Strange: Vote Against Freeing Up Orphan Works Achieves 113% Turnout In EU Committee
from the are-they-sure? dept
One of the unresolved problems of copyright is how to deal with huge numbers of orphan works -- creations still in copyright, but whose owners can't be traced to give permissions that may be necessary for re-use. The European Parliament's JURI committee met recently to vote on a new report on possible permitted uses of orphan works, prepared by the Polish Member of the European Parliament, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg.
As Rick Falkvinge writes, things didn't go too well for those hoping to free up orphan works for modern use:
the copyright industry lobby won key points in the voting procedure with 14 votes against reform and 12 in favor of it, according to the just-published protocol.
End of story, you might think. But Geringer de Oedenberg noted something strange with the voting:
During the vote I was making precise notes as to the balance of votes in favour and against to my crucial amendments.
So the question has to be asked: did the copyright industry lobby really win, or was there some miscounting along the line? To avoid the impression of anything improper going on here, it's vital that those votes be taken again. After all, as Falkvinge points out:
It came to me as a surprise that for my Compromise Amendments 20 check vote announced by the Chair was 14 to 12 which gives us 26 Members!
Considering that we only have 24 Members in Juri Committee and according to the protocol only 23 were present this result is confusing and calls for clarification.
Similar situation appears on Amendment 71 (Ms. Gallo and Mr. Borys) which pass with the result announced 13 to 12 what gives as 25 Members and my Amendment 32 which fall 13 to 11 -24 Members.The final kicker here is that the 113-per-cent voter turnout happened in the Legal Affairs committee (JURI), which has the responsibility of safeguarding the integrity and trustworthiness of the legal framework as a whole in Europe.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eu, orphan works, voting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What. The. Hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure you are, we read about them every day.
1.a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot
2.the act of making such plans in secret
TD covers conspiracy theories daily.
Embrace it, and wear your tinfoil with pride. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No theories. We know lobbyists line pockets and pay for legislation. But until concrete proof is obtained, it is just a theory, or suspicion. Just like pay for play. We know it happens. We see it here daily.
Now is that not Grand, massive conspiracies implicating entire groups?
The lobbyist cartel representing a multitude of interests (Massive groups), and which BTW we cant assume all are trying to do bad, paying for legislation from.. hell Mayors on up the food chain.
The whole system is one big conspiracy man. (Sorry had a hippie flashback there)
"without any whistleblowers?" - Well thankfully we have people like Mike Masnick and many others to shine light on the cockaroaches so we know what they are doing.
And this kind of pay for play is just a small example.
Another one, how Government contracts are handed out. (To the hand with most cash)
You have a great weekend Samuel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will have a good weekend. You too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If votes from a governmental body can be manipulated and fall prone to errors like this without question or the conductance of re-votes, how much easier is it to manipulate or cause substantial errors in a general election where all voters of the citizenry vote without anyone even blinking an eye?
When I vote for an elected official, or when the GOP or whatever chooses their primary, how do we know the polls and the decisions made are really representative of public opinion and aren't being tampered with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA says...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The RIAA says...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orphans
Should not this voting include their names so we can see exactly who voted what way? We can then see if any names appear twice or if some strange "billy bo jim bob" name slips in there.
Another vote is certainly required. I hope they do change orphaned works law when currently this media is useless and used by no one. If freely used this would better help the owner to come forwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just before the voting, the relevant member of the EPP said that they weren't against the change in principle, they just weren't entirely happy that the wording was right yet; but if that could be fixed, they could well support a similar amendment in the forthcoming vote of the full parliament. (Video, at 10:19; the vote on Compromise 20 occurs at 10:39).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So if there are only 23 eligible to vote, this is fishy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Shut up, we are the 113%!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Matter of Math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA did the counting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless some voted twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't have been...
23.667 * 150,000 = 3,550,050
Where 23.667 is some number related to people and stuff, and 150,000 is the maximum in statutory damages (in US dollars), producing a total 3,550,050 votes. (Figuring out how such unrelated units of measure can be converted to votes, numerically or literally, or what those numbers have to do with anything at all in this context, is an exercise left to the reader. Hint: One can convert between dollars and votes via a simple linear calculation. The rest should be obvious.)
In conclusion: There must have been an honest mistake made during the counting process. Or perhaps a transcription error. Couldn't have been tampering by the Usual Suspects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's important to always maximize... everything.
23.667 people * $150,000 * 15.98754654 steradians/dm*min^2 = 567,565,896 votes
That should leave enough votes left over to win all subsequent recounts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's important to always maximize... everything.
* 15.98754654 steradians/dm*min^2
By now, I would expect that the value of the residual vote on the free market would be approximately 17 pin-holes, two bread crumbs and 21,197,262 rude sounds. However, please note that bread crumbs are subject to spoilage, as well as consumption by cockroaches and children, and the duration of 21,197,262 rude sounds is very short when those sounds occur simultaneously, and are evenly distributed throughout all population centers on the planet that contain over 50,000 residents. So the net value of this residual can probably be limited to pinholes alone. And, since the value of pinholes is roughly proportional to the amount of space that they occupy (i.e. less than one ISO standard gnat's eyelash), any subsequent recount would have to exclude any residual at all from the original vote. In addition, direct unit conversion (i.e. over the table) of pinholes to votes is substantially more difficult than the conversion (under the table, by convention) between dollars and votes.
So I'm fairly certain that the term:
* 15.98754654 steradians/dm*min^2
can be considered to be redundant in this instance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was wondering...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote from Wikipedia:
Known for shrewd party politics, Daley was a stereotypical machine politician, and his Chicago Democratic Machine, based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for John F. Kennedy in 1960. A PBS documentary entitled "Daley" explained that Mayor Daley and JFK potentially stole the 1960 election by stuffing ballot boxes and rigging the vote in Chicago. In addition, it reveals, Daley withheld many votes from certain wards when the race seemed close
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Between the clearly fraudulent vote and your pathetic attempt to try to explain it away, it's no wonder why nobody takes the entertainment industry seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all sharing is caring.
/derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Central Planning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(JIC: Fox is notoriously bad at math)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice opportunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]