Slashdot Mirror
European Parliament Votes in Favor of Controversial Copyright Laws (engadget.com)
The EU has voted on copyright reform, with members of European Parliament this time voting in favor of the extremely controversial Articles 11 and 13. The 438 to 226 vote, described as "the worst possible outcome" by some quarters, could have significant repercussions on the way we use the internet. From a report: The Copyright Directive, first proposed in 2016, is intended to bring the issue of copyright in line with the digital age. Articles 11 and 13 have caused particular controversy, with many heralding their adoption as the death of the internet. Article 11, also known as the "link tax", would require online platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay media companies to link to their content, while Article 13, the "upload filter", would force them to check all content uploaded to their sites and remove any copyrighted material. How this will affect regular internet users is still subject to debate, but it could seriously limit the variety of content available online -- and it could pretty much spell the end of memes.
Unsurprisingly, these parts of the bill have been met with opposition from digital rights groups, computer scientists, academics, platforms such as Wikipedia and even human rights groups. Supporters, however, say the consequences of the measures are being blown out of proportion, and that the provisions are merely intended to give creators and smaller outlets the opportunity to reclaim the value of their work. More details on Reuters.
Unsurprisingly, these parts of the bill have been met with opposition from digital rights groups, computer scientists, academics, platforms such as Wikipedia and even human rights groups. Supporters, however, say the consequences of the measures are being blown out of proportion, and that the provisions are merely intended to give creators and smaller outlets the opportunity to reclaim the value of their work. More details on Reuters.
So this means no more shuffling copies of the same mass culture around? There won't be 10,000 copies of the same 200 songs being passed from peer to peer?
How will we cope?!?
...suddenly doesn't look quite so bad, does it?
It also marks the day where the EU finally succumbed to the power of the copyright lobby and became a nest of utter corruption just like their US counterparts.
It's not the end, but it's definitely the beginning of the end of democracy, a truly sad milestone.
As per the Articles 11 and 13 of EU law, this comment was removed.
...because losing protection on your human rights is so much better.
them how come they all voted for it?
Your shity socialist leaders have taken it upon themselves to do something that isn't in your interest and undermines the very fabric of democracy. While I won't hold my breath that people in the US fare much better or would even do anything even with there guns at least they have not entirely surrendered power to those who will ultimately use it against us all. This is the danger socialists pose to society and any other right wing nut jobs that want to press there morals, values, and beliefs onto others for nonviolent acts. No law should ever be valid without there being a victim of violence. As otherwise we end up giving bad people power to do shit like this.
Everything created (at least in the US) unless released under something like creative commons is copyrighted automatically. Everything.
Books, stories, articles, video, music...
Until Brexit all laws voted apply to UK. And if you think for a SECOND that the UK government will remove that particular one post-brexit, when they will be lobbied left and right to keep it by content holder, I have a bridge to sell you in London. Cheap.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If I've learned one thing, it's that as long as you hate Trump you literally are a super-being of pure energy descended from a higher plane of existence and anybody who criticizes you is automatically evil fascist filth.
So given Europe's superior Trump-hating attitude, this must be a perfect law! Stop being fascists by disagreeing with people who have the politically correct anti-Trump emotional reaction!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I'm not sure what "repercussions" restrictions on European content is supposed to have for "us" in the US; it's not like there is a lot of interesting content coming out of Europe.
A bunch of hypocrites.
to see that EU legislators are bought and paid for just like U.S. counterparts.
News sites will be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of being paid to be linked to, in reality what's going to happen is those links will stop when news aggregators etc decide fuck this. Then we'll be in for the crying that their business is going even further down the pan.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It won't be that Github updates their firewall with the correct IP Blocks.
It'll be that some small outfit will get in a hissy-fit about this American company posting code similar to theirs online, and will compare them to Pirate bay but for code piracy because hey, what's the public domain and why do we need it? And they will get a "staydown" court order blocking it because the Judge has no idea what Github is or what it does.
And then people try to use the git command, find out it fails, and then, all hell breaks loose. Red Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire all over again, but this time, the body count is 5-6 figures instead of 3.
Back to AOL and strictly walled gardens, I guess.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I've been saying this for a long time: this is the kind of result one expects to see when most of the people who vote in EU elections are over 50. I mean, voter turnout has been low in EU elections consistently (43 % in the last elections, pathetic really) because people would rather nitpick about the Union than do anything to affect it, but it's especially low among the younger generations. (source. "Turnout was again highest among the oldest respondents. Some 51% of the 55+ group voted in the European elections, while only 28% did in the 18-24 age group.") Is it any wonder that when most of the people sitting in the parliament have little to no understanding of what the internet actually is, the lobbyists are able to spoonfeed them all kinds of bullshit and we end up with sub-par legislation like this?
