|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 27 2019 05:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 04:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:45 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people. The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service. So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse. I'd be fine with more government involvement if government actually worked for the people and publishers didn't spend big money to lobby for this turd. I have zero faith that the policy that big copyright holders lobbied for will benefit me or anyone else besides those corporations. You're far too eager to hurt google and facebook that you're willing to give all that power right over to Disney, Sony, and all the other big companies without any thought to the matter. I can’t really give any more power to them than they already have. The copyright laws that protect my work and labor are the same ones that protect them. And here is the thing: laws can be changed. They can be adjusted and refined. I am unwilling to live in the world where we do nothing for another 20 years while we wait for the perfect solution to the problems of today to arrive. Getting involved with the internet was always going to be messy, so I would rather start now. Nobody is asking for a perfect solution. Most people in this thread have told you that this has zero benefit to the average person and may be ignored in the best case scenarios. Shifting the profiteer from Google to Disney because they paid you some money isn't how government should work. A lot of people have informed me of how they feel the law will be implemented and who it will impact. I’ve done my own reading on the subject and have come to the conclusion that it will be hard to tell how it is implemented and enforced at this time.
That gets even more complicated by the fact that this is not actually a law, but an EU guideline. Every member state has to put this into its own laws in some way, and implementations will probably vary a bit.
Still, i have a hard time seeing any way how this could be implemented that actually improves anything.
|
If it's just an EU guideline maybe it results in Germany not giving a fuck while France tries to implement it and we get away with it like with so many other things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Surely that's a great way for making people (outside of Germany) like the EU more.
Or replace Germany/France with any other countries.
//
oh, 15k posts on that. Damn...
|
On March 27 2019 05:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 05:20 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:45 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 27 2019 03:22 Plansix wrote:
I am sure it is different for different companies and people, but the fact remains that these companies are so big and so unwieldy that they do harm all the time to people using them for business. It isn’t intentional, it is just a product of being huge, bloated and unregulated.
And if she is banned from all platform can’t confirm the photos are hers, is that really that bad if she is on one platform that she has a good working relationship with? It means all the people stealing the photos are banned. And this assumes that this dooms day reality becomes real, which I sort of doubt will take place. what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this. Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else. Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't): Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous. How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc. And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options: a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people. The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service. So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse. I'd be fine with more government involvement if government actually worked for the people and publishers didn't spend big money to lobby for this turd. I have zero faith that the policy that big copyright holders lobbied for will benefit me or anyone else besides those corporations. You're far too eager to hurt google and facebook that you're willing to give all that power right over to Disney, Sony, and all the other big companies without any thought to the matter. I can’t really give any more power to them than they already have. The copyright laws that protect my work and labor are the same ones that protect them. And here is the thing: laws can be changed. They can be adjusted and refined. I am unwilling to live in the world where we do nothing for another 20 years while we wait for the perfect solution to the problems of today to arrive. Getting involved with the internet was always going to be messy, so I would rather start now. Nobody is asking for a perfect solution. Most people in this thread have told you that this has zero benefit to the average person and may be ignored in the best case scenarios. Shifting the profiteer from Google to Disney because they paid you some money isn't how government should work. A lot of people have informed me of how they feel the law will be implemented and who it will impact. I’ve done my own reading on the subject and have come to the conclusion that it will be hard to tell how it is implemented and enforced at this time. That gets even more complicated by the fact that this is not actually a law, but an EU guideline. Every member state has to put this into its own laws in some way, and implementations will probably vary a bit. Still, i have a hard time seeing any way how this could be implemented that actually improves anything.
This is why the doom and gloom, all photo sharing sites are going to shutter and the EU is going to be geoblocked by twitter sort of rings hollow for me. I understand that people are worried, but there is this alarmism every time a law concerning the internet is passed that has become performance.
|
On March 27 2019 05:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 05:23 Simberto wrote:On March 27 2019 05:20 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:45 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this.
Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else.
Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't):
Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous.
How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc.
