Swedish MEPs Announce Support For Article 13, Demonstrate Near Total Ignorance Of What It Actually Entails
from the not-a-good-sign dept
As MEPs get ready to vote on the EU Copyright Directive -- and specific amendments concerning Articles 11 and 13 -- many have not yet said how they are going to vote. However, two Swedish MEPs, Jytte Guteland and Marita Ulvskog, who many had believed would vote against the plan, have suddenly switched sides and say they plan to vote for it. In a rather astounding interview with reporter Emanuel Karlsten the MEPs reveal their near total ignorance of what Article 13 does and what it would require.
Guteland spoke to Karlsten by phone, and he asked all the right questions. It's worth reading the entire conversation, but here are a few snippets with my commentary. When Karlsten pointed out the problems with filters, Guteland insisted that Article 13 doesn't mean filters:
It is not a filter, it’s more about the sites taking reasonable steps, some of which can be free or cheap
That is... utter nonsense. The directive would require sites to block re-uploads of reportedly infringing material, and that means it requires a filter. There is no other way to do this. And there are no "free" filters. Currently, there aren't even any "cheap" filters. Karlsten asks about this and Guteland changes the subject.
What do you mean when you say “free or cheap” ways to take the measures needed to stop copyrighted material from being distributed?
“You shouldn’t need to commit to expensive technical solutions, but measures taken must be proportionate and reasonable based on the content you have. If you’re a commercial player with huge amounts of content, then you’ll need to implement other solutions”.
Got that? You shouldn't need filters, but... if you're a company then obviously you can afford expensive filters.
From there, the interview gets even worse. Karlsten points out that lots of speech will certainly get taken down, especially since filters can't determine what is parody or otherwise exempt, and Guteland's response -- I kid you not -- is basically first "well, they can appeal their censorship" and when it's pointed out that this could lead to content being censored for a long time, retorts that it's somehow magically in the best interests of tech platforms not to censor the content too long:
There shouldn’t be lengthy court proceedings. Even big platforms have an interest in avoiding long court proceedings
"Shouldn't be." Apparently Guteland is unfamiliar with what has happened for years with notice-and-takedown regimes that are a lot less onerous than the ones that will be implemented post-Article 13. When pressed on this, she appears to give the Swedish equivalent of "Nerd harder, nerds."
I see before me a mechanism being developed that doesn’t exist today, where now we have recognition technology, but no appeal process. In the future it should become second nature for platforms to examine whether content is satirical, so that it can be reposted quickly. That means it’s about recognition becoming a two-stage process where today it’s only one. That way it becomes easier to make judgments.
Full employment for satire-detectors! Also, the rest of this paragraph is utter nonsense. She acts as if there's no current appeals process for content taken down today. There is and it's a disaster that doesn't work well at all. And under Article 13 it will be even worse, because the liability and penalties for leaving up the wrong content are much more severe than in the past. And that's why she's totally and completely wrong in saying that platforms will be quick to put this content up. Indeed, the only thing she's right about is that they have incentives to "avoid long court proceedings." And the way you do that is by KEEPING DOWN any content that might be questionable to avoid the liability.
It's disappointing, especially as the vote is coming in just a few hours, that those supporting Article 13 still seem completely ignorant of how any of this works.
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: article 13, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, fair use, filters, intermediary liability, jytte guteland, marita ulvskog, satire
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The only question: Who bought them and how cheap was it?
It's disappointing, especially as the vote is coming in just a few hours, that those supporting Article 13 still seem completely ignorant of how any of this works.
No.
There is zero valid excuses for them not to know that what they said is complete and utter bullshit, so the only way for this to be 'ignorance' is if it's willful ignorance, which you can absolutely blame someone for, but far more likely it's blatant corruption in that they are just repeating garbage talking points they've been handed(though to be fair it's not like there's any good ones available) in an attempt to just brush it aside.
Whether willful ignorance or blatant corruption, those voting in favor of the articles are demonstrating that they have no business(or interest) representing the public at large, and deserve no benefit of the doubt. If there's a plus side to this whole debacle it's that it's making it really clear which politicians to vote against come the next election, as much like long-unattended stockyards they are demonstrating themselves to be full of shit and cheap to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap was it?
It's not ignorance or corruption, just disagreement with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap was it?
Me, hundreds of thousands of people at a minimum, basic facts, reality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap was
Mostly pirates who want their free stuff and won't be getting it anymore.
Too bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap
So what's this magical algorithm or solution you have for automated filters to recognize satire and fair use?
Oh, right - you don't believe either exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and how c
Article 13 does require a review process.