Obviously we're still a long way from implementation, from the article:
So whatever impact this will or will not have is still to be seen, and I personally hope the coming debates and negotiations will make it clear just how absurd the law in its current shape is and how hard (if not impossible) actual implementation and enforcement would be and reason will win, but we'll see.
We've got slightly over half a year to next EU elections people. To paraphrase Obama's recent speech to anyone else here in Europe who doesn't like it: 'If this pisses you off, don't hashtag, vote!"
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Burn the whole thing down. Its ideals are bankrupt and its representatives are corrupt. To say nothing about the EU's unelected commissars, king drunkard on top.
please make sure your search results no longer include links to any news outlets in the EU. Please don't acquiesce and pay the fees.
You have weight. Throw it around a little, will ya?
It's fairly sad, really.
This could have been handled in a much, MUCH better way. Such as...
- If you are a news/media outlet, the onus is on YOU to place a "MEDIA OUTLET" tag in your page headers
- If you want to be listed on Google News / etc, you have a summary snippet in your header .. that's what is automatically linked to / parsed in search results. That precise text
- If you have no summary, you aren't listed.
And, no 'link tax'.
Boom. Done. That means you control the summary, and that means that you decide how much a Google user can read of your article. Want to know more?
CLICK!
Now the media outlet can control how the revenue stream works. It benefits Google too, they only have to examine summary texts for malicious content, but don't have to 'parse' a webpage hoping to get a good snippet.
Everyone wins.
Mandate that, and you're done.
The EU accepted the rule that the FPV, first-person-view, transmitter of an RC aircraft, or a drone, cannot have the power more than 25 mW, while a smartphone can have the transmitting power of 1000, or even 3000 mW.
It basically destroyed the emerging UAV & FPV market and the industry in the EU countries. It made existing FPV drones unreliable and dangerous, while the FPV videolink starts to break at about 100 meters.
You just became a second-class citizen on the internet. No one will host your content, or link to it. Good luck!
You realize that foolishness started in Europe and we stiff armed it for a few decades. Not until an actor for president had 8 years to amass power did we succumb to it.
You have it all wrong - the young vote progressive / socialism. They're not adult enough to make their own decisions, so they force everyone to have the guberment make it for them. Good ol washing the hands of responsibility.
And so society decays until "Venezuela" happens all over again.
Shining example of regulation, meet stupid morons who don't understand how the internet works.
Europe is good at many things, but they have this penchant for protectionism. They really like protecting one company from another by passing legislation that accomplishes this.
Maybe you should start looking in the mirror when you get so mad at our idiot man-child president, and his dumb tariff?
The content owners, or the content indexers?
Content owners like large media companies are still desperately clinging to the past.
Google and other online gatekeepers hold sway over large percentages of the audience.
I eagerly await a final smackdown for Murdoch & friends, when the reality of distributed information finally hits home. Hits home to them of course, the rest of us already know.
Google and others have no obligation to list anything. If they decide that it costs too much to link items to media websites, well... tough. The other media companies will gladly waive costs if it means their content gets listed at the top of page 1 while Murdoch & co are relegated to page 2 or 3.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
think this is really about censorship, which the young people all support
Why should anybody waste a lot of time trying to oppose this at the level of the EP? People understand full well that their vote is pretty much worthless. As I understand it, the EU can adopt these rules without the EP.
Furthermore, what makes you think that European youth would vote to oppose this?
You assume that young people will do any better or that they have a "real" understanding of the internet. If you look at some of the groups of young people that are screaming the loudest, they'd seem to be the biggest censors of the internet with their demand for safe spaces and a ban on any expression that hurts their feelings. There are also a lot of young people that are going to throw in with the right-wing anti-immigration parties that are starting to spring up because they see that as more important than something going on with the internet. I don't know if those groups even have any opinion on this particular topic, but I don't think getting the younger voters involved will do anything.
In the U.S. the joke (from about two decades ago) about younger people voting was that it was the younger college voters in Minnesota that got Jesse Ventura elected. If you're not familiar with him, he's a bit of a conspiracy nut among other things. Probably an okay guy to be friends with, just not what I would consider governor material. I think the youth vote was also up in the 2016 election and we ended up with Trump, so I don't see it making a difference in this case either.
