Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How the EU Copyright Proposal Will Hurt the Web and Wikipedia (wikimedia.org)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-at-stake dept.

Wikimedia, which operates Wikipedia, chimes in on the EU copyright debacle: Our movement is working to promote freedom online for the benefit of all. Our efforts in this public policy realm are all the more important in an era of increasing restrictions on free speech and free access to knowledge across the globe, which directly threaten the mission and vision of Wikimedia and its projects, such as Wikipedia. This is why we strongly oppose the proposed EU Copyright Directives and urge the Members of the European Parliament to reconsider proceeding with the version recently adopted by the Legal Affairs Committee. We are concerned because these flawed proposals hurt everyone's rights to freedom of expression and Europe's ability to improve the welfare of its citizens online. Next week, we expect the European Parliament to vote in plenary on whether to proceed with the version adopted by the Committee. If the Members of the European Parliament reject it, there will be another opportunity to fix much of the current proposal's broken requirements. Now may be the last opportunity to improve the directive.

The requirement for platforms to implement upload filters is a serious threat for freedom of expression and privacy. Our foundational vision depends on the free exchange of knowledge across the entirety of the web, and beyond the boundaries of the Wikimedia projects. A new exclusive right allowing press publishers to restrict the use of news snippets will make it more difficult to access and share information about current events in the world, making it harder for Wikipedia contributors to find citations for articles online. The proposal does not support user rights, is missing strong safeguards for the public domain, and does not create exceptions that would truly empower people to participate in research and culture. We believe that enactment of this copyright package will significantly decrease in the amount of content that will be freely accessible to all across the globe.

122 comments

  1. Give Europe what it wants. by Zorro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cut Europe off from the Internet.

    THIS is what they really want.
    $15 a Minute phone calls to Italy and only Government approved newspapers.
    Galileo for navigation and no GPS.

    1. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Aww, you left out the "We won WWII" nonsense from your post. If you're gonna go full retard chauvinist how could you have missed that?

    2. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give Europe what it wants.

      The D?

    3. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Europe doesn't want Donald.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      One does not simply refuse the Donald.

    5. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We didn't win it alone.

      Absent our help, the other side would have won.

      The nation that lost the most people (the USSR) started the war allied with the Nazis. They lost the most, because they deserved it.

      All are true.

    6. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Cut Europe off from the Internet.

      I don't think this is really a trolling statement, just maybe not delicately stated.

      Just because Europe is fucked up doesn't mean the USA isn't also fucked up, the two are not mutually exclusive (both is perhaps the more likely scenario). There are several countries that ought to either learn to cooperate online or get the hell out of cyberspace. Nothing stops a country from running their own network and routers, other than the public outrage of their citizens.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    7. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cut Europe off from the Internet.

      THIS is what they really want.
      $15 a Minute phone calls to Italy and only Government approved newspapers.
      Galileo for navigation and no GPS.

      Upload filters will never work. Make the countries interested in filtering responsible for filtering, not non-eu websites.

      It's best to not cut them off, but to remove any .eu sites from web search results, then see what happens.

      The Internet generally knows how to route around problems.

    8. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      One does not simply refuse the Donald.

      Is that you Ivanka? #MeToo

      7 Trump Quotes About Ivanka That Will Make You Go WHOA

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Boromir.

    10. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Upload filters will never work.

      And there is a way around them. Instead of a "platform" with "forums", every user gets his own complete domain with his own single-user forum. He must of course provide a filter if he let others post - but he don't need to let other people post. Discussions can be done by linking to posts on the other guy's forum. Everybody have their own site (although identical to all others), no third party posting so nothing to check. Of course you're responsible if you do piracy on your own site - but no automatic checking needed because you are the domain owner.

    11. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

      We didn't win it alone.

      Absent the USA's help, the USSR may have won.

      The nation that lost the most people was the USSR. They lost ~14% of their population, because they fought the most brutal, relentless part of the war against the Nazi regime.

      All are true.

      There, I fixed that for you so you don't come out sounding like an ignorant asshole.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    12. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by TimMD909 · · Score: 2

      ... The Internet generally knows how to route around problems.

      As long as Comcast isn't involved, I'm inclined to agree...

    13. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a European, I agree. It's the best way to show the average EU citizen what a detached abomination Brussels has become.

    14. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Cederic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Feels to me he's spot on. Google, Wikipedia, Slashdot should all geoblock the EU if this law goes through. Lets see how long it lasts.

    15. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? As a German I constantly get told that I'm responsible for everything that happened before my parents were even alive. The frequency of said "reminders" has almost reached the audible spectrum since the migrant crisis started.

    16. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah cut off 500 million users. That sounds smart.

