691–700 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only increased potential cost. It is absolutely unlikely that the EU will fine huge sums for small transgressions, or even fine at all.
Don't you think it is any bit concerning that they get to pick and choose who gets affected by a GDPR lawsuit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR is extremely hostile to discovery in lawsuits. In this sense it does not help the little guy. It's almost tailor made for coverups and protecting the guilty in civil litigation.
I'm wondering if you can elaborate. I haven't heard this argument before.
UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the original text. This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported that MEPs voting on the…
> This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Same sad song as it ever was. Keep giving more control to the government and they'll keep ratcheting down the screws on you. An economic union should be about tariffs and the free movement of goods, not an entirely unelected bureaucratic federal government. Centralizing authority only benefits the well connected political class.
The vote that occurred today was by the EU parliament, which is entirely elected. The directive was prepared inside the JURI committee, which also exists entirely out of elected representatives.
Also, you can't have a single digital market without a single copyright regime. The economic union implies the single market which implies a single copyright directive. I agree that the contents of that directive is lamentable, but the need for one is clear, even for those opposing this particular directive, provided you buy into the notion that single markets should exist at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the same body that approved something so user-centric as GDPR could come up with legislation so incredibly hostile to small players as to effectively abolish the open internet by financial attrition GDPR arguably hurts small players most. Mismanagement of a single users data could cost the farm. It greatly increased the cost for small businesses to do business in Europe.
Only increased potential cost. It is absolutely unlikely that the EU will fine huge sums for small transgressions, or even fine at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's democratic on paper, sure. But in reality, does anyone know who their MEP is? Five year terms? Total lack of responsiveness (according to comments on here today), lack of real democratic accountability. Sure, it looks democratic, but in reality it's not. Particularly when the EU Parliament doesn't even initiate legislation, the un-elected European Commission does.
The UK government is democratic on paper, sure. But in reality, does anyone know who their MP is? [0] Five year terms? [1] Total lack of responsiveness [2] lack of real democratic accountability [3] Sure, it looks democratic, but in reality it's not.[4] Particularly when the UK parliament doesn't even initiate (propose) legislation: ministers are appointed by the government, and are not elected to their position. And…
UKIP and the Green Party joined forces to prevent Article 13 from getting rammed through without a public discussion. It was a good first step, but here we are, 2 months hence, and it was passed with virtually no amendments to the original text. This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Markus Meechum (aka Count Dankula) was at the hearings, and reported that MEPs voting on the…
> This is an abhorrent decision by people who have no idea how the internet works. Same sad song as it ever was. Keep giving more control to the government and they'll keep ratcheting down the screws on you. An economic union should be about tariffs and the free movement of goods, not an entirely unelected bureaucratic federal government. Centralizing authority only benefits the well connected political class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube, the company, will be fine. They'll just ban any content that triggers their enforcement systems. I'm worried about YouTube, the platform, and the bastion of free exchange of information and ideas that is has been until now. A response-type video or movie review will almost certainly be false-flagged by a system like this. Of course, I agree with you that independent platforms are going to have a rough time.…
The worse for YouTube the platform, the better for free, decentralized, federated competitor platforms like PeerTube.
Copyright is a contract between two groups where a copyright holder dictates the terms under which their material may be used or duplicated. If the receiving party to that material violates those terms (say they've received a movie screener for an unreleased film and leaked it), they are in violation of that contract and should pay the fees dictated in their contract. To argue that all parties everywhere should be fo…
>To argue that all parties everywhere should be forced subsidize the enforcement and policing of that contract is outrageous, economically unsound, and violates liberty. And if the contract is violated and the violator taken to court and the court rules against them and they refuse to pay restitution? Without the potential of government violence brought to bear, there is no point in contracts in the first place (exce…
>if the contract is violated and the violator taken to court and the court rules against them and they refuse to pay restitution?
If you're entering into a contract with someone and you're worried they won't pay restitution, mandate terms in the contract that require up-front collateral for a performance penalty. Problem solved.
Each person in the stage of production has the appropriate incentives to collect payment and protect their property. The reason why copyright law has been perverted is because there are distribution companies who'd rather not pony up performance capital and want to socialize the cost of enforcement onto the state.
As terrible as this is, I am actually even more shocked by this proposal: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/12/europe-to-push-for-one-hou... Having one hour to remove offending content, draconian fines and no, absolutely no exceptions for small content providers would, I think, end the internet as we know it in Europe. I see no way to host any kind of content under such jurisdiction and surely all non European content p…