"It's hard" shouldn't be an excuse for protecting the people who are your bread and butter. If this puts the onus of protecting copyright on the pipeline providers, I say that's a good thing. They've made billions by blindly winking at violators and creating buggy software that does either more or less than it's supposed to do- but never 'just enough."
And if nothing else, maybe this will reduce the number of shiatty "reaction videos" that are nothing more than original content with a pic-in-pic of two dudes mouthing "dayyyummm" in mock suprise.
Maybe it's time to fiddle while Rome burns.
just as effective as banning guns, and violence.
I only support censoring you.
I'll admit I'm ignorant on the ramifications of this regulatory change in the EU, but couldn't sites like YouTube get around changes to their business by setting up location blocking for the EU nations and effectively say they no longer operate in the jurisdiction of the EU? As it sounds from the summary, these social media sites would have to confirm the millions upon millions of videos and photos uploaded are not breaking copyright. I don't see how any sort of automated bot could handle the task, since it would have to be able to pick up on things like someone recording a movie or song on their phone where it is not exactly the original quality, and the volume of work would be beyond any reasonable human staffing capability.
They have the right to restrict the internet however they want. Don't like it? Go make your own internet!
We all knew the internet was going to become cable TV one day.
Cut off the EU from Google. As though anybody wants to see French cinema anyway!
Internet 2, keep it secret this time...the public will just muck it up again
Another thing that young people support is the idea of "all or nothing", things like "either we can't censor anything at all or "we must censor both pedophiles and copyright violators and close the internet down". In real life, most people believe that there's a place for in-betweens and this is how laws are enacted.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Google is about as evil as murdoch, it is just in its infancy and still mostly goes the way the user so they ignore the shadows looming. But there has been enough stories in the last years even on slashdot to show google is not better, it is just new. As long as the page are indexed I am OK with it personally. I always found "news scrapping" as google news seem to do to be borderline or even fully copyright infringement.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
How does one solve this issue? People much under 50 are too stupid.
What you need is a system that is made up of WELL EDUCATED elders, with their people's best interests in mind
YES COMRADE, only the members of vanguard party of the proletariat should have a vote in the running of the country !!!!
I don't know why these internet companies still do business in the EU.
If Facebook alone pulled out of the EU (let alone Google or Wikipedia) because they didn't want to deal with this BS, these laws would be rescinded in days.
Of course it would never happen because investors.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
get search engines back to doing just one thing --
index the website using:
title
description
keywords
and get rid of the ads above the search results PUUULLLLEEEEEEEZ
Now EVERYBODY can be a pirate!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
And how are these companies supposed to 1) know that a piece of material is copyrighted and 2) know that the uploader doesn't have the right to upload it?
For example, I wrote and published a novel. The novel is protected by copyright. When writing the novel, I used Google Docs. (It's handy for writing initial drafts wherever I am. I later exported that into a more full fledged word processor for final formatting.) So there's a copy of copyrighted material in my Google Docs account. Should Google remove that since it's copyrighted content? How do they know that I'm the one who wrote it? As far as they know, I just re-typed something from someone else's book and that text on Google Docs is a copyright violation.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
So in other words, uploads are effectively like copying to /dev/null?
Because even if it doesn't infringe on copyright, it's all copyrighted... or at least probably mostly copyrighted. Hell, the uploader might even own the copyright on it. After all, it's copyrighted, isn't it?
The question to be asking is if the uploaded copyrighted content infringes on copyright law, or if the copyright holder might want to claim copyright infringement (whether or not they actually did do so).
Computers cannot currently do this without a lot of human intervention on a case-by-case basis, however, so this law is asking companies to do something that is technologically impossible today.
So what, exactly, did lawmakers have in mind with this kind of law? What sort of magic do they think computers have to make this sort of thing even *remotely* achievable?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's not going to be the death of anything but millennial entitlement. Their classic butthurt in response, on the other hand - I don't think anything can remedy that. Say it with me: you are not allowed to co-opt the hard work of others anymore than I am allowed to collect your paycheck at the end of the week for the work you did. Deal with it.
Young urban europeans only know the internet from Reddit, imgur and facebook. Most cant see further than their noses, and are in on censoring differing opinions due to the general echo chamber climate which has been fostered by social media through their upgrowing. They couldnt stand on boring forums and sites such as slashdot, and would vomit if they ever visited the bad sites on 4chan. And young rural people dont care because they have other stuff to do.
