nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

EU censoring the internet banning memes and freedom of speech

mark085

This is bananas there going to try tax links and only news channels can tell need this is the destruction of the internet simple as that

People me to speak out about this
What do you think

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

evolving_doors

Voss sent back to the drawing board so it could be back again

Here's how your MEP's voted

For 278

Attachment not found.

Against 318 Abstain/Absent 31

Attachment not found.

Ultimate Seduction

mark085 wrote: »

This is bananas there going to try tax links and only news channels can tell need this is the destruction of the internet simple as that

People me to speak out about this
What do you think

I haven't a clue what you are trying to say?

evolving_doors

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

I haven't a clue what you are trying to say?

I think it would have worked better if he had posted the info through the medium of meme

https://whatthevoss.eu/

VinLieger

Just so people know who to be angry at come next European Elections, FG voted for it while everyone else so basically SF and the independents voted against it.

Brian Crowley as usual didn't show, he has a vote ranking of 751 out of 751, he is literally the worst attending MEP in europe, something the people of the South need to consider next time he tries to con them into voting for him. If he really was as sick as is claimed he would have done the right thing and resigned to allow a special election so his constituents could be represented properly.

L1011

There's no special elections, you nominate replacements when (Actually before, to ensure someone doesn't nominate someone hated as first replacement them immediately resign) elected. Kieran Harley would get the seat as first on the list unless he refused; as he's intending to run next summer I'm sure he wouldn't.

You have to be able to refuse because for instance if either of the FGs in the area quit, Simon Harris is next and he sure as hell doesn't want to go now.

EdgeCase

It shows a total cluelessness about how the internet works and would probably be utterly unenforceable, technically very difficult to achieve and result in huge extra costs for European internet services as well as effectively providing a vector for censorship.

Then they'd all be scratching their heads, wondering why there's no European companies being as successful as Facebook or Google and why all the serious IT talent emigrated to California.

If FG voted in line with this, they certainly will not be getting my vote in future. It's the kind of thing that could both cost me my job and undermine my freedom of speech!

rock22

mark085 wrote: »

This is bananas there going to try tax links and only news channels can tell need this is the destruction of the internet simple as that

People me to speak out about this
What do you think

Surely the purpose is to protect and reward content creators. Google etc. are making money on other peoples creations, this will address that.

Personally I am concerned at how the big IT companies are trying to shut this down

VinLieger

MEP's are voting on this tomorrow, Brian Hayes is expected to vote for it like last time but hopefully the independents and SF will vote against again but its still worth contacting them.

Simple contact form is available here

https://ie.saveyourinternet.eu/

Also anyone from the south remember to take crowleys piss poor attendance into account come the next european elections.

prawnsambo

I'm no wiser after reading this thread than I was before I read it. Anyone got a coherent summary of what this is about?

VinLieger

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm no wiser after reading this thread than I was before I read it. Anyone got a coherent summary of what this is about?

Article 13 will make it mandatory for platforms to put in place something called content ID which automatically filters and removes content that may be copyrighted however its open to massive abuse.

For example someone uploaded some Bach to Facebook recently however it was automatically removed after Sony falsely claimed using these systems they owned 47 seconds of his composition that was written over 300 years ago. Youtube uses a similar system which is constantly abused with owners of original music or video having content claims falsely placed against them and these uploads being removed.

Especially consider this in the context of memes which are all created using content from someone else. Effectively they become impossible now.

Article 11 will make linking basically impossible as news media will be able to charge platforms when their content is linked to. This one I dont understand as it makes zero sense to how people will access or find this content if this is passed. So for example if you linked to an irish times article in this thread they could go to boards with a bill for it.

Basically it all smacks of industry lobbyists pushing for politicians to craft a massive hammer piece of legislation that none of them understand the potential consequences of.

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

Just so people know who to be angry at come next European Elections, FG voted for it while everyone else so basically SF and the independents voted against it.

