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.
...suddenly doesn't look quite so bad, does it?
Next time say something original.
You're saying that like you didn't know big companies regularly steal content from smaller outlets and then file copyright claims against the original creator
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
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.
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
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
Are you kidding? The copyright lobby and their insane demands started in Europe. The US managed to avoid their madness for a long time and didn't implement the Berne convention until 1989. One particularly evil aspect of the Berne convention was the removal of the requirement for copyright registration.
Yes, because the UK without kind-mother-EU to guide them will surely just begin to throw out all their human rights laws.
Of all the arguments for staying in the EU, this has to be the most absurdly ridiculous one yet.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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 will get arrested and imprisoned for sharing works as old as Handel's Messiah or The Ode to Joy.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Because graft gets punished less the higher you're up.
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.
The proportional election system in Europe does the opposite: it allows parties to shield politicians from the voters; meaning, powerful party figures who have fallen out of favor with voters are simply moved from a direct mandate to a party position.
Furthermore, the parliamentary system in Europe has resulted in numerous extremists and dictators taking over, foremost Hitler; people like that have no chance under the US system.
And European governments are far more under the control of large corporations than the US government.
Cut off the EU from Google. As though anybody wants to see French cinema anyway!
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
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!
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'
AC in the USA you still have the freedom to use the internet, link and talk about links.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
You will get arrested and imprisoned for sharing works as old as Handel's Messiah or The Ode to Joy.
Ironic. Ode to Joy is the European Anthem.
lah, la la la la la la la lalalala laa lalaah!
Your post should also be removed for copyright infringement: https://www.google.com/search?...
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"
Sounds like a perfect environment for a patent troll explosion.
As an aside, you aren't actually violating copyright for performing or even, with the permission of an artist, playing these works, they are long in the public domain.
However, you are probably violating copyright if you perform or play any of several arrangements, as these are re-arranged regularly to be published anew.
One of the quirks of public domain, if there's no financial reward to publishing it, then it is unlikely to be published. How much is a score for Ode to Joy worth? Such a great question, but of course it's never just *a* score, it's the entirety, at least what, 20 separate scores for orchestra. Me? I'd pay for Mahler's First, not so much for Mendelssohn, but that's just me.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
We're already way ahead of you, Mr. Public.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Europeans know that this is bullshit, don't worry. We're no more in control of the goofballs that rule us than you are of the annoying orange.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
The public domain doesn't mean a single fucking thing when you have to defend yourself against Disney in a lawsuit - because they believe they own Cinderalla, Snow White, etc, etc, etc.
All that matters is money.
Meanwhile Trump is pushing a bunch of IP bullshit in NAFTA including forcing Canada to take down sites based on the say so of private companies along with extending copyright. Then there is the patent shit that they're mostly hiding to make sure the drug companies continue to have increasing profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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).
Only works can be copyrighted. It's not like someone spent hours of creative effort coming up with the original "Next time say something original" phrase, therefore it does not qualify.
"plenty of opportunity to punish politicians who were too obviously on the take. "
Ah, all politicians are 'on the take'.
You probably want them to be 'on the take' from YOU. They are probably NOT.
Failing that, you hope they are 'on the take' from whatever philosophy you find most appealing or least offensive and damaging. Sadly, they are most likely not, but can be scared into not being so damned awful at the ballot box. Assuming it's not rigged, deceived, or muted by clever processes, like proportional election when you're actually choosing one thing.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You have Trump in the US. It looks likea joke when you tell us that European election systems allow worse people to get in power.
In many countries no single person could even get as much power as he got, nowadays.
Furthermore, the parliamentary system in Europe has resulted in numerous extremists and dictators taking over, foremost Hitler; people like that have no chance under the US system.
ahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahha
No, not at all. I want a minimalist government, one so small and with so few resources that it isn't worth bribing politicians.
SCOTUS has been a tool for abuse of executive power under progressive presidents, starting with FDR. Fortunately, that development seems to have been halted for now at least.
Ditto, but that's the take from YOU.
And of course this requires constant vigilance.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The power of European prime ministers spans the executive and legislative branch. Trump only controls the executive branch, and even there his powers are checked.
That's merely a reflection of your ignorance.
