Slashdot Mirror


The Man Behind the EU's Copyright Law is 'Surprised' By What's in the Proposal (qz.com)

Hours after the European Union Parliament voted to approve new controversial copyright laws that will transform how people in Europe and beyond use and profit from the internet, the man behind the legislation, Axel Voss, says he is unaware of what exactly he voted for. From a report: Emanuel Karlsten, a reporter for Sweden's Breakit news site, spoke with Voss, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and the EU's copyright rapporteur, after the vote. Karlsten asked about a last-minute amendment that will bar the filming of sports events. The MEP replied in a recorded conversation, "This was kind of mistake I think by the JURI committee. Someone amended this. No one had been aware of this." European Parliament press officer John Schranz at that point broke in to explain that he was aware of the provision in question, calling it "amendment 76." Schranz said that the amendment doesn't bar individuals from filming sporting events. Rather, "the main target" is online betting companies enticing viewers to their sites with video that they have no right to film. He objected to the fact that the "Greens and others" interpret the provision as having a much wider application.

But the MEP Voss admitted, "I didn't know that this was in the proposal so far, so of course I have to deal with it now. I do not consider that the commission and council will have this inside the proposal." Voss added that "because of the time pressure" and general focus on other, more notable aspects of the law, it's possible that the measure was insufficiently scrutinized.

22 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Sloppy job is OK by scsirob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what he's actually saying is that it's fine to trade speed of a meeting for total destruction of the free Internet.
    Thank you for once again showing the world what a pile of steaming bovine excrement the EU really is.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:Sloppy job is OK by rastos1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank you for once again showing the world what a pile of steaming bovine excrement the EU really is.

      If you think that (for the sake of argument let' say a "significant part" of) the members of the parliament/senate/population/... reads and understands the legislation they vote on, you are delusional. That's true for EU, USA or any other large body claiming to be a modern democracy.

    2. Re:Sloppy job is OK by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Informative

      Legislators rarely write legislation anymore, instead they get pre-approved proposal legislation directly from lobbyists.
      It's amazingly unlikely that the MEPs felt that there was a problem on the internet that needed these particular "fixes" on their own. Occam's Razor says it's more likely that the big content and IP owners wanted a change and started handing out money.

    3. Re:Sloppy job is OK by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 2

      I've listened to commentary of the people who were in the chamber when it was accepted, and apparently the pressure on the MPs was utterly insane. Mass media outlets all but openely threatened to skewer those who were expected to vote for it and would vote against in the upcoming elections.

      Any particularly enlightening source you'd like to share?

    4. Re:Sloppy job is OK by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Thank you for once again showing the world what a pile of steaming bovine excrement legislators around the world really are.

      FTFY. If you think that there is any legislative assembly in the entire world where everyone actually reads the things they vote on then I have a government to sell you.

  2. Order 66 by Zorro · · Score: 2

    "I didn't know about Order 66 when I voted for it!"

    1. Re:Order 66 by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I thought I was just going to get some fries, not extermination of the Jedi order! Who even has that on the menu!"

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  3. A different view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I voted âremainâ(TM) in the Brexit referendum. I emailed MEPs about this proposal, and how harmful it could be. The only reply I received was from Farageâ(TM)s office: they said they would vote against. Nobody else apparently cared.

    Perhaps I need to re-think my position.

    1. Re:A different view by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

      Before you rethink your position you should check how your British MP:s voted on these two articles. Chances are high that this proposal are supported by the British government as well which means that they would apply this EU or no EU. The problem here is not EU but that copyright lobby groups have been successful in convincing European politicians from all countries that this law is needed and that all opposition is simply paid Google and Facebook shills.

    2. Re:A different view by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even the UK government has attempted to modernise copyright law to an extent, to make it somewhat more realistic and proportionate in light of modern technology. For example, in 2014 a private copying exception was introduced that legalised actions like format-shifting where someone had a legally obtained, permanent copy of a work and the copy was only made for their own private use.

      The EU, in contrast, has been very consistently pro-big-copyright for a long time. When that UK private copying exception was struck down by a High Court judge in 2015, it was largely on the basis of failure to comply with EU law requiring fair compensation to rightsholders should a member state introduce such an exception without also demonstrating that any harm was minimal.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  4. Not true by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "total destruction of the free Internet."

    That's simply not true. Stop lying.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  5. Insufficiently scrutinized? by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is he fucking serious?
    This is a world class governing body passing laws that affect people literally all over the globe... and their excuse was "we didn't have time to sufficiently scrutinize these before voting for them."?

    This is... fucking insane to be light about it.

    --
    I tend to rant.
    1. Re:Insufficiently scrutinized? by ljw1004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is he fucking serious? This is a world class governing body passing laws that affect people literally all over the globe... and their excuse was "we didn't have time to sufficiently scrutinize these before voting for them."? This is... fucking insane to be light about it.

      Isn't this standard practice for governing bodies? Rand Paul in the US recently complained about a 700 page spending bill, complained that neither he nor his colleagues were given time to read it. I've heard the same from the UK parliament.