    17. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this EU law passed you think you're safe in the US? The same actors will push for similar laws in other countries and cite the EU law as basis.

    18. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Absent the USA's help, the USSR may have won.

      Might want to find out how much help we gave the USSR.
      Hint: we sent them 10000+ tanks, and more airplanes than tanks. For a start...

      The nation that lost the most people was the USSR. They lost ~14% of their population, because they fought the most brutal, relentless part of the war against the Nazi regime.

      All too true. Which doesn't invalidate the OP's statement that they were allied with the Germans at the beginning of the War. Always remember that when Poland was invaded by Germany from the west, it was also invaded by the Soviets from the East....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If this EU law passed you think you're safe in the US? The same actors will push for similar laws in other countries and cite the EU law as basis.

      While I generally thing you are right about that, it's at least worth noting that in the US this has already been tried, and it backfired spectacularly.

      Publishers threatened Facebook with lawsuits for not paying publishers for the first sentence being used to link to the actual publisher article.
      Facebook turned around and started removing their news feeds completely and said the publishers will now need to pay them to be included.
      Publishers then bitch and moan that their internet visitors dwindled to a tiny fraction they had before.

      https://www.recode.net/2017/10/23/16525192/facebook-explore-feed-news-media-audience-reach-traffic-test

      Google had the same thing, at least in the US by Rupert Murdock, but also in a number of other countries. Google told them to pound legal sand and get a court order.

      In the case of Rupert, he got chewed out by stake holders and quietly dropped the idea.
      In other cases however the publishers did exactly this, and Google complied with the court and delisted those sites.
      Not weeks later those same publishers tried to sue Google yet again, this time for not linking to them, exactly what they sued and won to get, and the judge apparently wouldn't reverse the previous order.

      That made the publishers sell access to their news for free so Google could legally repost the title of their news articles and keep those publishers from going out of business.

      In both cases, neither company got in any legal troubles in the US for what they were doing or did after. The EU law as written wouldn't be so lenient.

      As for wikipedia, they should just pull up shop and leave those countries.
      Google/Facebook are only there to make money, and will continue to stay there in compliance of the law to keep making money.
      Wikipedia however is always going on about their principals of freedom like this, so if that's actually true, there is no reason to stay in the EU, and after would have no reason to follow their laws.

      So the US isn't "safe" as an absolute, it's at least somewhat safer in comparison.

    20. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, we in Europe do not want this crap. Unfortunately, right wing jerks are ruining our countries. Sounds familiar to the US? Yep. We are in this together. We have to fight those totalitarian tendencies in the West. Or having no free Internet is the least of our worries.

    21. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a white American male, I sympathize.

    22. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah cut off 500 million users. That sounds smart.

      At the end of the day Google is a business. They won't loose money indefinitely to endless European daily fines as far as the eye can see. At some point they have to cut their losses.

    23. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same actors will push for similar laws in other countries and cite the EU law as basis.

      Except for the fact that the typical Trump voter has disdain or outright contempt for all things European, including their silly laws. The Hollywood left, which by and large are the ones involved in the copyright businesses, are squarely on Trump's enemies list. The conservatives own industrial conglomerates, integrated oil and gas, and the like, not so much copyrights so they don't give a shit about that. They couldn't get SOPA passed under Obama and he was Hollywood's darling. How much less will they be able to get diddly squat out of the Trump administration? The Trump voter is still pissed that the liberals cancelled Roseanne. Hollywood copyright people are a Trump punching bag for the next 2 years at least. They will be lucky if Trump doesn't shorten the term of copyright or abolish it outright in a fit of pique just to spite them. No, the Hollywood liberal copyright people would be smart to shut up and not push their luck while Trump's in charge. The best that they can hope for from this administration is to lie low and not draw attention to themselves because it will almost certainly be bad for their business if they do.

    24. Re: Give Europe what it wants. by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Russia should leave their neighboring countries alone! Like the U.S. does with Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, and Nicaragua!

    25. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is offering consumers a 3rd choice for navigation worse than only being allowed one as is the case currently? Europeans will have a choice of GPS and Galileo (probably not Glonass though). I'm struggling to see how greater consumer choice and the ability to choose not to be dependent on a technology controlled by the US is somehow oppressive?

      The phone calls thing makes no sense either, you can use your mobile contract right across Europe, meaning I can phone from anywhere in Europe as if it was my standard rate, it also doesn't cost me $15 a minute to phone Italy, the only place it costs me that is in the US, but that's an American problem not a European one.