And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it
That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options:
a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this
b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people. The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service. So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse. I'd be fine with more government involvement if government actually worked for the people and publishers didn't spend big money to lobby for this turd. I have zero faith that the policy that big copyright holders lobbied for will benefit me or anyone else besides those corporations. You're far too eager to hurt google and facebook that you're willing to give all that power right over to Disney, Sony, and all the other big companies without any thought to the matter. I can’t really give any more power to them than they already have. The copyright laws that protect my work and labor are the same ones that protect them. And here is the thing: laws can be changed. They can be adjusted and refined. I am unwilling to live in the world where we do nothing for another 20 years while we wait for the perfect solution to the problems of today to arrive. Getting involved with the internet was always going to be messy, so I would rather start now. Nobody is asking for a perfect solution. Most people in this thread have told you that this has zero benefit to the average person and may be ignored in the best case scenarios. Shifting the profiteer from Google to Disney because they paid you some money isn't how government should work. A lot of people have informed me of how they feel the law will be implemented and who it will impact. I’ve done my own reading on the subject and have come to the conclusion that it will be hard to tell how it is implemented and enforced at this time. That gets even more complicated by the fact that this is not actually a law, but an EU guideline. Every member state has to put this into its own laws in some way, and implementations will probably vary a bit. Still, i have a hard time seeing any way how this could be implemented that actually improves anything. This is why the doom and gloom, all photo sharing sites are going to shutter and the EU is going to be geoblocked by twitter sort of rings hollow for me. I understand that people are worried, but there is this alarmism every time a law concerning the internet is passed that has become performance.
It's got a lot to do with the internet itself making information available. You can't just put forward a legal text anymore and let moderators tell the people how it will work out in a pro & contra way. People can read it for themselves and they won't read what you want them to read, they will take it seriously.
I believe the information society has created a crisis of jurisprudence in itself. We have tons of scientifically, technically or logically trained people that are not willing to stick to "interpretations of law" but demand to dikscuss an actual wording. And that wording is bound to be crap, since the law systems are not axiomatic and leave most of the words they use up for interpretation. So what happens is that everytime you put forward a law some opponent's of the law will call you out on logical flaws that the proposal creates, undermining trust in the state to be just to begin with.
And that has been the case with article 13 all the way. Sorry lawmakers, but I cannot ask each and every person on earth whether or not they own a copyright on something that is being uploaded to my platform. It's straight up not possible.
|
On March 27 2019 05:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 05:23 Simberto wrote:On March 27 2019 05:20 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:45 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this.
Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else.
Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't):
Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous.
How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc.
And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it
That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options:
a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this
b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people. The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service. So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse. I'd be fine with more government involvement if government actually worked for the people and publishers didn't spend big money to lobby for this turd. I have zero faith that the policy that big copyright holders lobbied for will benefit me or anyone else besides those corporations. You're far too eager to hurt google and facebook that you're willing to give all that power right over to Disney, Sony, and all the other big companies without any thought to the matter. I can’t really give any more power to them than they already have. The copyright laws that protect my work and labor are the same ones that protect them. And here is the thing: laws can be changed. They can be adjusted and refined. I am unwilling to live in the world where we do nothing for another 20 years while we wait for the perfect solution to the problems of today to arrive. Getting involved with the internet was always going to be messy, so I would rather start now. Nobody is asking for a perfect solution. Most people in this thread have told you that this has zero benefit to the average person and may be ignored in the best case scenarios. Shifting the profiteer from Google to Disney because they paid you some money isn't how government should work. A lot of people have informed me of how they feel the law will be implemented and who it will impact. I’ve done my own reading on the subject and have come to the conclusion that it will be hard to tell how it is implemented and enforced at this time. That gets even more complicated by the fact that this is not actually a law, but an EU guideline. Every member state has to put this into its own laws in some way, and implementations will probably vary a bit. Still, i have a hard time seeing any way how this could be implemented that actually improves anything. This is why the doom and gloom, all photo sharing sites are going to shutter and the EU is going to be geoblocked by twitter sort of rings hollow for me. I understand that people are worried, but there is this alarmism every time a law concerning the internet is passed that has become performance.
I'd argue that it is genuine concern after net neutrality was lobbied through the US. You're right that people could be overblowing this and we really don't know what will happen, but in a healthy democracy I'd suggest that people talk about the policies that would be a complete disaster and some things they want to see instead of lobbyists going into a backroom and telling the politicians what to write down.
|
|
|
Thanks for that link. It is generally a good read on the topic.
The question, then, is in what direction those mistakes should run. Through what, in retrospect, are fortunate accidents of history, Internet companies are mostly shielded from liability, and need only respond to takedown notices in a reasonable amount of time. In other words, the system is biased towards false negatives: if mistakes are made, it is that content that should not be uploaded is. The Copyright Directive, though, would shift the bias towards false positive: it mistakes are made, it is that allowable content will be blocked for fear of liability.
This is a mistake. For one, the very concept of copyright is a government-granted monopoly on a particular arrangement of words. I certainly am not opposed to that in principle — I am obviously a benefactor — but in a free society the benefit of the doubt should run in the opposite direction of those with the legal right to deny freedom. The Copyright Directive, on the other hand, requires Internet Platforms to act as de facto enforcement mechanisms of that government monopoly, and the only logical response is to go too far.
