[flagged]
EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
71–80 of 105 posts
Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That's not how the US federal system works at all. It's not even similar. States are free to not enforce federal law and ignore it entirely. States cannot be directly compelled by the federal government to pass laws, though in practice they have done it a couple of times using education funding and highway funding as a carrot/stick.
Another big difference is that the state governments themselves have no representation in the federal government since the passage of the 17th amendment.
Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
#73For everyone cringing at these new rules - just imagine what they would have been without Julia Reda (singular Pirate MEP at the time) who fought this law with everything that she had. We mustn't forget the many NGOs, and the fact that the Greens supported her in the fight. But Reda was something special.
Germans coming both with the disease and a pinch of a cure. What's the role of German publishers and media companies in lobbying for the new rules? Had their activists been so special, they'd keep their copyright lobbyists chained and gagged somewhere domestically.
Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
#74To 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…
In the case of Portugal I can confirm you are correct - the non-compliance is due to legislative incompetence, not dissent.
Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
#75>..Poland
They are trying to take away "personal copying exemption"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Noncomm...
http://www.prawoautorskie.pl/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobist... https://www-prawoautorskie-pl.translate.goog/art-23-dozwolon...
>Art. 23. Permitted personal use 1. Without the consent of the author, it is allowed to use the already disseminated work free of charge for personal use. This provision does not authorize building based on someone else's architectural and architectural and urban work, and to use electronic databases that meet the characteristics of a work, unless it concerns one's own scientific use not related to a commercial purpose.
>2. The scope of own personal use includes the use of single copies of works by a group of people who are in a personal relationship, in particular kinship, affinity or social relationship.
Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> It seems to be a process designed and intended to cause conflict and euroscepticism. Just like the EU itself, it's a compromise. Every member state wants to have its cake (economic benefits) and eat it, too (full sovereignty). That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration. The EU Parliament is probably the only parliament in the world that I kn…
> That can't work because a deep economic integration is... surprise, surprise, a deep political and social integration.
That's not really the case. Many countries have economic ties with other coutries but no political or social ties. For example, the US imports most of the Uranium that it uses, but that doesn't mean political and social integration between the US and Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Russia or Namibia. [1]
[1] 47 million lbs imported in 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu...
Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. It’s overlapping jurisdiction and overlapping sovereignty. Murder would still be illegal under common law, but let’s take your hypothetical and say that it wasn’t, and say that a state didn’t have a statute against murder: the Federal Government could prosecute under Federal law in the Federal court system. The States have no obligation to charge under that same Federal statute though, and in fact can’t be…
Murder is not illegal under English Common Law, it is unlawful. So have US states actually passed statutes against murder, as opposed to simply setting the penalties for it?
> Murder is not illegal under English Common Law, it is unlawful.
Correct, and thanks!
> So have US states actually passed statutes against murder, as opposed to simply setting the penalties for it?
I don’t have a state-by-state breakdown, but if you murder someone in any State, you can be prosecuted for it by that State. You can check Florida Title XLVI Chapter 782 to see what their Homicide Statute defines as “Murder”.
Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
#78Earlier 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,…
Not quite. It’s overlapping jurisdiction and overlapping sovereignty. Murder would still be illegal under common law, but let’s take your hypothetical and say that it wasn’t, and say that a state didn’t have a statute against murder: the Federal Government could prosecute under Federal law in the Federal court system. The States have no obligation to charge under that same Federal statute though, and in fact can’t be…
A couple decades ago, Alabama had no state law against prostitution, relying on the counties to have such laws, which all of them did. But there were certain parts of the causeway over Mobile Bay that weren't claimed by the adjacent counties, leading to small buildings used for prostitution being erected on some of the built-up land next to the road. Not sure about the outcome, going to guess the state DOT claimed ownership of the land, even if no county exerted jurisdiction, and used state law to have the buildings removed.
Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
#79Bulgaria, 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…
Going for a directive (as opposed to a regulation[0]) was probably a conscious decision. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) :
> There are justifications for using a directive rather than a regulation: (i) it complies with the EU's desire for "subsidiarity"; (ii) it acknowledges that different member States have different legal systems, legal traditions and legal processes; and (iii) each Member State has leeway to choose its own statutory wording, rather than accepting the Brussels' official "Eurospeak" terminology.
> For example, while EU Directive 2009/20/EC (which simply requires all vessels visiting EU ports to have P&I cover) could have been a regulation (without requiring member states to implement the directive), the desire for subsidiarity was paramount, so a directive was the chosen vehicle.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Act_of_the_European_Unio...
Re: EU sues Member States who refuse to bring in new copyright rules
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. It’s overlapping jurisdiction and overlapping sovereignty. Murder would still be illegal under common law, but let’s take your hypothetical and say that it wasn’t, and say that a state didn’t have a statute against murder: the Federal Government could prosecute under Federal law in the Federal court system. The States have no obligation to charge under that same Federal statute though, and in fact can’t be…
A couple decades ago, Alabama had no state law against prostitution, relying on the counties to have such laws, which all of them did. But there were certain parts of the causeway over Mobile Bay that weren't claimed by the adjacent counties, leading to small buildings used for prostitution being erected on some of the built-up land next to the road. Not sure about the outcome, going to guess the state DOT claimed ow…
Huh. That is interesting and this is why I never take anything for granted in State laws and am willing to only speak in very very broad generalities about “the States”.
A piece of land being outside of a “county” isn’t something that could happen in my State because the counties are effectively administrative divisions that encompass all the lands and waters of the State so where one county ends the next begins up until the State and national borders anyway. Beyond those lines, it’s somebody else’s problem.