No one said the filter process had to be automated. That's for sites whose business model might now be obsolete, and need to be replaced by those who can afford to protect rightsholders. The free ride is over and certain people are just whining about it.
Their whine is even more "delicious" than the nonexistent tears of the winning side. I'm sure those insults will be very comforting once Article 13 passes tomorrow. I'm equally sure the internet won't break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and h
Article 13 does require a review process.
And how did Viacom reviewing their own content before it went up on YouTube turn out?
No one said the filter process had to be automated.
When it doesn't filter enough content based on the demands of the rightsholders, this will happen. It's not news. Faster, harsher, "notice and permanent staydown" systems were always the end goal of copyright lobbies.
and need to be replaced by those who can afford to protect rightsholders
And for those that can't like smaller websites? Like the sites in the EU that were supposed to be Google's competition, because Google is too rich compared to them? Fuck them, right?
I'm equally sure the internet won't break.
The Internet didn't break when Google News pulled out of Spain either, but the tears shed by the news agencies that kicked Google News out? Now that was enough to solve a few drought crises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and h
"Their whine is even more "delicious" than the nonexistent tears of the winning side. I'm sure those insults will be very comforting once Article 13 passes tomorrow. I'm equally sure the internet won't break."
You clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding on the internet in that case. Enjoy your karma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and h
"No one said the filter process had to be automated"
Reality states that it has to be automated. The volume of traffic online makes a manual process impossible.
Why are you people so opposed to reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and h
The free ride is over and certain people are just whining about it.
And I don't think they are going to stop until they ruin the internet and get everyone to pay them what they think they are owed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap
The fact that all you have is lies and laughably obvious strawmen nicely highlights how utterly without merit your position is, but by all means continue to whale away at those stawmen if that's all you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap
Just how do you stop them exchanging micro SD cards, institute strip searches of everybody, along with cavity probing, when they leave their houses, along with the opening of any mail they may be carrying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and how c
You're not saying that people used to share hard drives, floppies, tapes, scrolls, stones, etc? Only the big bad internet is to blame. If they stop connection sharing, all piracy will grind to a halt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and h
Those had nowhere near the capacity of a modern micro SD card, and an Altoids tin full of them will carry most peoples collections of music, videos and books, with space to spare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap was it?
"Swedish MEPs Announce Support For Article 13, the only question is, How Much Did It Cost The Collection Societies."
FT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap was it?
Kind of like the willful ignorance of Section 230 posters:
"Sue the original publisher!"
"Can't. They're in Bulgaria and twenty other countries on the web, plus they used burner IP addresses that made it impossible to find them before the one-year statute of limitations expired."
"Well you must have done something to deserve this. I bet it's not even false."
"Just like female victims of revenge porn must have done something?"
"One RP site owner was prosecuted!"
"That owner was accused of posting material himself. The other sites got away with it."
"Too bad."
etc. etc. etc.
Now they have their own medicine fed to them and can't stand it. Small wonder they recognize these tactics so well.
That's an example of willful ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap was it?
What part of Article 13 will protect your mailing lists, Jhon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Speaking of willful blindness;
From https://torrentfreak.com/images/grandeadopt.pdf bottom of page 41:
[footnote] 7 Willful blindness can also satisfy the requirement of actual knowledge. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011) ("[P]ersons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts."); see also In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2003) ("Willful blindness is knowledge, in copyright law . . . as it is in the law generally.")
Several times references "common law" too, in way which makes clear is separate from court decisions. (By the way, I upper-case the words only to make stand out here, but when lawyers write it's taken as ordinary and well-known so doesn't need even that distinction, like "hot water".)
Applies to most recent Florida ISP being sued too: another with no actual policy for disconnecting infringers.
[s-u-b-s-t-u-t-e-h-o-r-i-z-o-n-t-a-l-r-u-l-e-s-u-b-s-t-u-t-e-h-o-r-i-z-o-n-t-a-l-r-u-l-e ]
Y'all ought to read that decision and this time try to understand not just say "Nuhn't-uh". When ISPs are forced to follow the law, there'll be a lot of changes by pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of willful blindness;
PS: yes, I meant "substute", "sub astute" perhaps, or do now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's called VPNs.
Or trading external hard disk drives.
Or doing without.
As previously explained this will do jack all to put a dent in Google's grip. You know, the thing you wanted so hard to destroy. But thanks for confirming that you're a tool, blue.