I just needed to quote that part, because it speaks so deeply out of my soul. And it also shows why conservatives won't even argue with you when you bring up "valid criticism". Conservatives believe that the state's purpose is to protect a natural right. It is therefore not a monopoly that is granted by the state, copyrights are natural orders that need to be protected by the state (whose sole purpose it is to protect natural orders). It is not them who create the laws, as you can often hear from them, it is them enforcing what is "right".
People that grant each other rights? Laws that are nothing but social-contracts? The bolded part above is pure communism for them.
|
On March 27 2019 05:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 05:23 Simberto wrote:On March 27 2019 05:20 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:45 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 04:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 04:04 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 27 2019 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2019 03:37 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
what would that one platform be? They have to be able to confirm those are her pictures just as much as every other platform. That's the whole issue with this.
Like Acrofales mentioned. IF they want to make this a reality they somehow need some EU-wide database that holds all kinds of copyright protected material, the blue-prints so to speak, to check things against and make sure noone is uploading that song, that article, that book, that video or that photo that belongs to someone else.
Now let's just ignore how absolutely terrible we still are at doing this automatically with an algorithm (people trying to circumvent the algorithm by altering it ever so slightly, people who don't infringe on it because it's satire or whatever etc) and pretend someone waves a magic wand and we suddenly have the software to do this (we don't):
Even then, how are you supposed to run these checks. How big is that EU-wide database supposed to be to be able to store all photos, videos, songs, books, articles etc to check against? Even if we're only talking about commercial stuff, because technically speaking all those essays I wrote in highschool for classes are mine as well but that just gets even more ridiculous.
How big is a single file going to be for a raw video, a song, a photo or whatever? And now that database is supposed to encompass basicly everything. All series to make sure noone uploads them to youtube, all photos every commercial photographer ever took (which is probably a number in the millions per photographer lol), all books written in all languages etc.
And besides just storing all that you have to make a check against that database to make sure nothing infringes against it
That's basicly why I said it's impossible to implement this if you take it at face value. There's only two options:
a) you realize it's impossible and pretend it doesn't exist and don't enforce this
b) companies block the EU from acessing them to make sure they don't get sued. You are asking for a hypothetical on your hypothetical reality where she is banned from all platforms because they have an error in their software were they will not let her host her own photographs. Or they put into place systems that would make them no-viable companies in an effort to comply with send regulation. So my response about which platform that would be: The good one that doesn’t ban everyone in this dystopian hellscape of new regulation. I understand that people hate change, but are we really that scared of a reality where huge platforms have to develop systems so they have to give a shit about who is putting what on their platform? This scary reality that looks a little more like the internet of the early 2000s, pre youtube, facebook and the rest. Because there is zero chance that system that is developed will benefit the common people. The current internet right now barely benefits the common person. It is actively destroying news media across US, which is being replaced by nothing. The quality of reporting and news media has been degrading for a two decades and there is a rise of right wing nationalism that no one can seem to figure out how to stop(because its so damn profitable). We are charging head long into a robocop like future and everyone is worried that some regulations might make youtube have to give a shit about what is on its service. So yeah, I have a really negative opinion of the current internet and find it hard to believe that more government involvement could somehow make it worse. I'd be fine with more government involvement if government actually worked for the people and publishers didn't spend big money to lobby for this turd. I have zero faith that the policy that big copyright holders lobbied for will benefit me or anyone else besides those corporations. You're far too eager to hurt google and facebook that you're willing to give all that power right over to Disney, Sony, and all the other big companies without any thought to the matter. I can’t really give any more power to them than they already have. The copyright laws that protect my work and labor are the same ones that protect them. And here is the thing: laws can be changed. They can be adjusted and refined. I am unwilling to live in the world where we do nothing for another 20 years while we wait for the perfect solution to the problems of today to arrive. Getting involved with the internet was always going to be messy, so I would rather start now. Nobody is asking for a perfect solution. Most people in this thread have told you that this has zero benefit to the average person and may be ignored in the best case scenarios. Shifting the profiteer from Google to Disney because they paid you some money isn't how government should work. A lot of people have informed me of how they feel the law will be implemented and who it will impact. I’ve done my own reading on the subject and have come to the conclusion that it will be hard to tell how it is implemented and enforced at this time. That gets even more complicated by the fact that this is not actually a law, but an EU guideline. Every member state has to put this into its own laws in some way, and implementations will probably vary a bit. Still, i have a hard time seeing any way how this could be implemented that actually improves anything. This is why the doom and gloom, all photo sharing sites are going to shutter and the EU is going to be geoblocked by twitter sort of rings hollow for me. I understand that people are worried, but there is this alarmism every time a law concerning the internet is passed that has become performance.