Brian Crowley as usual didn't show, he has a vote ranking of 751 out of 751, he is literally the worst attending MEP in europe, something the people of the South need to consider next time he tries to con them into voting for him. If he really was as sick as is claimed he would have done the right thing and resigned to allow a special election so his constituents could be represented properly.

unreal

speaks volumes as to our levels of real engagement with the EU and its mechanisms that this is not more of an issue

speaks to my engagement too - I wasn't aware of his appalling voting record

EdgeCase

It's also hugely impractical and gives massive advantages to incumbents like Google who've access to the infrastructure to do it.

It basically shoots EU startups in the both feet and gives US based startups massive advantages in Europe.

Moronic legislation!

VinLieger

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's also hugely impractical and gives massive advantages to incumbents like Google who've access to the infrastructure to do it.

It basically shoots EU startups in the both feet and gives US based startups massive advantages in Europe.

Moronic legislation!

Indeed the logistics of such a system are mind boggling, tbh i don't believe one exists yet as would be required under what article 13 lays out

EdgeCase

It's what happens when industry lobbyists representing one side of the argument talk to lawyers and politicians who've very little technical knowledge.

The proposal is utterly unworkable and shouldn't ever have got this far in the first place.

If FG vote for it, I assume they'll be explaining why to the people in Ireland whose jobs and livelihoods depend on the IT sector, not some 1950s copyright holders

VinLieger

EdgeCase wrote: »

If FG vote for it, I assume they'll be explaining why to the people in Ireland whose jobs and livelihoods depend on the IT sector, not some 1950s copyright holders

They haven't a clue, none of them understand this could have massive repercussions for our tech/support sector which we have literally based our economy around

EdgeCase

There are also some very wildly different views of copyright around Europe. For example, in Belgium architects hold copyright to the images of buildings and you can only reproduce photographs of them with permission.

This is one or the main reasons why you hardly ever see images of the Atomium in Brussels for example. It makes using Brussels as the backdrop of anything on TV or film very problematic.

So for example, you could now have a Belgian architect pursuing some social media platform over someone's holiday snaps.

Recently relaxed (a bit)

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2016/05/11/selfies_with_theatomiumwithoutfearofprosecutionsoon-1-2652946/

But you can see how there's no single notion of what's subject to copyright and what isn't and how some continental countries have enormously burdensome protections on all sorts of things in a way we would probably find rather oppressive.

I just hope this piece of legislation is completely defeated as it's impossible to implement without seriously undermining online freedom of speech, open to abuse and very heavy handed.

As for EU engagement, I think we could do with paying a *lot* more attention to what's going through the European Parliament and getting more heavily involved. There are some very relevant votes that we should be aware of.

Sticking European parliamentary coverage onto RTE at about 2 in the morning is crazy. It should be getting covered in the news properly. There's more going on in Europe than just endless discussions of Brexit.

Gbear

Is there any statements from tech groups, universities or the likes that call this legislation out?

It might be worth linking to their statements in emails to MEPs - you'd never know how insulated a bubble they might stuff themselves into.

blanch152

Ultimately, won't this need to go before the Council of Ministers?

BlitzKrieg

blanch152 wrote: »

Ultimately, won't this need to go before the Council of Ministers?

I believe it should

The intro document they've given every MEP today for the discussion covers where it has gone so far (that it started as a request from the European council in 2015 and again in 2016, so that means our elected national leaders proposed this law back then) but it looks like it's not gone to the Council of European Union yet so it will need to go to that next

link to document: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/593564/EPRS_BRI(2016)593564_EN.pdf

its actually surprisingly critical brief in some areas such as this:

The proposed directive clarifies that the protection of the new right does not extend to acts of
posting hyperlinks, which do not constitute communication to the public under current EU law
(see Recital 33). This is in line with the recent CJEU ruling in GS Media in which the Court held
that posting a hyperlink to copyrighted content published online without consent of the copyright
holder does not in principal constitute a 'communication to the public'.17 However, the exact
scope of the new publishers' right still raises some questions. Several clarifications are needed,
including whether or not the new right applies to publication on blogs, whether end-users will
still be free to use snippets (i.e. small fragment of a text) and what type of use is going to be
considered 'digital use' of a press publication.18

RandomName2

VinLieger wrote: »

They haven't a clue, none of them understand this could have massive repercussions for our tech/support sector which we have literally based our economy around

Nobody likes people saying 'I told you so' so I'm going to stay quiet in this thread.