Now, with Google's automated copyright filters, this is not reliable anymore. Your videos can be taken down because your performance of the same work that is in the public domain sounds too similar to someone else's. No, the current regime isn't defensible anymore. Modern copyright is theft.
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.
ode to joy existed before eu and will exist long after the demise of that undemocratic bureaucratic authoritarian state with its out of touch unelected leaders.
Both sides do it. The 1st does not say Congress will only abridge freedom of speech for these reasons, with reasons varying from national security, through protecting the children and stopping smut and the 2nd doesn't say that the right to bear arms will only be infringed for this list of people, where the list includes felons, potential felons, people who can't pass background checks as well as various government controlled places such as court rooms, and other government operated places.
Those are just the most straight forward parts of the Bill of Rights, then we can get into what reasonable is, what cruel and unusual is and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
No chance in the US? You're joking, right? Almost all of our local and state elections, and absolutely all of our Federal elections, are "first-past-the-post", which translates to "winner-takes-all". The Separation of Powers reduces the risk, certainly. However, our Legislative branch has been happy to cede power to the Executive. We are slow-rolling to monarchy. I don't care if I voted for the current POTUS or not, I don't want that much power in one person's hands.
As for control by the corporations, you might wish to reconsider. Studies have been done, and in the US there is almost no chance of any law with popular support happening if the large corporate interests oppose it. The opposite cannot be said to be true.
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.
Considering that Canada's priorities seem to be womens issues, and payments to natives as a core component of NAFTA? I'm perfectly fine with Trump crashing it so fucking hard that the Liberal Party of Canada won't exist by next year.
Om, nomnomnom...
One particularly evil aspect of the Berne convention was the removal of the requirement for copyright registration.
That's not evil at all - that's a very good thing. It allows artists to control their copyrights without needing to spend their time navigating bureaucracy. It's one of the few changes in copyright law that has been beneficial for the people who create at those who would exploit them by removing obstacles to ownership of their material.
If you want to talk about indefinite copyright being a major issue, I'm right there with you. But anything that allows creative people to keep their creations for a reasonable length of time is a good thing.
In which country? As far as I know legislative power is with the parliaments only. They usually have less power than theUD president, e.g. they can't impose tariffs, or do anything with international treaties. They also need the parliament's approval to go to war.
The British Empire did a solid job of protecting the rights of citizens. Subjects, not so much. Be wary of any governmental body that acts as if you were a subject, not a citizen.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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
Legislative power is with parliament only, but the prime minister usually also controls their party and is a member of parliament. That's different in the US.
Pretty much the same as in the US.
That means that about half of voters need to actually approve of a candidate, while under a parliamenteray system, someone like Hitler can get into power through coalition making.
I know those studies, they are bullshit, and you don't have a baseline from Europe anyway.
The US has a presidential system where it comes down to a choice of two candidates, so the idea that Hitler could never happen when the last election gave you the option of either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump is clearly wishful thinking.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So how come the EU took away the link tax and made snippets explicitly free from copyright claims, meaning that the copyright industry can't try to collect licence fees for things like news aggregators?
That doesn't sound like the work of the copyright lobby.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
There are more than two sides. The side I'm on is that of limited government; Democrats universally reject it, and most Republicans obviously do too.
Laugh if you like, but Europe descended into fascism and socialism and Europeans murdered many millions of people and dragged the world into two world wars. The US throughout its history committed no crimes that are even remotely comparable.
The matter isn't settled yet, and within the EU, there are competing corporate interests that have different policy preferences.
Can you explain how a choice between Clinton and Trump amounts to "Hitler is just around the corner"?
And ignore the Spanish Empire, the French Empire, the German "troubles" (times two), Portuguese expansion, Italian expansion, etc... Yeppers, it's just those bloody brits who were terrible!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
You probably want them to be 'on the take' from YOU. They are probably NOT.
Why shouldn't they be? Politicians should put the people's interests first (and perhaps it should be the only interests they take into considerations). Yes, CEOs and shareholders are people too, and the public in general benefits from healthy commerce and healthy corporations. But businesses should only be kept healthy for the sake of people's interests, not for their own sake.