That's not doom & gloom, that would be the ideal solution. If major social media sites were willing to temporarily geoblock the EU and return a 451 error this would be sorted instantly. Good luck to the EPP ignoring 100+ million people complaining. Instead it will be the smaller websites that will have to geoblock because they don't make enough money from serving ads to EU visitors to justify a filter.
Just like GDPR was only a hiccup for NYT or WaPo but we still see this whenever a link from a smaller US news org shows up somewhere:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Article 11 just appears to be a way to extort money from silicon valley giants and give it to European outlets.I mean a link tax where google has to pay EU news outlets to post their links in their search results? Wow.Just wow.
|
If it worked like that, that wouldn't be the worst thing. But we already have basically the same thing in Germany, and it doesn't work like that. This is how it works:
publisher: "Ok, give us money for linking our stuff"
Google: "Ok, we just don't link your stuff"
Publisher: "Hm, ok, you can link our stuff for free"
What it does, though, is suppress smaller link aggregators. Because those don't have the same pressure as google. If your stuff isn't linked on google, it might as well not exist. If your stuff isn't linked on random page 28, no one but random page 28 cares. So those smaller sites actually have to pay for those licenses, because they can't get them for free. Or they become more shitty, just linking stuff without giving you a good preview. It only hurts smaller competitors of the giants.
Secondly, what it also does is hurt smaller publishers. Who have even less power to make others pay for their links.
So article 11, while written as something that is supposed to make google pay for the news on google news (which is, imo, quite reasonable), actually only hurts googles competitors in the news aggregator market, and smaller publishers. The only ones who actually profit are big publishers and big aggregators, both through destroying their competition.
It is another major turd in this shitty directive.
|
On March 28 2019 07:44 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Article 11 just appears to be a way to extort money from silicon valley giants and give it to European outlets.I mean a link tax where google has to pay EU news outlets to post their links in their search results? Wow.Just wow.
AFAIK there is an exemption for links (including links with snippets).
|
Some update on the French political situation, as the yellow vests are demonstrating for the 20th week in a row.
The “national grand debate” which was supposed to be one of the answers to the crisis of the yellow vests is over for 2 weeks. The government claimed that it was a “great success”. About 0,4% of the adult population participated online (175 000 active contributors), on the dedicated website. About 10 000 local “meetings” were organized, mostly by mayors. According to sociological analyses, participants mostly belonged to the “good students” of civism: old people with patrimony, and more macronist than the average. King Macron participated Himself, with interminable (between 6 and 8 hours…) sessions of questions and answers scheduled live on all “continuous news” channels, like in a vulgar banana Republic.
The show—a disguised campaign from Macron—ended officially on Friday 15/03. The day after, for the Act 18 of the yellow vests, a riot happened in Paris, on the Champs-Élysées. Pavement flew, stuff was broken and burnt, and symbolically the Fouquet's—the restaurant where Sarkozy celebrated his 2007 victory with his oligarch friends—was partially destroyed, vandalized and burnt. That very day, between 145 000 (Interior) and 350 000 people (organizers) demonstrated for action against climate change. Of course the riot pretty much erased this event in medias.
A giant campaign of propaganda followed the days after: cops had not repressed enough, there needs to be much more severity, no matter if there are wounded or dead people, etc. The Macronie sacked pretty much the whole cop hierarchy in Paris, saying that they had… not applied the orders from the Interior! Apparently cops received instructions from the Paris police prefecture to “hold back” (i.e. not to use too much flashballs, not to engage too much, etc.). 2 people still lost their eye on that Saturday to flashball hits, but of course the propaganda did not mention it.
Macronists f***** up by not foreseeing something extremely predictable—the presence of a large black block—and blamed the lower stage instead of taking responsibility (macronists totally bathe in the culture of impunity and irresponsibility of the French ruling class, it's never their fault). Anyway pundits yelled for blood all the week, saying the government was unable to maintain order, etc. So macronists, pressured and mad at their symbolic defeat just at the end of the debate (which was supposed to demonstrate that they had “taken back control”), took decisions. They banned demonstrations on the Champs-Élysées and a few critical locations in other cities, and said that the army would be there to assist. The day before the act 19, Paris' military governor said that soldiers would be forced to open fire if they were in danger. Nice ambiance, uh? Pretty much the whole opposition, including radical/far-right figures who are total adepts of securitarian demagogy, criticized the government for using soldiers to maintain order. The government, which had intentionally used the symbol of the army to scare protestors, said that it was just to guard a few public buildings, that the opposition was lying and spreading fake news, etc.