Also free speech has never really been a huge concept, because oh my god, fascist/socialists/ do indeed sometimes have a point and that would just be counterproductive to the common good, wouldnt it?
And old people dont understand shit and are also pro censoring poltical opinions because thats what they are used too (especially in germany).
... Those links are driving traffic to their sites... Don't they want that?
Maybe Google can charge them a link service of 2x the link 'tax'...
MEPs are elected by proportional representation (party lists). Unless a mainstream party takes a stance against this policy, or a single-issue party gets a large share of the vote, no amount of voting by anyone can solve this.
If you care about this issue, contact your MEPs and let them know.
Create a search add on for a browser that does not find any results in the EU.
-site: and list the EU nations.
Move around the censorship and link to nations that support freedom of speech. Support the ability to link and talk about a link.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Just paste the link as plain text and force Europeans to copy-pasta it.
Google should do this in their search engine for the EU. Perhaps even ROT-13 it for a bit more difficulty.
A few years of that and Europeans might change their mind on whether their country should remain in the EU. Especially older Europeans who use tablets, since it's a pain in the ass to copy the link and paste it in on a touchscreen interface and they're exactly the type that won't know how to install a browser extension to re-linkify that text.
Sounds like a perfect environment for a patent troll explosion.
In case you were wondering about the end-game...
Copyright is a state controlled thing. In order to have a copyright, ultimately you have to go to the state and register.
Control copyright and you control the content creators, not the content consumers. You control what is allowed to be said, and you have full awareness of who said it.
Touch Googlie and Trump will be on your ass faster than you can say, Do You Want Fries With That Abortion?
you're chinese, right?
Google is about as evil as murdoch, it is just in its infancy
Google at present is nowhere near as evil as Murdoch. Google isn't peddling lies and filtering truth. It isn't interfering directly in elections by, say, distributing free papers laced with lies about the EU and Brexit for 10 days before the vote, covering for Trump's atrocities and feeding their viewers a false reality, etc.
They may get there in time, but there is no evidence that that is their intention, their business model, or their fate.
The two are certainly not equal in their misbehavior and detrimental impact now, and likely will never be, so stop engaging in false equivalencies. It makes you look and sound like a Trump/Putin sock puppet.
I think perhaps the proper litmus test for this law might be to ask oneself "How does this affect Wikipedia?" I'm not saying that Wikipedia is like a bastion of good facts, but it's always been heavily moderated, seems to respect most copyright law, and is non-profit. Since most sites are for-profit, they all have a dog in the fight about the application of copyright law. IANAL and welcome your interpretations in this context of these new copyright laws.
I've mentioned this before; but seems only times I hear about 'Europe' and 'tech' is in context of EU bureaucrats peeing in some cheerios somewhere. Never hear about the proverbial Next Big Thing coming from Europe, always another dumb law or lawsuit or fine.
Right. Leave the EU because you can't post copyrighted stuff on Youtube. Brilliant!
I don't respond to AC's.
How will we route around this kind of damage?
Nah the Trump vote came mainly from grumpy old white people. The youth vote would have gone to Bernie Sanders, but I suspect most of those who would have voted Bernie ended up not voting at all. The ideals of socialism seem to appeal most strongly to the youth, who are still idealistic, with a strong sense of morality (as they see it).
The young are doing that because they joined the game of Monopoly too late. No one enjoys that. Time for a new game.
So people cannot steal other people's images, video or music anymore.
That is not unfair. If I spend time and money to create something, why would others be allowed to freely copy it?
Article 11, also known as the "link tax", would require online platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay media companies to link to their content
Sure. So rather than do that, Google, Zuckerbook, and whoever else, will just not link to any of those anymore -- or at least threaten to. Suddenly the 'media companies' see their traffic fall off by orders of magnitude, followed by their stock value dropping, and boards of directors and stockholders screaming bloody murder.
Also meanwhile you really think any of this is going to stop 4channers and redditors from creating and spreading new memes? LOL no, that horse left the barn a long long time ago now, and it's a game of Whack-A-Mole against ferrets on bad biker meth at best to try to stamp them out or stop them.
I'm sticking by what I said about this yesterday: It's UNENFORCEABLE and TOOTHLESS.
Watch the vote. The MEP's were clapping and cheering as it was passed, this isn't a case of voting. They were clapping and cheering as each amendment was defeated. This is a case of politicians being so bought and paid for, that they went along with what special interest groups told them to do. People like to complain about how bad it is in the US, there's no comparison.
