish taxes as a "state subsidy". The ECJ ruling that Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked, even though it says clearly in the treaty that revoking it requires unanimity amongst members. The way Selmayr was elevated to GS of the Commission. The way the Commission changes its mind about whether countries have "equivalent" financial regulations even when no regulations have changed, because they want to impose trade sanctions on those countries as part of unrelated negotiations. There are many more like this.
What's amazing is how flagrant and open it is. The people who ultimately wield the power in the EU simply void the rules publicly and noisily, because they know nothing will happen to them at all. It's very much not a technocratic body, it's entirely and completely political in nature.