Anyway no protest violence happened in Paris for the act 19, of course people had no intention to come back to riot again; it was just to mark the occasion at the end of Macron's false debate. In Nice, on the other hand (where demonstrations had been forbidden in a large perimeter), an “accident” happened. A few dozens of protestors (not even 100 people…) disobeyed and gathered peacefully, and the police was given the order to charge. Then this happened:
+ Show Spoiler +
A 73 years old woman which you can see here waving a “Peace” flag was pushed during the charge, she fell and her head hit a small pole. Outcome, a few skull fractures and 5 broken ribs. Cops also apparently arrested the street medics who were trying to rescue her.
Macron wished her quick recovery but also “a form of wisdom” [implied: she should not have been there]. He claimed that there was no contact between her and cops. At first the prosecutor, in a press conference, also denied that a cop had pushed her. Of course it was a lie; images quickly contradicted him, and he was forced to admit that, yes, actually she was pushed by an “isolated cop”. What's an “isolated cop” when a whole line of cops is ordered to charge peaceful protestors? Who the hell knows, it's the Macron regime, facts don't matter, the truth is a moment of the false. Macronists' line of defence for putting at risk the life of a peaceful 73 years old protestor? Just like Macron said: it was her fault, the demonstration was forbidden, she should not have been there, voilà…
This 73 years old woman thus joins the wall of shame [beware, it's a bit bloody] of the Macron regime.
Since the beginning of the movement in November, here is the outcome of the repression:
1 grandma died + Show Spoiler +(80 years old woman hit by a grenade in the head as she was closing her shutters at home, died later in surgery—the regime never had a word for her, her family was not even contacted…)
233 head injuries
23 eyes lost to flashball hits
5 hands ripped by explosive grenades
Thousands of injured people (official count is something like ~2500 for protestors, but it's way underestimated; and 1500 cops wounded)
12 000 LBD40 [Flashball] hits (March figures not counted in…)
8 645 custodies (most arbitrary—the press has shown that there are written instructions to hold people even when authorities know that they did nothing)
2 000 sentences (and 1 800 pending judgments)
400 people in jail
The Macron regime also passed an anti-protestors law which punishes you if you cover even partially your head in a demonstration (or nearby!): up to 1 year of prison and 15 000 euros of fine. Yes, you read it right. This law also allows the prefect, i.e. an administrative authority who obeys to the political power, to ban protestors from coming in demonstrations based on presumptions that you might wreak havoc. The law is so scandalous that Macron seized the Constitutional Council himself to check its constitutional validity. About 15% of the macronists MPs refused to vote it, and even the far-right had the luxury to say that it was a freedom-destroying law.
Outside of colonial conflicts, never a movement was repressed that hard in France since WWII.
Despite this, a few dozens of thousands of protestors still take the streets each Saturday. Here are the numbers for each act in 2019:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/foINvWa.jpg) The Yellow Number (which comes from the yellow vests, as you can guess) publishes a count based on the addition of local reports. For the Act 18, the massive gap is explained by the way protestors were counted. In lot of cities the demonstration of the yellow vests and against climate change was the same. The Yellow Number counted them together, somehow the Interior managed to magically divide between the yellow vests and the green ones…
Both the UN, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament criticized France for its cop violence against protestors. Of course the Macron regime rejected their conclusions.
Macron's approval rating is a bit below 30%. Macronists poll between 22 and 24% for the European elections, i.e. 9 to 10% of registered voters when you factor in the 55-60% abstention. They might “win”.
Following the end of the “grand debate,” Macron is expected to take measures from mid-April onwards. Pretty much no one believes that they will solve the crisis (~70% of people sceptical in polls). Meanwhile macronists keep ramming through neoliberal reforms against the will and mobilization of all concerned sectors (health, education, soon the whole public sector…).
|
Thanks for the update on France. Doesn't surprise me, I have to say.
|
Is there any connection between the black block and the yellow vests movement?
|
On March 31 2019 05:06 Artisreal wrote:
Is there any connection between the black block and the yellow vests movement?
Let us say that at key times, people who make up the black block will join the demonstrations to fight the police. It's hard to tell if they're here every week since they don't necessarily engage in violent action. Maybe they're here all the time, but you can't know until they "go black block".