That is very much a problem with commissioners and MEPs in Europe: corporate lobbyists certainly have their ear, and whatever stuff they are being fed by those lobbyists is not well balanced - by public advocacy groups or by their own conscience - against the interests of the public at large. This law is proof of that. By the way, I fully expected this thing to pass. It is almost always the case when a law gets sent back by parliament, and is resubmitted again after a few changes. Hell, that's what they did with our so called constitution.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Dunno about other countries, but over here (NL) the PM most certainly isn't an MP. The PM and other ministers are generally (but not necessarily) selected from the newly elected MPs, but after they form a government they leave parliament, and people further down the lists of their respective parties fill the vacancies. Since one of the more important roles of parliament is to oversee and audit the business of government, it would be weird to have government be part of that.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Merkel also isn't head of the paye party anymore. But her party follows get more than I like. They just do this to stay in power though, the party could vote her out of office any time.
Trump cancelled the Iran agreement and imposed lots of tariffs on the world without any consultation of the parliament. I don't think this is possible anywhere in theEU. And he is the head of the military, I don't know if this is the case anywhere in the EU. And are you sure he can't just declare war? I thought he could. He can even just launch a nuclear strike.
You were given a choice between a crook/populist and a very unpopular candidate. You picked the one who promised a Muslim ban, is trying to build a wall to keep foreigners who he accuses of being criminals out, and who locks children in cages.
And what's more, he didn't even win a majority of the votes.
At which point Nazis thought they were winning so hard they could openly march in Charlottesville. Fortunately they were wrong, but don't pretend you don't have a president whose former close adviser is Steve Bannon and who refused to condemn those people.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes, but a piece of music has more than one copyright. The musical notes are one copyright, and would indeed be long, long expired. But a specific performance if that music is it's own copyright. So if you want to actually share Ode to Joy, you need to either find a sufficiently old recording, or an orchestra which has performed the work and allows redistribution.
I didn't say that she was party leader, I said that prime ministers have a lot of control over the party.
Yes, retaliatory tariffs under a law created by Congress, not an inherent function of the executive.
Congress has given the president broad freedoms for military action, but the power ultimately still rests with Congress.
So your complaint about Trump is that he tries to enforce US immigration laws?
Neo-Nazis walk openly on German streets all the time. In some German towns, you can't safely walk on the street if you are a minority or homosexual. And Germany has actual communists in parliament. Germany has extremely high levels of hate crimes, and the German government ignored murders by neo-Nazis for years. People who sit in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
And all of that amounts to a stronger separation of powers than in the US... how?
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
We aren't talking about Germany, we are talking about the US. You will note that simply enacting laws is something fascists hide behind often.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Uh, I said let's not get into whataboutism. Was that unclear to you? Also, most of those were also-rans compared to the British by any reasonable measurement.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
This is what we are talking about: Furthermore, the parliamentary system in Europe has resulted in numerous extremists and dictators taking over, foremost Hitler; people like that have no chance under the US system.
The complete self-destruction of the Weimar Republic and widespread political extremism in Germany make Germany a poster child for the failure of European parliamentary systems.
Except that Germany has a strong, stable and moderate government that is in no danger of turning fascistic.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, it certainly is strong! Stable? Have you slept through the last few years?
Whether it's "moderate" is in the eye of the beholder, but on social and religious issues, Merkel and her party are to the right of most Republicans.
And it was the predecessor of the CDU/CSU that cast the deciding votes making Hitler dictator of Germany. That's the kind of government Germany has.
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.
Oh I know my history. I am just laughing that you think this has anything to do with the political system at play and even more so that you think that you are immune to it.
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.
The vaccine against totalitarian dictators is private gun ownership. Unfortunately 1.25 of our 2 major political parties are anti-vaxxers in this regard...
Merkel has been chancellor since 2005. That sounds pretty stable.
Right of most republicans? Have you noticed how progressive Germany is on things like LGBT rights and socialized healthcare?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You're not going to get far with you pea-shooters if things get really serious.
So you're saying that "descending into fascism and socialism and Europeans murdering many millions of people and dragging the world into two world wars" has nothing to do with the political system at play?
Do tell what you think it has to do with then!
You mean the country that widely discriminated against homosexuals for most of the 20th century and trailed years behind the US in most of its important gay rights legislation? A country that for years had government-financed priests preach against homosexuality? Is that what you mean by "progressive"?