    2. Re:Insufficiently scrutinized? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      They didn't pass a law, they passed an amendment to proposal.

      This is a very long way from the end of the process.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Insufficiently scrutinized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, this is how modern governments works. Lobbyists say use this, do that, and let me give you the quick summary so you don't have to read all the crap. Then critters vote on what they think something is and/or based on previous agreements to scratch each other's backs. It's how most societies work so you shouldn't be surprised when officials do it too. When was the last time you fully read an agreement you signed or fully researched an article before commenting on it? When I bought my house, they scheduled me 30 minutes to 'read' and sign about 70 pages. I was at the doctor's office yesterday and they couldn't even show me the document I was signing. They had a fixed computer display facing the inner office with a privacy filter on it so it couldn't be turned towards me nor could I view it from the side. Only the electronic signature pad was accessible to the patient. I had to sign, then they had to print it off for me to see it. They could have easily had me sign anything. I was the first person who had ever asked them to see what I was signing.

      Officials are generally a little worse than the general population, especially the higher up they go. Power corrupts and all that, and there are studies to prove it (not the prison study, that one was bullshit). I find it very odd that people somehow believe them to be better than most people. At the very least you should assume they have the exact same habits as you do. Do you read all the meeting minutes from work meetings you've skipped?

      Plus, reading bills is difficult. It can be like a code diff log. Strike out section 2 paragraph 4 and replace with "...". Simply reading a bill isn't good enough (at least in USA). They really need to modernize and track bills as code with version control. Every once in a while there's stories about some bit of text being inserted into a bill and no one knows where it came from. The bills also need documentation saying their intent. Lobbyist craft bills with very specific wording to create loopholes while reassuring anyone who manages to decode it by saying 'no, it's not intended for that. It'll never be used that way.' And the day after it's passed it's used exactly that way. Lobbyists craft bills? Didn't you know that? Just like companies publish press releases, they also publish pre-written laws for congress critters to slap their name on and put up for a vote. Isn't that super helpful, companies are great! And it's the congress critter's staff who go over everything recommending what to vote for rather than the elected official doing it. He's too busy making connections and there's too many laws being worked on for one person to read all of them.

    4. Re:Insufficiently scrutinized? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      AmiMoJo was correct. This was a significant step in the European Parliament, but that does not in itself result in a new law being enacted. The next stage is a "trilogue" between the three main branches of the EU administration, the Parliament, Council and Commission.

      The problem is partly that the Council and Commission are much less democratic than the Parliament and have form for pushing heavily pro-big-copyright agendas, but the good news is that there will still be at least one further chance for the Parliament to realise what is going on here and stop it later in the process.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Insufficiently scrutinized? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Is he fucking serious?

      He's a legislator. They are widely known around the world to not read what they are voting on, not pay attention, and in some governments not even be in the parliamentary chambers to discuss legislation.

      Pick any legislation more than about 5 pages and you'll find a news article somewhere interviewing some senator or other legislator who doesn't understand the text even though they voted on it.

  6. Re:Maybe the law was just a language Axel by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Politicians probably aren't spending most of their reading time on websites, but rather going through thick reports, proposals, notes from committee meetings on a subject, etc. Reading material of which there is a *LOT*. In that situation it's easy to overlook some important detail(s), or misunderstand the implications of some of what's on the table.

    That said, it's a poor excuse imho. If you don't understand what you're voting for, then vote against, abstain, or decide with your colleagues you need more time to go through the material. You're stuck with it for a couple of weeks or months, but if it results in a bad law, then the population may be stuck with it for many years. So do your homework!

  7. This is why the EU is useless & dangerous by Chas · · Score: 3, Informative

    Basically the people running things are professional busybodies and buttinskies.

    They basically rubberstamp everything that comes through.
    None of them actually read what they're pushing. They have aides do that and tell them yes/no. And all the aides are essentially "bought".

    And the people actually making the decisions are unelected by the people and completely unaccoutable to ANYONE.

    So these people are primarily there because they LIKE dicking around in other people's lives...oh and the big paycheck...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  8. Re: Europe and Beyond? by rworne · · Score: 2

    "How the European nations hobble their Internet access will likely not change how everyone outside the EU will use and profit from the Internet."

    Oh it affects me. That stupid cookie bullshit is maddening, especially on mobile sites.

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  9. Controlling the flow of information by Beeftopia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who have a lot of power, people who own newspapers, politicians who rely on those people and other people at that level, are quite concerned about the Internet. The Internet is designed to facilitate the free flow of information. That means "curated" information, packaged with approved, "correct" messages (designed to make people more pliant and easier to govern) is harder to project onto the masses.

    Expect this sort of thing to continue. "Mistakes" that continuously occur in favor of the "curators" of correct thought are not mistakes. This is a constant, continuous push, and will never end until the Internet is fully curated as well.

  10. Re:Maybe the law was just a language Axel by djinn6 · · Score: 2

    Actually politicians spend most of their time fundraising for their next election. As for reading, they have aides (and lobbyists) who do that for them.