At first the deeds and methods of the "black blocks" were fairly rejected among the yellow vests; but given cop violence and Macron's deafness, protest violence is now more tolerated (it's increasingly seen as the only way to get heard). A known figure of the yellow vests even sent a questionnaire to "black blocks" to know their motivations, ideas, etc., and it was answered.
|
i found a site men, and i'm liking it. www.ecfr.eu
Ex: (on german double standards, shady confusing shit, Merkel being a pawn of the lobbyists, could be the deal that some german newspaper(was linked earlier in the thread) was talking about between Germany and France(NorthStream2 vs Art.13)On 8 February, the EU Committee of Permanent Representatives was to vote on a proposal to tighten the rules of the common energy market – which have thus far enabled states and companies, particularly Germany and Gazprom, to circumvent EU law. Paris signalled on 7 February that it would support the proposal, igniting debate among European policy analysts and prompting hasty diplomatic interventions from Berlin. Although this eventually led to a Franco-German compromise of sorts, the incident reflected Germany’s increasing isolation on the issue. ... German Chancellor Angela Merkel has only added to the confusion with her inconsistency on the matter. She voted down the European Commission’s first attempt to change EU energy regulations in November 2017, but acknowledged the following spring that Germany needed to address the security concerns about Nord Stream 2 of Ukraine and other countries. Hence, many diplomats thought she would accept the proposal. The EU’s reaction Nonetheless, Berlin’s reaction was far from accepting. Merkel and President Frank-Walter Steinmeier immediately pressured Paris and, particularly, Bucharest (which currently holds the EU presidency) to water down the proposal. The resulting compromise denies other EU member states and the European Commission any influence on the process of commissioning the pipeline. Gazprom will still be forced to transfer operative ownership of the project to another company – most likely, a Gazprom subsidiary similar to the one that operates the European Gas Pipeline Link interconnector – and to allow other providers to access to the pipeline. Neither provision will change much: such a subsidiary would have the opportunity to hire loyal politicians as board members and thereby widen the Russian corruption network in Germany. And other, non-Russian suppliers cannot access the pipeline because it lies on the seabed. The decision of whether to involve other Russian companies in Nord Stream 2 rests with President Vladimir Putin. As such, the watered-down version of the proposal is only a compromise in the sense that it is better than nothing. + Show Spoiler +The German government’s handling of the project will cause lasting damage. Several of the arguments Berlin put forward in support of Nord Stream 2 have been revealed as lies:
Nord Stream 2 is a commercial project.
This argument holds that the pipeline will fit within the EU’s legal framework and that there are no grounds to interfere with business initiatives unless they violate existing rules. It is now clear that the German government actively intervenes to preserve a regulatory ecosystem in which the project can survive.
German energy supply is separate from German foreign policy.
German pipelines only come about due to the heavy political support they receive. This erodes the trust placed in Germany to uphold EU sanctions, for two reasons. Firstly, because the Yamal gas field – which feeds the Nord Stream pipelines – is difficult to exploit, the project will only be a long-term commercial success if the EU lifts its sanctions on the Russian energy sector. Secondly, if many smaller states are prevented from conducting business with Russia but Berlin provides political cover to deals with the country it sees as strategically important, the European sanctions debate will descend into cynicism.
The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) have substantively different views of Nord Stream 2.
In the past, SPD cadres led the way in openly advocating for the pipeline project, while the chancellery remained silent on the issue. Many of Germany’s European allies hoped a new German government would take a different approach to Nord Stream 2 or that Merkel and other key figures would prove trustworthy because they had no personal involvement in pushing for the project. But Merkel has now personally defended the project, citing the usual arguments of lobbyists for Nord Stream 2 and thereby toxifying her and the CDU on the European stage. Indeed, many European opponents of the project now see Germany as a whole as the problem.
The German government is a multilateralist protector of the rules-based order.
Germany’s behaviour shows that it only accepts the rules when convenient, and otherwise uses unilateral bullying tactics to preserve regulatory loopholes that favour German interests. While it loves to rant about Trump’s disruptive and confrontational behaviour, the German government hardly behaves any differently when its interests are at stake.
The EU is a rules-based organisation in which all member-states have equal rights.
While this is the case on paper, the Nord Stream 2 case is widely perceived as one more example of double standards that favour Germany. The EU has prevented Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, and Slovakia from engaging in bilateral pipeline projects with Russia under its Third Energy Package. Yet Germany has used a loophole in European regulations to launch the kind of project that others have been denied, and to strengthen its position in the European gas market. Having seen another major European power become increasingly willing to bend and break the rules, Italy is now more likely than ever to demand exemptions from the Stability and Growth Pact. Germany has no capacity or domestic mandate to deal with the geopolitical fallout of its choices on Nord Stream 2. It cannot prevent Russia from absorbing Belarus, nor from escalating the war in Ukraine. In environmental and climate politics, German leaders often emphasise that one should not commit to policies whose ramifications one cannot control. But, in a mirror image of Trump’s approach to climate policy, Merkel simply bows to ideological stubbornness and the lobbying efforts of domestic industry and special interest groups. but that was a bonus; i was trying to find something in english for what is going on over here: emerging-europe.comRomania is the latest country to become entangled in a wider row regarding the revival of the Soviet-era International Investment Bank (IIB), currently based in Russia.