      There's also no government approved newspapers, that's some that affects countries like Turkey and Russia, not the EU. In fact, exactly this is illegal under the ECHR, and the EU has a court the ECtHR that enforces it and is controlled by no single member state, and even encompasses non-member states. This is why foreign countries listen to the EU more now than the US Supreme Court when looking for reference cases, because the EU does a universally better job at protecting human rights and things like freedom of the press - you only have to look at president Hitler and his constant attacks against journalists and journalism, coupled with him blocking many journalists from attending official events to see what real actual press obstruction looks like.

      Given all this it sounds like you're just really being astoundingly xenophobic and are just spout hardline American nationalist drivel rather than actually contributing anything meaningful. If you were right on at least one of these things you might be worth listening to, but you're categorically not just wrong on all of them, but are stating the exact opposite of reality. Maybe you're just jealous that the EU is managing to stay a functioning proportionally representative democracy that protects human rights whilst your country has begun it's fall towards dictatorship as Trump governs by presidential decree as a puppet of Putin? That's exactly the "democracy" we don't want, we want a functioning one that will allow this copyright law to be blocked democratically, not railroaded through by a dictator-president.

      Part of a functioning democracy is exactly that unpopular things can be proposed and voted down, just because something is proposed doesn't mean it'll pass, and the European Parliament has blocked plenty such laws like this before so no reason to think it wouldn't this time, because again, unlike many other countries it's still a functioning democracy elected by proportional representation.

    26. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All too true. Which doesn't invalidate the OP's statement that they were allied with the Germans at the beginning of the War.

      Actually, Russia and Germany never were allies. They had a "Nichtangriffspakt" contract, where they just agreed to not attack each other. Hitler violated this contract with operation Barbarossa. Get yourself educated on history. It's one of the most important subjects you can learn in life, because patterns seems to be always repeating.

    27. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      For the two weeks it'll take the European population to demand a reverse to this inane law? Yes.

      Politicians may not care about the internet working correctly but the rest of those 500 million people do.

    28. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      The real problem is that the EU policy makers just don't understand how technology works. It's not due to malice. It's ignorance.

      On some level, the large majority of the populations anywhere around the world support copyright and support enforcing it. That's why the policy makers can get behind initiatives to 'improve' enforcement. They are, again, simply unable to properly foresee the consequences of what on some level seems like reasonable policy. It obviously doesn't help that they have all kinds of lobbyists trying to influence them.

      A lot of these policy makers are old dudes who can barely use an iPad and think along the lines of 'These tech guys can make a worldwide video platform, so surely they can easily build some simple filtering thing.' If you've ever had to deal with explaining how things that seem simple on the surface are actually really complex or otherwise problematic to any C-level guy, you know how deep the ignorance and lack of realization of that ignorance can run.

    29. Re:Give Europe what it wants. by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Dream on. If anything Congress is sitting around right now trying to figure out how they can make next years release of IP to the public domain not happen.

      Roseanne is an idiot. She was an idiot decades ago when her original show was on and she hasn't changed.

      P.S. there are plenty of conservative actors, some are even starting to "come out" now that studios and media companies are afraid to retaliate against them for the crime of not being liberal.

  2. Brexit, baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bye bye communism.

    Captcha: stoned (wtf?)

    1. Re:Brexit, baby by x0ra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably not "communism", the "People" is of no importance *at all*. It's more like a form of textbook fascism.

    2. Re: Brexit, baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough about the USA, what about Europe?

    3. Re:Brexit, baby by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      Probably not "communism", the "People" is of no importance *at all*. It's more like a form of textbook fascism.

      Historically speaking, communism and fascism are forks of a GUI for a totalitarian operating system. Bringing this up tends to get both pissed off, which is part of why both are in (hilarious) agreement about glossing over the early history of fascism and its political roots, which is sad because a lot of historical irony is involved. (The main reason the fascists snagged support from the conservatives was more than anything else because the fascists rejected the idea that class warfare was necessary; it doesn't really look like anybody was particularly expecting capitalism to survive to the 21st century.)

    4. Re:Brexit, baby by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I agree that fascism has often prospered under a banner of communism - but can you cite even one instance of a nation that was actually even remotely communist, rather than just using the name as a convenient mask?

      Remember, one of the key tenets of communism is that the workers own the means of production, and that is wholly incompatible with the government owning said means, unless you can make a strong case that the workers truly own the government.

      Personally, I can think of only a small handful of countries (Iceland comes to mind) that could make an even remotely plausible claim to having a government truly owned by the workers. Certainly China, Russia, the United States, etc. could not.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Brexit, baby by x0ra · · Score: 2

      USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Chile. The "not true communist" argument is an utter lie. All these nations have been as "communist" as can be.