How's that Fox Rothschild defense fund coming along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of willful cabbage;
Cabbage Law? Please explain how that differs from Common Law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Case law, derived from judges, etc. You don't seem to be using the commonly held definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of willful cabbage;
Cabbage Law is derived from Cole's Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of willful cabbage;
Wouldn't it be a part of, rather than derived from, Cole's Law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of willful cabbage;
ad-dressing Google now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of willful blindness;
Hey blue if we set up a gofundme would you be willing to fly to Christchurch and tell the first person you saw outside the airport that the terrorist attack is “alleged?”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of willful blindness;
"When ISPs are forced to follow the law, there'll be a lot of changes by pirates."
Yes, they will find different ways to share content, as they have before the internet existed. As they have every time that you boast about some "win", the pirates just adapt as they have to every action since Napster.
As usual, it''s the legal customers and artists not part of the corporate cartels you shill for who have to worry about disruption. The pirates will be fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a strange 'weapon' indeed that NEVER hits it's target...
As usual, it''s the legal customers and artists not part of the corporate cartels you shill for who have to worry about disruption. The pirates will be fine.
It's a warped 'battle' indeed where the only victims are of the are 'collateral' kind, with the declared enemy yet again escaping completely unscathed.
Why, it's almost as though the big bad 'piracy'/'lost profits'/'value gap' boogie-man is nothing but an excuse, an unbeatable foe that can be used to justify actions that would otherwise be impossible to defend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only question: Gigabytes or Terabytes?
Just how goddamn big is your revenge porn collection Jhon boy? Is that the “mailing list” you keep talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The only question: Gigabytes or Terabytes?
I'm sure these insults will be very comforting to the poster once Article 13 passes tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tl;dr
If someone replaced you with a bot, do you think anyone would notice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The only question: Gigabytes or Terabytes?
Soooo much not caring about article 13. Why don’t you spam that post 10 or 12 more times to make sure everyone knows how much you don’t care Jhon boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only question: Can a blue pill fix “IT”
“That's an example of willful ignorance.”
Fucking classic Jhon king of projection smythe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only question: Who bought them and how cheap was it?
Yep. Yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a depressing sense that Art 13 will pass. Not because it should, but because the technical calibre of MEPs is woeful. I've already had serious problems with content trolling on a charity site where conference presentations from industry experts going back 25 years were linked. Apparently some old PDF presentations contained licensed images. As webmaster I expect submissions to use licensed images, and these may have been since they came from UN agencies. But in any case the images were not identified in any way as proprietary. The solution is simple - the entire site is now private. The industry is deprived of useful research tools. With Art 13 and 11 I expect a very significant fraction of the WWW will vanish into 'gated communities'. Until sanity prevails, it's a massive Lose Lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh the horror: people will actually have to LICENSE content rather than violate copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You sound worried bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or Google will pull out of the EU.
How'd the attempt to tax Google News work out for Spain again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's funny that you assclowns don't even realize that would you hope to achieve with article 13 just won't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cutting off your nose to spite your neighbor
Honestly, more often than not they strike me as more than petty and childish enough that even when the negative consequences many people have warned about happened should the trainwreck pass, they would likely still chalk it up as a 'win' because the people they don't like are getting screwed too, right along with them(which of course would not stop them from whining like spoiled children about how unfair it would be to subject them to said consequences).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cutting off your nose to spite your neighbor
It's almost like John Smith has a strangely similar disposition like MyNameHere used to. "Oh, increased police surveillance and encryption backdoors won't bother me, I'm such a model citizen! If Masnick gets his backside raped that's bonus points for me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Negative for pirates isn't negative for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Assuming that a negative for pirates will happen.
Remember when Home Taping Was Killing Music was supposed to end piracy?
What about the Pirate Bay Trial?
Or Kim Dotcom's arrest?
Saying that "sure, not everyone will die" is not a carte blanche license that permits you to go into a room full of people and spray the inside with automatic rifle fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, the ongoing battle against The Pirate Bay (which, last time I checked, is still operating over a decade after these guys were claiming they'd "won"), and so on.
Every "win" has failed to reduce piracy in any meaningful long term way. The only thing that's made a dent is the offer of decent legal alternatives - and these are the services that these rules will attack. The pirates will take a short time to work out their next method of bypassing rules (assuming they haven't already) and continue to pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not just that - it's the callous, dismissive way copyright advocates disregard collateral damage in their pursuit for misguided control, and the two-faced ways they present themselves. "We're not saying you have to have filters, except that filters might happen, but you're not allowed to say that they could happen in a way that makes us look bad, despite all of us demanding Google for magical unicorn filters that happen twenty-four hours before something we don't like happens".