Florin Cîțu, a Romanian senator, last week accused the country’s finance minister, Eugen Teodorovici (pictured above), of agreeing a deal that would see the Russian bank become the leading partner and investor in Romania’s sovereign wealth fund. Last year, Romania paid the bank four million euros to increase its stake to 7.04 per cent. On March 26 it was reported that Romania is due to pay the bank a further 3.6 million euros this year. “Mr Teodorovici has betrayed the interests of Romania and its strategic partners,” said Mr Cîțu.
There is growing unease across emerging Europe at the revival of the IIB, created in 1970 with the objective of fostering trade and economic cooperation within the Soviet Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon).
...
Russia is the bank’s largest shareholder, but a small number of EU members (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania) also hold stakes, alongside Cuba, Mongolia and Vietnam.
Hungary recently passed legislation that will allow the IIB would move its headquarters to Budapest. Under that law, it would be granted privileges and immunities in accordance with its status as a treaty-based international development bank, including diplomatic status (and immunity) for its staff. The IIB is due to relocate its headquarters to Hungary in the second half of this year.
“In its current form, the [Hungarian] law could create serious security problems for not only Hungary but every member of the European Union and NATO,” says Mr Rácz.
...
In an interview with the Financial Times, the bank’s chief executive, Nikolay Kosov, insisted however that the bank is “completely free from any influence of Russian secret services — or those of the EU and NATO.” i mean sure, free from any influence of Russian secret services ... fuck off.
https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_a_foot_in_the_door_russias_international_investment_bank_moves_t The IIB is registered among the official state organs and governing bodies of the Russian Federation. This means that the bank is an integral part of the Russian state administration. Thus, pro-Orbán media outlets’ argument that the IIB is “partly Hungarian” – due to Budapest’s investment in it – are unfounded.
The IIB’s immunity
Hungary’s draft law provides the IIB with a wide range of immunities and exemptions. Under the legislation, neither the bank nor its transactions or operations are subject to financial or regulatory oversight. Meanwhile, the law also permits the bank to provide investment, banking, leasing, and other financial services. This allows the IIB to handle the assets and deposits of even Hungarian state companies, and provide loans to pro-government oligarchs, without official oversight. then there's this: Since 2013, Romania’s gas imports from Russia have rapidly declined, reaching a decades-low of 163,000 tep in 2015. But the imports rose again in 2016, followed by a decline in 2017.
This trend change seen in 2018 may indicate a rising reliance on Russian gas – and put at risk one of Romania’s biggest assets. and this:WIEE, a company that imports Russian natural gas to Romania, notified its customers about a 2% price hike effective January 1, 2019, local Economica.net reported.
The move came immediately after the Romanian Government levied, by emergency ordinance 114/2018, a 2% turnover tax on the revenues of local energy companies, including the natural gas producers. The tax is not enforceable to natural gas importers. means that when we have a proEU gov. here, the imports from Russia decrease and when we have a not-proEU gov., the imports from Russia increase and they get tax freebies.
the amount of shit going on about now(and it will increase come EU parliament elections) in and around EU is crazy and we have in here a bunch of prudes talking about morals and ethics; and then you see them giving shit to UK from a moralistic vantage point as if ... get a clue people. the EU right now is a fuck hole and dicks are pocking it; from russians to chinese to israelis to brits, plus the cherry on top, the domestic fuckery.
as shit and shameful the UK situation is, the EU'ers have nothing. say populists win EU parliamentary elections, add to that a Germany that has shown it is willing and able to make concession to/for the russians, and you get to say Hi! to your new overlord, Mr.Putin.
at best, to me this looks like a divide and conquer type of maneuver and at worst you have dicks and assholes going at it and the biggest one or the loosest one, respectively, will win.
|
Thanks for the France updates, we get very little news about it here.
|
So the progressive Zuzana Caputova was elected president in Slovakia. Not a huge deal in itself but a break from the trend of a growing right wing and populistic eastern Europe is refreshing. Hope she can do great things.
|
https://www.rferl.org/a/romania-says-it-will-move-its-embassy-to-jerusalem/29839412.html Romanian Prime Minister Viorica Dancila has announced that Bucharest will move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Dancila made the announcement in Washington on March 24 at the annual policy conference of the main pro-Israel lobby group in the United States -- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"I, as prime minister of Romania, and the government that I run, will move our embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of the state of Israel," Dancila said.