You mean its privately run two-tier healthcare system, a system with strict limits on abortion, strong religious exemptions, and strong cost controls? A system without anything like Medicare/Medicaid? Conservatives and libertarians would love such a system in the US (I certainly would), but it would be far too right wing to even be considered in Congress.
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...
We're not talking about consensual activities, but the sort of pussy grabbing that would get the average person a stern talking to by the police and a good chance on getting on the sex offender list for life.
SCOTUS has been a tool of encroaching executive power under presidents of BOTH parties. Stop being partisan and believing that your particular team is more righteous than the other team.
The executive in the US is not elected by the citizens but by electors. The real power should lie with congress to which we vote for our representatives. However power has been shifting towards the executive for most of my life, and congress has not done much to prevent this. Thus the biggest power now lies with person generally elected by the political parties rather than the people. The electoral college doesn't even have the same balance as congress.
The two most populous states actually have a lesser effect on choosing the president than many small states. That's because the two most populous states lean a solid 55% one way or the other and so are "safe" electoral votes that are taken for granted; compaigning in those states is only done for the purpose of fund raising from the party faithful and never to sway the undecided or moderate voters.
If you want your presidential vote to matter you'd do better to live in Iowa or New Hampshire, rather than in California or Texas where the vote is irrelevant. If you want to change this situation however, you need to start paying attention to voting for good congress members rather than only showing up to vote for president and leaving everything else blank.
Right now I'd rather have the movie star actor back instead of the reality TV star. Right now I'd even be happy to have the Quaker back.
Really? Care to put some meat behind that statement? It seems to have been primarily progressive jurists and progressive presidents who have tried to expand executive power.
My "team" is classical liberals, and the other "team" is progressives and democratic socialists. Yes, I certainly do believe that my team is more righteous than the other team.
I disagree. The power of the federal government should be strictly limited, and what little there is should be split between the three branches of government.
Yes, as intended.
I'm certainly voting for representatives who stand for shrinking the federal government and devolving power back to the states. If they strip the president of some powers along the way, all the better, although I don't see that as the primary problem.
How do you keep limited government? There's always wealthy people who want big government to do whatever agenda they have, usually making more money by tilting the playing field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Fuck 'em.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
Wealthy people don't elect our president or representatives, the middle class does because only the middle class has the votes. So, we get smaller government when the middle class decides that it is in their interest. For the last half century, the American middle class has been propagandized and manipulated into believing that big government is in their interest, but more and more people are realizing that the American dream they were sold by government was a fraud, and new technologies makes it easy to undermine the old institutions and corrupt arrangements. That's why corporations like the NYT, institutions like public schools, and politicians like Clinton and McCain are bitching and whining.
Yup, that's the fascist view of the world. As you demonstrate, Europeans are so steeped in fascist and authoritarian thinking that the only workable alternative, an actual liberal government, doesn't even occur to them as a possibility.
Oh, you are so cute believing that EU regulations on the curvature of bananas, laws that keep people from getting fired, or massive fines against Google make your life better.
You aren't hallucinating at all: European parliaments are full of socialist, fascist, communist, and nationalist splinter parties, and they indeed have a disproportionate influence on politics.
One of the most prominent ones historically was the NSDAP, which managed to come to power as a minority party, because the more moderate voters were split amongst half a dozen other parties.
In a US-like two party system, moderate voters in the Weimar Republic would have been forced to switch between the Christian Conservatives and the Social Democrats, the NSDAP would have remained a footnote in history, and tens of millions of people would not have lost their lives.
Wealthy people pick the candidates and finance their campaigns. While in theory you are right about the voters deciding, in practice it doesn't seem to work that way and you end up with billionaire Presidents that pretend to care and a Congress full of millionaires that everyone hates but they keep getting re-elected.
As you say, there is also a lot of propaganda to get people to vote a certain way and to consider only a limited number of choices. Look at how few votes the other parties got last election even though both candidates were horrible.
Small government is a good thing to strive for, but it is going to be quite an uphill battle and as the media is owned by the rich and the internet is getting more locked down (lack of network neutrality, copyright laws that allow sites to be knocked off the internet just by accusing them of breaking copyright are two examples), it is going to get harder and harder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Since you decided to 'set aside whataboutism' - please tell me what culture you believe has a sterling record on Human Rights? Which you think come even close to that of the British Empire?
