Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Article 11, Article 13

  • 27-03-2019 1:32pm
    #1
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭


    Does anyone know which of our MEPs voted for and against the Copyright directive? I'm assuming Sinn Fein and Independents voted against, and everyone else voted for, but I want to check.


Comments

  • #2
    ArchXStanton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭ArchXStanton


    In favour (out of 348 total MEPs):
    Harkin (Ind/ALDE)
    Hayes (FG/EPP)
    Kelly (FG/EPP)
    McGuinness (FG/EPP)

    Against (out of 274 total MEPs):
    Boylan (SF/GUE-NGL)
    Carthy (SF/GUE-NGL)
    Childers (Ind/S&D)
    Flanagan (Ind/GUE-NGL)

    Not present:
    Clune (FG/EPP)
    Crowley (Ind/ECR)
    Ní Riada (SF/GUE-NGL)


  • #3
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    ArchXStanton wrote: »
    In favour (out of 348 total MEPs):
    Harkin (Ind/ALDE)
    Hayes (FG/EPP)
    Kelly (FG/EPP)
    McGuinness (FG/EPP)

    Against (out of 274 total MEPs):
    Boylan (SF/GUE-NGL)
    Carthy (SF/GUE-NGL)
    Childers (Ind/S&D)
    Flanagan (Ind/GUE-NGL)

    Not present:
    Clune (FG/EPP)
    Crowley (Ind/ECR)
    Ní Riada (SF/GUE-NGL)

    Looks like Sinn Fein are going to get a high preference from me in May [shudder]

    It probably is an indictment of us that most of us know more about Robert Mueller's report on Trump than laws which directly affects us.


  • #4
    Ubbquittious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,291 ✭✭✭Ubbquittious


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Looks like Sinn Fein are going to get a high preference from me in May [shudder]

    It probably is an indictment of us that most of us know more about Robert Mueller's report on Trump than laws which directly affects us.

    Ordinary people dont give a fiddlers' about oppressive copyright law, net neutrality and open source. In fact they'll support such measures if someone tells them it might create a few more jobs in Ireland with American megacorps. Sad but thats how the reality has been for at least the past 20 years I have been following it


  • #5
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Ubbquittious wrote: »
    Ordinary people dont give a fiddlers' about oppressive copyright law, net neutrality and open source. In fact they'll support such measures if someone tells them it might create a few more jobs in Ireland with American megacorps. Sad but thats how the reality has been for at least the past 20 years I have been following it

    Well the mega corps oppose net neutrality. The carriers support it.


  • #6
    Infini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    One of the concerns about this was about the whole banning meme's thing as a concern but I believe that was negated through parody exceptions and the like. What I'd be concerned is how this is meant to actually work in practise. I mean they want content filters on things? How's that meant to work exactly people are able to easily get round those and automated systems just dont work.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,514 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Infini wrote: »
    One of the concerns about this was about the whole banning meme's thing as a concern but I believe that was negated through parody exceptions and the like. What I'd be concerned is how this is meant to actually work in practise. I mean they want content filters on things? How's that meant to work exactly people are able to easily get round those and automated systems just dont work.


    This is the constant problem with having politicians legislate on technology they have no understanding or comprehension of. They are a prime example of a problem end user who just assumes anything they ask is possible because to them technology is basically magic and can be made to do anything required.


    Google who have in all likelihood have the most advanced filtering system there currently is are nowhere near having their's work to the level of accuracy that this this law would require and as you say people will always just figure out a new way to get around it.


  • #8
    Varik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,560 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Infini wrote: »
    One of the concerns about this was about the whole banning meme's thing as a concern but I believe that was negated through parody exceptions and the like. What I'd be concerned is how this is meant to actually work in practise. I mean they want content filters on things? How's that meant to work exactly people are able to easily get round those and automated systems just dont work.

    There was already parody exceptions and free use, the current issue is that the likes of Youtube were already prone to believe any old nonsense. Channels are getting strikes for mentioning brands or other channels. Stuff that's easily fair use but youtube were strike happy, and at worst it would require a legal judgement if after you objected if the accuser were to persist.

    None of them are going to take chances now if they're financially responsible.


Advertisement