    6. Re:Brexit, baby by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Bye bye communism.

      If you look closely at the Brussels regulatory regime, it's actually more like Californism. It's just that the sacred untouchable 'refugees' are a different ethnicity.

    7. Re:Brexit, baby by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Personally, I can think of only a small handful of countries (Iceland comes to mind) that could make an even remotely plausible claim to having a government truly owned by the workers.

      And when I visited, they still complained about the asshat banksters having gotten off easy in the Great Recession.

    8. Re:Brexit, baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bzzt wrong numbnuts

      The workers were slaves in those countries.

    9. Re:Brexit, baby by fazig · · Score: 1

      Stalinism is the word you're looking for.
      It's difficult to say what true communism is or should be, because Marx never really defined what should happen after class warfare in order to be successful. At least in theory practical implementations of communism range from anarchy to totalitarianism.
      However I strongly suspect that Marx would have hated what those countries did in his name. All they did was to replace the old bourgeoisie with the state and turned everyone else into their proletariat. And since all the power was in fact not in the hands of the people but centralized, the end result was more akin to a monarchy than anything else.

    10. Re: Brexit, baby by reanjr · · Score: 1

      The No True Communist fallacy rearing its head.

    11. Re: Brexit, baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's true in this case. In the same way that there was no true democracy before the 1900s, since women didn't get to vote before that century, and in e.g. the ancient Greek democracies even most men couldn't vote.

      Saying that an idea has never been implemented correctly is not a fallacy. But it does raise the question of whether it is actually possible to implement correctly or not, since each failure to do so makes that seem less likely.

      By the way, just to clarify: when people nowadays refer to socialism in a good way, they usually want a liberal democracy where the state directly controls the economy, but more importantly the citizens control the state. The idea is to make society more democratic by moving as many decisions as possible from closed board rooms to democratically elected representatives. That system has never been implemented, instead all revolutions claiming to be socialist or communist have ended up as authoritarian regimes.

    12. Re: Brexit, baby by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      > But it does raise the question of whether it is actually possible to implement correctly or not, since each failure to do so makes that seem less likely.

      It certainly does raise the question. But if an incoming regime never had any intention of being communist beyond riding the banner into power, does that really count against its possibility, rather than more specifically to the credibility of those claiming to be its champions?

      Let me put it this way - given the track record I would be vehemently opposed to *anyone* rallying support on a communist platform. But I also think the basic ideals of the relative worth of the working class are worth holding up as a counterbalance to the Gilded Age ideals inherent in unregulated free market capitalism. Either extreme seems to lead to the masses being miserable, and that when we balance somewhere in between everyone prospers. But that's hard to do when one ideal has been demonized.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:Brexit, baby by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Anarchy itself would evolves to a form of totalitarianism. All human social interaction structure are hierarchical in nature and a variant of a D/s model, there is no mythical social structure where everybody (as in EVERYBODY) is equal.

    14. Re:Brexit, baby by fazig · · Score: 1

      So? It's one extreme on the spectrum of possibilities. That's the point here - there's an entire spectrum. In theory communism could even work in a libertarian society if there was a consensus on handling their economy exactly that way.
      Stalin certainly wasn't stupid. He surely realized that giving all the power to the people wasn't going to work. People tend to be irresponsible and embracing cheap comforts. But Stalin didn't go for something in between, he essentially choose to make himself the new czar with unilateral control over everything and created a personal cult around him that celebrated him much like a good in the name of Marx's economic theories and labels like "people's republic" or "democracy" where all you can choose is one single party, perhaps there's also some other fake opposition. As far as I know their official position wasn't that they're communist, but that they were trying to get there through socialism. Of course they never really did what would have been at least the bare minimum to actually get there. Like teaching people to think independently and that all actions have consequences. If people were able to do that, they could question what was actually going on in those states under the guise of communism. So Stalin had to keep his people ignorant enough to not turn against him. And in order to do that there have been a lot of distraction tactics like fanning fear of bigger enemies (capitalism that came from the West) and practically blaming it for all their woes. Those that weren't convinced so easily needed a bit more help, maybe through lethal force. And it worked pretty well from the perspective of those in power (for a while at least).
      I can see how other would be tyrants could get behind the idea of this "communism" and mostly copied what Stalin did, which more accurately should be described as Stalinism.

      Of course don't get me wrong here. I'm not postulating that communism could work on such a large scale under different circumstances. But the "as communist as can be" just isn't correct.

    15. Re: Brexit, baby by reanjr · · Score: 1

      I reject any system that promotes labor. We are a technologically advanced society on the cusp of a post-labor capability. Any attempt to focus on laborers is missing the point.

