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

EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

#51

Post by JadeNB »

oblio wrote: post #34
pyuser583 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these three things require open borders, which the EU insists on. In fact, the Canada has all three in common with the EU. But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.

My list was not an exhaustive list :-))) > But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration. Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union > After the war on 19 September 1946 Chruchill went further as a civilian, after leaving office, at the Universi…

> > But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.

> Yes, they do. You don't know what the EU project is about. You don't know its history:

…

> The EU was always a political union.

I'm confused, because it seems that you and your parent are saying the same thing. Did you misread them as saying the EU doesn't want political integration?

Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

#52

Post by toyg »

To people getting their knickers in a twist: Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal, with all due respect, are hardly beacons of anti-copyright maximalism. Chances are that most of them simply couldn't be arsed to write the relevant laws, over a timespan that included such facetious events as a 2-year-long global pandemic. If I had to prioritize lawmaking, I would also put some copyright bullshit at the bottom of the pile. Now they got their ears pinched, so they'll come around doing it - or not, in which case they'll pay a fine.

Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

#53

Post by weberer »

frankreyes wrote: post #44
weberer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State law can't override federal law. They have just instructed state police to not enforce that specific law. You could still be convicted by the FBI if they were to get involved for whatever reason, such as selling across state lines.

Is that what Biden un- did with the pardons? https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-mar... Sorry for the weird question, non us here o/

No because the law is still active. You would need congress to repeal or amend it. Or the supreme court to rule it unconstitutional. Also this just pardons people who were convicted in the past.

>Does the proclamation protect me from being charged with marijuana possession in the future?

>No. The proclamation pardons only those offenses occurring on or before October 6, 2022. It does not have any effect on marijuana possession offenses occurring after October 6, 2022.

Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

#54

Post by zackees »

nirimda wrote: post #13
ta1243 wrote: post #2

Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal voted for it. Maybe they should have voted against it in council.

There is a problem with any legislative process that begins with the executive obligating the country to adopt certain specific laws, and only then asks the legislature whether those certain specific laws should become the law of the land. I don't fully understand the logic of this kind of legislative process. If the EU can make it binding on member states to introduce a certain law, why not perform the entire proces…

[dead]

Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

#55

Post by matheusmoreira »

account42 wrote: post #39

> They protect rightholders from different sectors At the expense of everyone else. > stimulating the creation and circulation of more high-value content Doubtful.

"Rightsholders", "stakeholders"... I cringe every time I read those words. Euphemisms for monopolists lobbying and weaponising the state in the defense of their monopolies.

Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

#56

Post by paulusthe »

nirimda wrote: post #13
ta1243 wrote: post #2

Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal voted for it. Maybe they should have voted against it in council.

There is a problem with any legislative process that begins with the executive obligating the country to adopt certain specific laws, and only then asks the legislature whether those certain specific laws should become the law of the land. I don't fully understand the logic of this kind of legislative process. If the EU can make it binding on member states to introduce a certain law, why not perform the entire proces…

This went through the EU Parliament. It was not an instruction handed down as dictat by an unelected bureaucrat or executive.

The same process is how every other EU wide regulation goes into effect. EU passes it, the member states get their input during the EU process, and the member states are then obligated to abide by the rules.

An analogous process, which is not a perfect analog but is similar, is how US federal rules get passed down to the states. The states get their input on federal legislation at the federal level, but then must abide by the resulting federal law.

I'd also add that giving every country a veto on any legislation would basically guarantee nothing gets done.

Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

#57

Post by zxcvbn4038 »

vageli wrote: post #29
ta1243 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three groups passed this law * The EU Commission (headed by commissioners appointed by the government of the members, 1 per member) * The EU council (makde up of the heads of government of the members, 1 vote per member) - so sort of in line with US senate as originally enacted (where the state government chooses the senators) * The EU parliament (voted directly by the population, broadly in line with the population,…

> in the US, I believe states have to meet federal laws, they can't pass a law saying "murder is legal" or whatever. It's an imperfect system, but so is the US system. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet many states have legalized it.

I don’t believe the states have to embrace everything the federal government says - see marijuana and enhanced IDs as examples. However the federal government often ties receiving federal funds to passing and enforcing federal policy. So don’t want to issue identification documents in compliance with the real ID act? Loose a portion of the highway funds. Want legal pot? Loose a portion of the highway funds. And so on.

Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

#59

Post by gizmo686 »

vageli wrote: post #29
ta1243 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three groups passed this law * The EU Commission (headed by commissioners appointed by the government of the members, 1 per member) * The EU council (makde up of the heads of government of the members, 1 vote per member) - so sort of in line with US senate as originally enacted (where the state government chooses the senators) * The EU parliament (voted directly by the population, broadly in line with the population,…

> in the US, I believe states have to meet federal laws, they can't pass a law saying "murder is legal" or whatever. It's an imperfect system, but so is the US system. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet many states have legalized it.

There is no federal law requiring States to enforce federal drug policy. The inability of the federal government to compel state laws has been a source of tension throughout US history.

For a non-controversial, consider the drinking age in the US. To a first approximation, this was set by Congress in 1984 with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. However, this law doesn't actually set a drinking age. It witholds federal highway funding from states that refuse to do so.

For a more controversial example, consider the medicaid expansion portion of the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not compell states to implement it, allowing some states to not do so. For completeness, I should point out that the expansion was 100% federally funded to start with, and dropped gradually to 90% by 2020, where it is set to remain indefinitely.

Another major example from US history is the Fugitive Slave Act, which required non-slave states to assist in returning escaped slaves. Some Northern states refused to coorporate with this law and was part of what led to the civil war. (Ironically, this is probably the clearest way that "states' rights" was a cause of the civil war, but I don't think it is what most people have in mind when they say "states" rights".

Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules

#60

Post by shapefrog »

pyuser583 wrote: post #31
oblio wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US is very economically integrated with China. No, it's not. It is slightly economically integrated, and mostly in terms of physical goods. Are American IP laws applicable in China and the other way around? For example when licensing a Disney movie in the US, can I distribute it in China? Do you get warranty in China for any good sold in the US and vice versa? Do both countries use, by law, the same systems of…

None of these three things require open borders, which the EU insists on. In fact, the Canada has all three in common with the EU. But the EU insists on open borders because they want social and political integration, not just economic integration.

> require open borders, which the EU insists on

The EU does not insist upon "open borders".

The single market (EU) seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms".

Article 45 covers the relevant things that the EU "insists" on including the restrictions the EU "insists" on - https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457

Perhaps you mean the external border of the EU - Article 3 covers that one, and the EU does have requirements that it insists on for this border. It obliges Member States to carry out systematic checks against relevant databases on all persons, including those with the right to free movement under EU law when they cross the external borders. i.e. they actually insist that it is a closed border.

Post reply on HN