Om, nomnomnom...
So, under this new legislation, nobody links to people who are looking to collect. These media companies who want to charge for links are essentially are cutting themselves off from their audience. This changes nothing for the Internet as I have known it. It just tempts "content providers" to shoot themselves in the foot. I don't want their shit content anyway, so BAU continues for me...
I think this means there will be increased demand for things like i2p, Tor and other darknets to get "mainstreamed." If everyone (not just pirates anymore) has to constantly worry about crazy copyright, then everyone has to use darknets to dodge the problem. The situation will be: if you're not on darknets, you are cut off from a majority of culture. Obviously we're not anywhere near that yet, but this looks like it might have what it takes to push us there.
There is a place for compromise, and this isn't it. Net neutrality is similar; either the network is neutral, or it isn't. Encryption is either secure, or, well, compromised. Processors either have facilities (like IME) for back doors, or they are absent. "Net neutrality" with loopholes like prioritization or "reasonable network management", undermines innovation and the incentive to grow the network. "Encryption" with back doors is worse than useless, and ensures that only bad actors and oppressive states have secure communication.
Automated systems for censorship, mass surveillance, back doors, and such, are inevitably abused, and may have catastrophic results. Such systems should never be implemented, and those developing technology should take care to make it resistant to such efforts. If such systems are implemented, it is a moral imperative that citizens tear them down. If we are going to legislate on such topics, it should take the form of prohibiting such mass abuse, or guaranteeing the right to end-to-end secure communications, so that critical services aren't left wide-open with their communications harvested by abusive entities like FaceBook, Google, ISPs, etc.
If law enforcement wants to surveil, it should be targeted; ie. bug the phone, not the network or encrypted channel. If personal or other unauthorized information is published in the open, complaints should go through a court, and the source should be shut down, not filtered. (Copyright should just be abolished along with other forms of intellectual "property", but until then, it should be treated the same.) Networks have no need for prioritization; for applications that need better service, dedicated links are available. Indeed, they are the only means of guaranteeing service, as there will never be agreement over priorities across the Internet.
Operating in this way may be more of a burden, but the potential for abuse is absolutely horrific. It is beyond foolish to afford such tools to the one entity with a monopoly on legal violence. It is only slightly less bad to leave them in the hands of entities purely motivated by profit.
as opposed to a third rate novel.
This is how dissent will be crushed by the totalitarian EU commissariat. Everybody has to break the law, when it gets through (which looks likely)
I vote for the pirate party every year.
I blame the retards who fall for the "lost vote" meme.
And don't pretend any of the other parties are against this shit.
I don't know what this guy's agenda is but it's not hard to understand at all. Here is the wikipedia article that explains it very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Look at Article 11, for example. The supposed "link tax". Oh look, the EU studied the situation, realized that a link tax won't work and that stopping the use of small portions of copyrighted works on things like news aggregation sites is a terrible idea, and put in specific exemptions that actually remove restrictions in a couple of countries (Germany and Spain).
A lot of the changes were due to feedback from the public. You know, democracy. Elections are not the only way to participate.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This surprises exactly no one that understands the nature of the state.
"link tax", would require online platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay media companies to link to their content
So why wouldn't Google and Facebook just stop linking to media companies to avoid paying the "link tax"?
I'm sticking by what I said about this yesterday: It's UNENFORCEABLE and TOOTHLESS.
It's selectively enforceable, same as MP3 uploads. There will be more Joel Tenenbaums, more Jammie Thomas-Rassets, more Mark Shumakers. This time in Europe. Random meming kids will get sued and lose and get saddled with gigantic judgements they'll never pay off, and will never work again because of it.
And nothing else will change much.
Nah the Trump vote came mainly from grumpy old white people.
Not really. The old and/or white vote for Trump is about the same as previous Republicans. If it was grumpy old white people who put Trump in the WH, those same old white people could have helped Romney or McCain win.
No, to win, you need more than that, especially in a United States where white people are slowly becoming a minority.
One demographic that set Trump apart is the male vote (simply males, not counting age or ethnicity), and even then he isn't the first president to have a strong male vote. What's also noteworthy is that Trump actually did better than Romney amongst blacks and latinos (still pales to support for Democrats, but hey an improvement is an improvement)
I wouldn't blame or credit Trump's victory to any one group. The guy ran on a populist platform, appealing to as many demographics as he can. America as a whole elected for him (yes yes, even though he didn't win the "popular vote", which isn't really a thing as the US voting system doesn't work on popular vote)
...in your attempt to bash it. Transmitting devices are a perfect example of why societies cannot allow complete laissez-faire to everyone to do as they wish even within the confines of their own property. You inadvertently affect others.