While I object to the means used; the means were the standard in those times, but the ends were not. The ends wrought by the British Empire have exceeded those of almost any other culture you can point to, and I suspect will exceed in providing human rights to the greatest number vs any culture you can point to.
And taking your other point - remember the British Empire - which did more:
* To abolish slavery in the world than any other civilization has in it's past
* Has brought more nations and human beings out of poverty than any other civilization on a world scale
* Has done more to advance science over religion around the world than any other culture in history.
So 'To be fair' - tell me what nation has done more good for human rights in this world than the British Empire - or the USA - which was brought forth from Britian.
More importantly, they also finance the newspapers and TV stations that promote these candidates. But those old mechanisms are breaking down. Hillary didn't manage to get elected despite her massive funding and massive support from billionaires and corporations.
You seriously think that the internet being controlled by the FCC and regulated as a public utility would have removed it from government and political control?
In reality, net neutrality was a convenient alliance between big corporations (Google, Netflix, etc.) who wanted to keep their operating costs down, and an FCC and federal government that has been chomping at the bit to impose content and other controls on the Internet just like they did for other FCC-regulated media. Net neutrality is a nice example in which the enemies of liberty and small government pretend that their policies serve to safeguard liberty.
I think that ISP's being free to block any site they feel like is not going to work out for the best. Everyone talks about fast lanes and ISP's double dipping but the real danger is the ISP's just not allowing connectivity to any sites they don't like. If people can't load your site that talks about small government, well, good luck in pushing the agenda.
Myself, I have exactly one choice to get on the internet, its a scary bottleneck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Just like supermarkets not carrying products they don't like, bookstores carrying books they don't like, etc. This tends to be self-limiting.
In most of the US you have at least cable and DSL, a couple of wireless providers, and satellite. If you have substantially less than that, you must have chosen to live very far out. Furthermore, the small number of local wired providers is usually the result of local government restrictions; your local government can certainly make unrestricted, unfiltered access a condition of letting companies put cables in the ground. None of that should require FCC control over the Internet to address.
Mountains make all the difference. satellite behind a mountain, most cell towers behind mountains and households spread out enough that running wires is not profitable and even the phone wires aren't much better then rusty barbed wire.
Just like supermarkets not carrying products they don't like, bookstores carrying books they don't like, etc. This tends to be self-limiting.
Unluckily internet is a lot more capital intensive then a supermarket or bookstore, so it is not simple to just go to a different provider. And just like it seems there are only a few supermarket operators, there are only a few ISP's and they keep merging. It's a flaw with capitalism, businesses grow by absorbing the competition and competition is part of what makes a market work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Equal power is fine. Right now the executive holds more than congress. I didn't mean congress should have all the power but it should be at least equal the presidency.
Well, you have a choice where you live. I certainly checked Internet availability every time before I have rented or bought a house. With 90% of American households having two or more providers at >10 Mbps, it also doesn't seem to be a widespread problem.
That's no flaw with capitalism, it's a benefit (economies of scale). And it's a myth that you need more than one provider for a competitive market.
You get many providers only if there is a possibility for product differentiation. In particular, if we were to impose net neutrality, there would be no product differentiation and you'd be pretty much guaranteed that there would fewer and fewer ISPs in every market.
I have no idea why you believe that the executive holds more power than Congress. The abuses of executive power we have seen with the last half dozen or so presidents have been silently tolerated by Congress; Congress could have stopped them any time they liked with a simple vote.
In fact, since Congress has the power to impeach, it really has the ultimate power over the president.
Congress has essentially granted more power because they don't push back against the executive when they could. For instance, they allow the president to essentially start military actions without a formal declaration of war. and those inevitably end up being full blown wars as the escalate. Congress is granted power in the constitution to impose tariffs and make foreign trade deals, yet they passed some laws that allowed the executive to do that starting around the great depression era. That was generally a good thing in that it improved free trade, but it's sort of backfiring now that Trump wants to put tariffs back in place and undo trade agreements. Presidents have also declared which parts of laws they will or will not obey (signing statements), and as well executive orders are often treated as having force of law, meaning that the executive is effectively enacting legislation. While I like the effects of DACA, it certainly was a side stepping around the duty of congress to enact that as legislation; but Obama didn't decide he could do this all on his own, instead he built upon a precedent from past presidents.