    16. Re: Brexit, baby by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's a third position that does indeed bear discussing in the face of the potential elimination of the need for manual labor within a few generations. I'm not even sure what you'd call it, and it's very different from the other two. Capitalism says the bulk of the value generated by society rightfully belongs to the organizers, those who have shown they can most effectively manage and accumulate capital. Communism says to the laborers, those who actually did all the work to make it real. And this other, I suppose, that no work had to be done, so everybody should benefit from the value.

      Let's be clear though - the creation of art, the governing of society, the organization of production, the advancement of science and technology - that's all still work, and somebody has to do it or it won't get done. The only way we get a truly post-labor world is if we create fully autonomous self-maintaining robots sufficiently advanced to effectively reduce humanity to house pets, without actually being conscious (because then they would be people performing labor). And I would hope that very few people would actually want that if they took the time to really consider the implications.

      What we are actually approaching is a world where one person with the right skills and assets can easily provide for all the material needs (and big slice of the desires) of hundreds, maybe many thousands others, and thus the vast majority of the population will find themselves becoming rather superfluous, while a tiny handful find themselves bearing the responsibility of maintaining the system for everybody else. It's going to be an interesting problem to deal with. I can hope that the working class will end up somewhere on the spectrum between rock stars and monks, while the fallow class will be well-managed, and discouraged from breeding excessively.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re:Brexit, baby by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Yes. Slavery is the result of Communism, because you can't base a government on a lie about human nature.

      Humans are fundamentally flawed. A theist would say its because of Original Sin, or the Yin/Yang duality of good and evil, or just because humans are bad. A psychologist might point to the Id as the ethics free core of the human psyche.

      The point is that most people when put in a position of power unfettered by external constraints will abuse that power. For every Washington or Cincinnatus there are hundreds of Stalins or Robespierres or Duvaliers.

  3. EU hurt free speech? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3

    Unpossible! We're told time and again it is only the dictatorship that is the USA that can restrict speech and promote hate, and that the anointed in Brussels are only pure and holy and love freedom for all...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:EU hurt free speech? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      At this point, we're getting close to a Brave New World version of Oceania vs. Eurasia vs. Eastasia in 1984...

    2. Re:EU hurt free speech? by x0ra · · Score: 2

      from a former European point of view, now exiled in North America, Europe *is* totalitarian.

    3. Re:EU hurt free speech? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The EU does not want to implement censorship. They want to scare online platforms into doing it for them. Once upload filters are in place, their scope will be increased to include not only copyrighted material but also undesirable opinions (a.k.a. "fake news")

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:EU hurt free speech? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The EU does not want to implement censorship. They want to scare online platforms into doing it for them.

      Scaring companies - or regulating them - to enforce what you want used to be known as fascism. But now it's considered nice, EU-style socialism...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:EU hurt free speech? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      and to prove my point very quickly, the first though of a European citizen about doing anything is "is this legal", ie. assuming everything is forbidden unless granted. In a free society, this thought (if any) of a citizen should rather be "is this illegal".

    6. Re:EU hurt free speech? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's a cage, but it IS gilded, and there's this nice, splinter free perch for us. Who wants all that icky space outside with cold and rain and heat and sappy branches...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:EU hurt free speech? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I have dual citizenship, it's not my first thought. But I live on the good side of the pond.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:EU hurt free speech? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      You're the first European that I've ever heard of that was exiled to North America. What the hell did you do? Heck, the number of Europeans that I know that have chosen to live in the US, I can count on one hand. I knohttps://news.slashdot.org/story/18/06/29/1554257/how-the-eu-copyright-proposal-will-hurt-the-web-and-wikipedia#w tons of Americans who have immigrated to Europe, though.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    9. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Who has ever said or wrote this? Please name them and provide exact quotes with relevant citations to when they said or wrote this.

    10. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a closer look at which parties in EU support this. Hint: It's not the greens or the leftists.

    11. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what do they demand from such a filter? Will the null filter be ok?

    12. Re:EU hurt free speech? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Google is your friend. But you may not have been around here back then...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Wondering as first thought if you have permission to do something is a symptom of living in a corrupt government. The reason some people have to bring an "extra" wad of money to the DMV or wait 5 years for a driver's license is that corrupt officials slide their way in because that's how you earn money -- ge5ting in the way to get paid to get back out of the way.

      That there are so many regulations people wonder what is permitted rather than forbidden supports this massively over-regulated systrm.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    14. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's a good side?

    15. Re:EU hurt free speech? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Well yes. The EU can't restrict something we don't have. There's no free speech laws here, that's an almost uniquely American thing.

    16. Re:EU hurt free speech? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Fascism is basically a nationalist socialism ("Nazi" stands for "Nationalsozialismus").