"I can promise you this: Romania will remain the same loyal friend and the strongest European voice in support of the Jewish people and the state of Israel," she said.
Saeb Erekat, a senior official in the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), criticized Romania over Dancila's announcement, calling the move a "blatant violation of Palestinian rights, international law, and UN resolutions."
...
No European country has yet moved its embassy to Jerusalem -- although several have opened diplomatic presences there, including the Czech Republic, which has announced that it intends to relocate its embassy in the future. Bulgaria is trying to play the neutral card and says will not move its embassy but will open an 'honorary consulate' in Jerusalem.
in our case, the gov. already adopted a memorandum to start the proceedings. in theory, the move needs to be sanctioned by our president and he is against it, but he is losing the domestic power struggle to PSD/Dancila for couple years now.
as a counter move, the moroccans postponed a scheduled visit of our senate president there(he then later canceled it+ Show Spoiler +The Romanian official was scheduled to hold talks with Lahbib El-Malki, the President of the Moroccan House of Representatives (the first chamber in Parliament), and Hakim Ben Shammas, Chairman of the Council of Counsellors (the second chamber), in the framework of the Moroccan-Romanian parliamentary friendship group. The Royal Hashemite Court said in a statement published on Monday that Jordan’s King Abdullah II has decided to cancel a scheduled visit to Romania after Dăncilă’s declaration on the transfer of her country’s embassy to Jerusalem.
Among the reactions, the Jordanian Businessmen Association (JBA), (a non-governmental organisation and a representative of businessmen) announced in a statement issued on Monday the freezing of the agreement signed in 2013 with the Federation of Romanian Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
- there are presidential elections in Ukraine today which could prove crucial in any EU+Ukr, Russia+Ukr, US+Ukr, NATO+Ukr futures. the front-runners: Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Petro Poroshenko, and Yulia Tymoshenko.the surprising front-runner in pre-election polls was 41-year-old comic and sitcom "president" Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has parlayed his prime-time prominence as a "Servant Of The People" into a serious challenge to the political establishment. ;
- in Rep. Moldova, socialists/ex-communists won the parliamentary elections; the president was already pro-Russian; next moves/decisions are expected.
- https://www.newsweek.com/russia-belarus-unite-absorb-union-vladimir-putin-alexander-lukashenko-1333800 The president of Belarus has said the country is ready to unite with long-time ally Russia, raising the prospect of Moscow absorbing the eastern European dictatorship on the borders of Poland and Lithuania.
President Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled the former Soviet state since the presidential post was created in 1994, said Friday his nation was ready to join with Russia, The Moscow Times reported.
Lukashenko made the comments on the third and final day of bilateral talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rumors have long abounded that Belarus could be absorbed into Russia under Putin’s watch, deepening the “union state” arrangement that has existed between them since the late 1990s.
“The two of us could unite tomorrow, no problem,” Lukashenko said Friday. “But are you—Russians and Belarusians—ready for it?” the president added, according to Interfax. “We’re ready to unite and consolidate our efforts, states and peoples as far as we’re ready.”
Putin tried to question the very concept of independent states in his subsequent remarks. “There are simply no fully independent states in the world. The modern world is a world of interdependence,” the Russian president said. you look at that and say ???, but it's not like anyone felt less confused/dismissive before russians went into Urk, or pre-during their Crimea move.
|
On March 31 2019 06:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2019 05:06 Artisreal wrote:
Is there any connection between the black block and the yellow vests movement? Let us say that at key times, people who make up the black block will join the demonstrations to fight the police. It's hard to tell if they're here every week since they don't necessarily engage in violent action. Maybe they're here all the time, but you can't know until they "go black block". At first the deeds and methods of the "black blocks" were fairly rejected among the yellow vests; but given cop violence and Macron's deafness, protest violence is now more tolerated (it's increasingly seen as the only way to get heard). A known figure of the yellow vests even sent a questionnaire to "black blocks" to know their motivations, ideas, etc., and it was answered.
Thank you, I've always interpreted the destruction to be disconnected from the actual yellow vests, albeit the police violence drawing justification from the former to beat up the latter.
This kind of supports my impression, I'd say.
Is there any resistance in the movement to distance oneself from right wing and violent groups or is it still a rather heterogenous movement with many local heads (or none?) rather than a more central organization?
I suspect Paris is different from the rest of the country as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/NNnPPAC.png)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2bgMQUW0AEvNdi.jpg )
![[image loading]](https://i2.wp.com/www.anti-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Rassemblement-de-soutien-à-Geneviève-Legay.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=599%2C337&ssl=1 )
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2foxHjX4AAqwqU.jpg )