Congress seems to forget that there's a revolving door in the White House, so that they love giving a president from their own party more power but then are dismayed when someone they disagree with inevitably gets into office.
So then Congress actually holds the power, they just choose not to exercise it. That's why we say that Congress delegates these powers, it doesn't (and cannot) "grant" them.
That explanation doesn't make sense, since Congress could easily limit presidential power if someone they don't like is president.
So 'To be fair' - tell me what nation has done more good for human rights in this world than the British Empire - or the USA - which was brought forth from Britian.
The USA wasn't "brought forth from" Britain, the USA fought for and won its independence from Britain. I know that Britain is still a bit touchy about having its ass whooped by an upstart, but there's no reason to mince words.
Britain also did more TO all of those countries than any other nation except perhaps the USA. They don't get a medal for partially cleaning up their messes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can they feed a family with those "jobs"? Because if they can't, you can stuff your "job" where the sun doesn't shine. I don't need an occupation, I need money, I can keep busy myself just fine.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, this effects anybody that wants to post anything on the internet on any site, including their own shitty little one.
It's a fucked up policy and hopefully the UK will leave the EU early enough to avoid this one.
If you have evidence of serious sexual assault I'm pretty confident there are certain members of the FBI that would love to hear from you.
What was that? No evidence? Libel much?
Lucky you if you have the time, funds and energy to go to court to prove it.
Trust me, the way copyrights are abused on existing platforms gives me no fucking faith that a law like this wouldn't be abused at least as badly.
Shit, the EU are mandating illegal material gets taken down in an hour. Good fucking luck proving your comment isn't illegal inside an hour, assuming the ISP or website even lets you know they're removing it.
The EU has seriously fucked up views of IP and it's going to lead to them completely losing control of the internet when they clamp down so hard everybody switches to less governable technologies.
Hmm, what? How is this relevant. Trump spoke on tape claiming to do this. I didn't say he actually did this, though I would be inclined to belive so. I am not attempting to get Trump arrested and not claiming he committed a crime. I'm merely responding to the post that claimed all presidents go out and grab pussy and therefore if Trump had done this it's not something to criticize him over. I'm disagreeing and claiming this is most certainly not normal activity and not legal activity and bragging about doing this is a clear sign of major moral failings. Even just bragging about grabbing someone's genitals when you didn't do it is still a moral lapse.
I have no compulsions about libeling the president, but I did no such thing in that post.
. I am not attempting to get Trump arrested and not claiming he committed a crime.
So wait. You're not claiming he did anything illegal, but
this is most certainly not normal activity and not legal activity
you're saying that what he did is not legal.
I don't think you understand what you're claiming.
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"
I'm saying that bragging that he did an illegal act is not illegal.
You're only assuming that the act he was bragging about was illegal.
As I said, if you have evidence, throw it to the FBI. No rush, I can wait.
I'm pretty sure the act he was bragging about was grabbing a woman's person without her permission. And last I checked that was illegal. I don't know why you keep mentiongint the FBI. I never said I have evidence he did that, only that Trump himself claimed to do this. Not sure why the FBI would care about a misdemeanor either.
The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Legislative Branch be the most powerful because it would be the slowest to act. The most important of these, however, was that the nature of the Legislature would guarantee it be the most deliberative and divided. This would prevent it from being too overwhelmingly of one voice, and tending to keep it a bit centrist. And while this hasn't worked out perfectly, it lacks the dramatic lurching nature of the Executive branch.
The Executive branch was envisioned as primarily related to foreign affairs, but the veto power significantly beefed up the domestic powers as well. The ideas there were more complicated. We need to be able to react quickly and decisively to world events, hence a unitary executive. The veto power was intended to prevent a runaway legislature, just in case (because mob mentalities can occur in Congress).
The biggest cession of power that has happened is related to use of the military, as presidents were not supposed to have the power to commit the nation to war. That there is no clause stating that military action not pre-approved by Congress can only be defensive in nature and solidly enforced is problematic. But of course, one would need to define "defensive".