    17. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, Fascism is when the industry takes over politics.

      Nazionalsozialismus is when you kill off all socialists in your party after your powergrab.

    18. Re: EU hurt free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life is generally shorter if you live below the surface, so yeah, there is a good side.

    19. Re:EU hurt free speech? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      I can go shoot in the wood, own enough rifles / ammo to arms a small squad, read "Mein Kampf" without a silly "safety preamble", can read "Bagatelles pour un massacre", "L'Ecole des cadavres" and "Les Beaux draps", not be compelled by law to keep ID and have to identify to LEO without probable cause, don't have "state sanctionned historical truth".

      Ya, there is a "good side". [and "no", I'm not living in the US]

    20. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always with what you "know" rather than facts.

      From the right-wing rag the new york times:
      https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/business/international/for-immigrants-america-is-still-more-welcoming-than-europe.html

    21. Re:EU hurt free speech? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Fascism is "characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce". Government takes over industry, not the other way around. And "Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation". Attacking those who you do not agree with political is A-OK with fascists - much like Antifa and Maxine Waters... Fascism is very much the tool of the ultra-left in the US...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    22. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other way around. Fascism is an offshoot of socialism that rather than kill all the capitalists, allowed them to continue on as long as they bent to the will of the state. This is why Fascism moved to the right of the traditional political spectrum even though it's ideas originated on the left. The facsists were just as anti-capitalist as the communists/socialists but decided they could do better if they recruited industry leaders to their side to serve their political purposes.

      Industry taking over politics is also bad, but it is not what fascism is or was.

    23. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada

      numbnuts

    24. Re:EU hurt free speech? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Depends on where the immigrants come from. Also bear in mind that someone who moves between EU member states is no longer counted as an immigrant.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    25. Re: EU hurt free speech? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Really? Which immigrants get a warmer welcome in Europe than in the U.S.?

    26. Re: EU hurt free speech? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Industry taking over government is corporatism. That's what we're dominating the world with from over here in the U.S. :)

    27. Re: EU hurt free speech? by reanjr · · Score: 2

      Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom of speech. The guarantees aren't as strong (hate speech is only protected in the U.S. for example), but it's silly to claim freedom of speech laws are only an American thing.

      Other nations you may be surprised to possess free speech laws: Japan, Phillipines, Australia, Canada, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mexico, ...

    28. Re: EU hurt free speech? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom of speech.

      It most definitely does not. It guarantees freedom of expression and opinion which is not the same thing as speech. And even if it did apply to speech, if you bother reading the actual 2 line of article 10 you'll find a laundry list of exceptions:

      "2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

      Now since you got that wrong, let us look at the rest:

      Philippines: A place where "blasphemy against decency and good customs" is punishable by prison.
      Australia: We definitely do NOT have the right to free speech. Quite the opposite. In Australia we have a single class of protected speech: You have the right to express a political opinion, and that is it.
      Canada: Last I checked Canada was in America.
      Zimbabwe: Stop taking the piss. It is a right that is routinely broken, and the desire for actual freedom of speech in Zimbabwe has been in the news continuously for the past 6 months.
      South Africa: Another place where the bill of rights includes the words "this right does not extend to:" and then starts listing.
      Mexico: Last I checked Mexico was in America.

      Actually the only one you're correct about is Japan which does have universal freedom of speech. Congratulations, you found the "almost" in my sentence.

    29. Re:EU hurt free speech? by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      A likely story.

    30. Re:EU hurt free speech? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Canada is a lot on the left, especially after C-16 (the whinny transgender bill).

    31. Re: EU hurt free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Canada: Last I checked Canada was in America.
      > Mexico: Last I checked Mexico was in America.

      He said that it was an American thing, American literally means anyone who lives in the Americas (south, central and north) but has during the past century been used as a slang for a citizen of the USA.

      If an american to you is north american you cannot include Mexico and if your definition of american is all of the Americas you have to add all countries of south and central america (and all countries in the Americas certainly don't have free speech). You can't just choose the definition of american which fits your argument, that's just sad.

    32. Re: EU hurt free speech? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      I would like to add that any definition of American that includes both Alberta and Chile is not a particularly useful one.

      Should we start talking about EU member states as Eurasian?

    33. Re: EU hurt free speech? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      So, you don't know what the word "American" means so I didn't bother to read the rest of your ignorant drivel.

    34. Re: EU hurt free speech? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So, you don't know what the word "American" means so I didn't bother to read the rest of your ignorant drivel.

      LOL. Nice comeback mate. That comment would be really gutting if you didn't need to read 3/4 of my post it in order to make it.