Only thing I'll say is that there's never been any point ever voting for Irish MEPs that are members of ALDE or EPP, they merely fall in line with whatever their masters are telling them. They don't represent Irish interests. Or as the pro-EU people like to say, 'representative-democracy'

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nobody likes people saying 'I told you so' so I'm going to stay quiet in this thread.

Only thing I'll say is that there's never been any point ever voting for Irish MEPs that are members of ALDE or EPP, they merely fall in line with whatever their masters are telling them. They don't represent Irish interests. Or as the pro-EU people like to say, 'representative-democracy'

Whatever about the merits of this proposal right or wrong, I don't agree with the second point.

We are electing people to the Parliament of Europe to decide what's best for Europe. In the same way we should elect TDs to decide what's best for Ireland, rather than what's best for our local town.

One of the worst features of Ireland's democracy is that we elect the local person to protect the local view of the world rather than the best person to decide on the overall view.

EdgeCase

The biggest issue is we need to be paying a hell of a lot more attention to what's going on in Brussels and Strasbourg. This notion that the EU is somewhere else or far away is nonsense. It's our other layer of government and our other parliament.

BlitzKrieg

EdgeCase wrote: »

The biggest issue is we need to be paying a hell of a lot more attention to what's going on in Brussels and Strasbourg. This notion that the EU is somewhere else or far away is nonsense. It's our other layer of government and our other parliament.

The important thing not to forget is that our national leaders start a lot of these legislation themselves at the Council years in advance.

This law started in the European Council back in 2015/2016, thats where it started so we need to hold our national governments accountable, if they know they are accountable for every EU law as much as national laws then they will be more careful not to casually let the Commission loose in some legal areas.

PopePalpatine

The new copyright measures were approved by 438-226.

VinLieger

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The new copyright measures were approved by 438-226.

Yup pretty depressing, FG voted with their leashes held tight, would love to confront brian hayes and ask him to explain exactly what was being voted on, im guessing it would amount to something similar to the internet being a system of tubes

ixoy

Ah but isn't it great news that billionaire Paul McCartney is happy that it's passed? Something for the little guy!

Franz Von Peppercorn

VinLieger wrote: »

Yup pretty depressing, FG voted with their leashes held tight, would love to confront brian hayes and ask him to explain exactly what was being voted on, im guessing it would amount to something similar to the internet being a system of tubes

Held together by whiffy tape.

Franz Von Peppercorn

So are links banned or not? I assume not.

What about summaries?

BlitzKrieg

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

So are links banned or not? I assume not.

What about summaries?

not according to the brief I linked earlier.

The European Courts had already ruled that hyperlinks did not count as breach of copyright so people cant be charged for links.

Now it's going to fall to each national government to decide how much of an article you are allowed to quote before you have to pay in a link, I assume Google etc will just enforce to the level of whichever of the large EU countries is the strictest and any smaller countries that are stricter will just be stepped over (see Spain)

Also it's up to national governments to decide if this will even cover blogs or not so it could end up only applying to set number of news sources.

Infini

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

So are links banned or not? I assume not.

What about summaries?

It looks like theres more common sense being applied to make the proposals more reasonable. Memes wont be banned as theyre falling under the definition of a parody. Links wont be banned because it simply wont be workable and has already been ruled as not affected by this.

They ultimaely have to come up with something workable they cant approve something that goes against the very nature of something without breaking it there'd be war. The articles in this proposal that were causing concern were also watered down.