Oh, and btw. the limitation only applies to amateur operated drones. Licensed operators can have much longer ranges.
Apple and maybe some others should simply completely deactivate their services in Europe on the day this law takes effect.
Then we would see how consequent the EU Parliament really is. If they say:"well ok then, of Google FB and Co can't comply they really should shut their services off in Europe" then I'd be impressed. But they'd probably backpedal as fast as they humanly could. Cowards.
However, what Google an Co should do right away is deranked/remove all traces of any content provider anywhere as to have them disappear from the interwebs. That'll teach them.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Although I think this legislation is silly, one COULD argue that getting linked to by google causes quite the additional cost in traffic an server resources (never mind that getting traffic is usually a good thing).
So I guess in the end the smarter content creators will put up some policy like robots.txt and allow indexers like google to link to their content as they pleasem ehich doesn't seem too unreasonable.
Come to think of it - doesn't robots.txt already do exactly this?
While you address two right wing perspectives, don't forget about the constant growth of the left, especially in Europe. The young dumb people may head to the far right with it's censorship and safe spaces, but as they grow older and wiser they will lean to the left, as history has shown.
As a loyal European Union citizen I have no opinion on this but I fully support all decisions made by the European Parliament and obey all the directives by the European Commission. Anyone disagreeing is a malfeasant and a traitor and I will gladly inform the authorities on these people, even if they happen to be my friends and relatives. Europe can only prosper if we all think and act the same.
Hispanics unexpectedly came out to vote for Trump in large numbers.
Wrap your head around that. Next time let your constituents decide who your candidate will be, and don't simply declare it to be Her Turn.
CAPTCHA: blamable
Sorry mjwx, I'm far too engaged watching the madness come out of the US congress, executive, and SCOTUS. You're on your own for this one.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
What got Ventura elected was that his opponents were both terrible. I've never liked Norm Coleman, and Skip Humphrey was a joke. The die-hards in the GOP and the DFL both voted for their guy, and anyone independent voted for Ventura. From what I remember it was mostly a three way split, with Jesse narrowly taking the win.
He might be a nut, but he was a damn side better governor than the idiot who succeeded him.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Google and Facebook should seriously consider "kill buttons" for various parts of the world or countries. When doing business there becomes too onerous they should just hit the button and remove service there. Let the governments deal with their citizens over it.
E Proelio Veritas.
How does a "link tax" even work? I creates a boatload of questions:
Is that just by having a link, or is that for just clicking through the link?
Does it assume that whoever clicked the link actually read the content?
Does the "content owner" assume that because a link is there that people will read the content?
Do they expect Google to provide the click through numbers? (I somehow doubt it)
Will a content owner say "We got X click-through's from Google, therefore they owe us $Y", Google says "Show us the numbers" - Mexican standoff ensues.
Who gets the money generated by the link-tax?
And people wonder why Brexit is occurring - because the EU seems to do nothing but make up ways of taxing/extorting/extracting/shaking-down people and corporate entitites instead of dealing with the real issues at hand.
They're trying to turn the entire internet into youtube, where any piece of content can be flagged and taken down, but not just from one site, from the entire web. This isn't about protecting copyright, it's about content control.
Young people are the biggest fucking snowflakes who take offence at the drop of a hat, usually on nehalf of somebodyt else - they are more likely to demand censorship of things that they consider to be "micro-aggressons" that I care to think about.
The EP can block any proposal from the EC, thinking that voting for the EP is worthless is just propaganda from people who want to take away your rights. Here is how the decision making in the EU is done: https://europa.eu/european-uni...
That is not true where I live (it is an EU state).
Oh dear. What a pity. Never. Mind.
Oh dear. What a pity. Never. Mind.
The upsides have been described. Is there a downside?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
This is exactly what happens when laws are made by people that have no clew of how the internet works and interacts.
But hey Copyright has always just been a legal form of monopoly and have always benefited big companies over smaller companies why would this be different?
The fact is that this law will hurt content creators and copyright owners more than the search and interactive websites. Having to negotiate a contract with each copyright holder will simply create bigger companies holding many copyrights and push the independent content creators to the fringes. Think the music industry.
But hey this is human after all making life difficult for ourselves.