    35. Re: EU hurt free speech? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Hey, dipshit, one does not have to read from the top of a post. Less likely to do so when the post fills more than a phone screen. I don't begin reading a post only to find out later it's ten pages long, I scroll to the bottom first to check.

  4. Here's the singular issue ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    ... right here:

    ... content that will be FREELY accessible to all across the globe.

    Emphasis mine.

    The content was not generated "freely."

    Sources of information, particularly involving resources such as reporters, information systems, infrastructure, should be fairly compensated for expenses.

    News and other content aggregators are doing little to no work and making money off other's IP.

    We recently had discussions here on /. about copyright law that views this matter from a different perspective.

    Lawrence Lessig Criticizes Proposed 140-Year Copyright Protections

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re: Here's the singular issue ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in order to compensate them, an Orwellian police state must be deployed.

      They can fuck off.

  5. Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you live in Europe, this isn't a problem, and then it's only a problem for Europeans. Let them do what they like. They don't have to look at Wikipedia, or US newspapers, or whatever. They're cutting off their nose to spite their face. If they want to destroy their Internet, it's fine with me.

    1. Re:Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GDPR thats why. Any US company that has a commercial interest in EU will abide by EU rules.

    2. Re:Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have net neutrality, so no, the only one destroying (their) Internet is currently the US.

    3. Re: Why is this a problem? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Net neutrality has existed for like a year. The World Wide Web has been around for almost 30 years. Please explain how the lack of net neutrality destroyed the Internet.

  6. Six years notice that sources are needed by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Wikipedia is it considers the cult games Osu! and Kid Pix as not notable and sent its deletionists

    I see that there are Wikipedia articles for both. The Kid Pix article has been up for at least 13 years.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...!

    I also see that for the past SIX YEARS it's been flagged as needing references. Each page has only a single reference, and the Osu page consists of a single sentence.

    If you think these topics are important, important enough that they've been written about, spend 10 minutes on Google to find a few articles and add them as references. It's really not hard.

    If you actually take the 20 minutes to READ the articles, you can then type some information from those sources into the Wikipedia article, so it'll be an article instead of a sentence.

    You've had six years notice, how long do you need in order to spend a few minutes adding a couple links?

  7. Post-liberty world is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Brussels are only pure and holy and love freedom for all...

    Fascism and a love of money is a cancer that is spreading throughout Western civilization. Europe is not immune and will be consumed immediately after the United States falls.

    The information age brought a new kind of power that we're only now understanding. Viral media, memes, fake news, social media, doxing, data aggregation, market research, 21st century terrorism, cryptocurrency scandals, and the erosion of our personal liberty are all related. It's the end of us if we don't get a handle on it, repair our broken politics and our fractured society.

    What we are likely to see is world wide civil war equivalent to the Spanish Civil War scaled up to a field the size of every nation within cyberspace. World War III won't be the US vs Russia atomic warfare turning cities to hot glass. It will instead be a collapse of society within, and be a lot more like the fall of Rome and a redrawing of borders. The new governments that survive any length of time will be military dictatorships that fiercely defend their newly claimed borders. Lady Liberty will sleep for generations.

    1. Re: Post-liberty world is coming by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Europe will fall into fascism way before the U.S. does. It's always had that nationalism thing in the bag. America is composed of too many individual nations to be truly nationalist.

    2. Re: Post-liberty world is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > America is composed of too many individual nations to be truly nationalist.

      I hope that's sarcasm.

      You are comparing a nation of united states which has existed together for a few hundred years with a union of nations which has only existed for a few decades.

    3. Re: Post-liberty world is coming by reanjr · · Score: 1

      The EU is not a nation. The United States is. The comparison is not between the US and the EU, but between the US and various ethno-states in Europe such as Germany, Albania, or France.

      The EU has a long way to go before it can be compared to the federal system of the US. The fact that it just lost one of its member states isn't helping it either.

    4. Re: Post-liberty world is coming by reanjr · · Score: 1

      In addition, the individual states in the US are not their own nations. The individual nations that make up the US are not nation-states, they are religious or foreign.

      The argument has been made that if fascism came to America it would be through the one thing that binds us as a nation: liberalism (one example might be antifa thugs).

    5. Re: Post-liberty world is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that Obama guy, what a fascist. Making me pay for medical coverage or I get a fine.

      Obobo wants me to pay for services I don't use, even though I take my dirty white children to the ER for free.

  8. Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know.. it just dawned on me when I read the name 'Wikipedia' in this headline: All this 'copyright' business isn't just about 'protecting IP' and monetizing everything in sight, it's mainly about controlling access to information, putting it behind access barriers that require money to bypass. This is essentially no different than what the Catholic Church would do in pre-renaissance times: if you were rich, you could learn to read, therefore you had access to education and information, and as we all well know, 'knowledge is power'. Now in the 21st century, which has the Internet, and where most everyone is literate, there is unprecedented access to information and self-education -- and knowledge is still power. While The Rich, Dominionists, and other so-called 'special interest groups' work in the non-digital world to limit access to higher education, all this 'copyright' action going on works to limit access to information and self-education in the digital/Internet world. Nicely played, Rich People, nicely played. That's the real reason why this needs to be fought against.

    1. Re:Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know.. it just dawned on me when I read the name 'Napster' in this headline: All this 'copyright' business isn't just about 'protecting IP' and monetizing everything in sight, it's mainly about controlling access to music, putting it behind access barriers that require money to bypass.

      Playing devil's advocate

    2. Re:Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, the Dark Ages were a thing. Latin (non-vernacular) masses were a thing.

      > The Church is open-source and transparent

      Why do they keep rejecting my pull request updating the obsolete policy on contraception, then?

      Oh, and I don't recall seeing that much transparency when priests were diddling little kids.

    3. Re:Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      Fuck you.

    4. Re:Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      Troll-lolololololol Again: Fuck you.

    5. Re:Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Not quite the same thing, buddy.

    6. Re:Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Obviously you were not a history major.

    7. Re:Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      The "dark ages" are called like that because we lack written information/history about them.
      There was nothing particular "dark" during the migration times.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re: Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by reanjr · · Score: 1

      They are also referred to as the Dark Ages because the people living through them also had no idea what their own history was. This is the vacuum of information the Catholic Church moved into to dominate European thinking. It was much easier to spread Catholic thought to the ignorant post-imperial society than it was in the preceding centuries with an educated, cosmopolitan, "global" empire.

    9. Re:Not just control of IP; control of INFORMATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We might have found someone more stupid than evangelicals and even Trump.

      numbnuts

  9. Only one way to circumvent this bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have to develop global ad hoc networking and just live with the latency issues, for now. We cannot remain tethered to the ISP. They are the single point of failure, the government's *off switch*.

  10. Official Reponse by fafalone · · Score: 1

    Official Response to Concerns Raised, from Copyright Holders and EU Puppets:

    Dear Wikimedia,
    Womp womp.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Wikipedia needs to be hurt by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

    You're focusing on the trees and ignoring not just the forest, but the entire Amazon Basin.

    How Wikipedia handles things is completely irrelevant to the situation. This legislation affects literally everybody, possibly even outside the EU depending on how far they try to wave their reproductive pseudopod.

    It's a shockingly stupid piece of legislation that in one move can easily make it not worth the effort to run *any* service *at all*. ESPECIALLY if that might even vaguely involve interacting with the public, cause you'll risk liability for anything any user does.

    It is overwhelmingly cost prohibitive, puts too much burden on the service providers, and destroys free speech. With legislation like that, you may as well not even bother having the internet at all.

  13. At least they were terse by gavron · · Score: 1

    Why say in two screenfulls what you can say in two sentences. /s
    E

  14. Re:Wikipedia needs to be hurt by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Fuck off ivan

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Pathetic americans by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

    Your copyright law and patents are still much worse than Europe's.

    --
    Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
    1. Re:Pathetic americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The american government did ignore or did not want to recognize the Berne Convention

      An example of it is by example to enlarge the age of the copyright in U.S. for all the world.

      We know that U.S. did want to create monopolies or anti-competition markets, and consequently it was dying for many years.

      In Europe, we want to create our common fabric of silicon chips due to the problems of spectre/meltwon mitigations from Intel/AMD and that was not resolving to protect the privacy of the europeans. And another problems are the enforcement of backdoors, crypto-tools developed for the three-letter U.S. agencies, etc

      We as europeans need the security, safety, trust of the U.S. chips that are selling to Europe under the only interests of U.S.

      Moreover, when the europeans servers are compromised due to U.S interests, it will cost many euro-billions in losses.

    2. Re: Pathetic americans by reanjr · · Score: 1

      You prefer backdoors placed there Brussels rather than Washington. That's understandable, but that's a lot of investment just to be able to choose which spy agencies can pwn you.

  17. wut by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

    I agree that fascism has often prospered under a banner of communism [...]

    I don't know who you are agreeing with, but it isn't me. I did not claim that fascism has been passed off as communism. Here, let me put some emphasis in the key words in the first line: "Historically speaking, communism and fascism are forks of a GUI for a totalitarian operating system."

    Or, to use your phrasing, I said that totalitarianism has often prospered under a banner of communism and fascism .