Of course Article 13 isn't going to be "negative for all". Follow the money and you'll find out who wants a blank check and permission slip to blaze a trail of more Universal vs. Lenz cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Section 230 proponents dismiss the collateral damage it causes to individual reputations, or the sexual privacy of female revenge-porn victims.
Article 13 proponents embrace the "collateral damage" it will cause pirates who steal what others make. The pirates are throwing an epic temper tantrum because someone is taking away their free stuff. The internet will not break one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Section 230 proponents dismiss the collateral damage"
There is no real collateral damage, you just want an easy payout by creating criminals out of law abiding citizens. the only thing that section 230 says is that you have to go after perpetrators of a crime rather than the nearest innocent bystander.
"Article 13 proponents embrace the "collateral damage" it will cause pirates"
Not only does that sentence not make any sense, you are really living in fantasyland if you think it's the pirates people are concerned about here. Though, it is funny seeing you lot demand that Google control everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Section 230's collateral damage are those who would otherwise be able to sue under previous precedent (distributor liability), such as female victims of revenge porn.
Google already "controls everything" (or a lot of it). Article 13 won't cause what's already occurring. The only way to "break" Google would be for internet users the world over to stop feeding value to it. Not likely.
Pirates, on the other hand, are being dealt a death blow, which is why they're screaming so loudly against a law which will be passed later today, your "explaining" notwithstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Section 230's collateral damage are those who would"
...still suffer if article 230 wasn't there, only now there would be many more needless victims yof your bullshit.
"Google already "controls everything" (or a lot of it)."
Not as much as they will when you destroy their small competition, as you are here.
"Pirates, on the other hand, are being dealt a death blow,"
You are utterly delusional if you think that. I was hearing the same crap from people like you about shutting down Napster. How did that work out again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The failure of previous attempts to stop piracy are specifically what gave rise to Article 13.
If you want to blame anyone for Article 13, blame the pirates who insisted on p****ing in the reservoir and ruining the drinking water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The failure of previous attempts to stop piracy are specifically what gave rise to Article 13."
...and it will fail to do what is intended, as every other attempt has failed, for the reasons that have been explained to you many time.
Yet, you continue to mock and lie about the people telling you the reality of what will happen rather than understanding that we know what we're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Article 13 fails to stop piracy, the next step is locking up individual uploaders.
Whatever it takes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long will their sentences be? How will you punish people who upload copyrighted content without the intent to infringe or the knowledge that the content was copyrighted? How will you react when it is you on trial for an accidental act of infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like in Japan? The law that was supposed to happen but the government backed down because of its stupidity? That law? Whatever it takes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"or the reasons that have been explained to you "
Said the self-appointed "explainers" who aren't up to the task.
These condescending attitudes backfire as badly as the resistance-is-futile movement which imploded in the past few days, with the Mueller report and Avenatti's arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Said the self-appointed "explainers" who aren't up to the task."
I've not been proven wrong yet. I've been explaining the need for legal alternatives for over a decade, only for you people to lie about me and attack me. Now that legal solutions are available and working, you want them to be shut down.
That might not be what you think is being asked for, but logic and dealing with reality have never been your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legal alternatives are price-fixed by pirates and large gatekeepers many claim to hate. They are a partial solution.
Locking up individual pirates is the "nuke" that Article 13 will hopefully prevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Legal alternatives are price-fixed by pirates"
Huh? I'd love to hear your logic as to how price fixing is caused by people who by definition DON'T buy things... Are you just saying that you just want to further fleece the people who do pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One way they would stop home taping was to have DJs talk over the intro to songs, except in limited situations. It was very difficult to get a full song onto a tape without this interference. Also, to make a mixtape, one had to either purchase the albums (format-shifting), or have a dual-deck recorder that allowed for that type of transfer.
There also was no internet sharing or digital downloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"One way they would stop home taping was to have DJs talk over the intro to songs"
Yes, I remember. I listened to a lot of music with those things included back when I was a kid.
"Also, to make a mixtape, one had to either purchase the albums"
Weird, I remember borrowing albums and libraries existing back then. Why does your every argument have to depend on ignoring reality?
"There also was no internet sharing or digital downloading"
No, but there were many pirated copies available at market stalls and mail order and the like.
If you're going to base your lies on the idea that piracy wasn't rife back then, you'll have to try again. The only things that truly changed with online piracy were the visibility, and the fact people didn't have to pay money for their copied tapes. It very much existed -pre-internet, even if your bullshit depends on the idea that it didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sweden has long been a USA entertainments industries bitch! Look at the totally biased proceedings that happened against TPB. These 2 MEPs need to feel the full wrath of the Swedish people at re-election in a few weeks time, thrn investigated to see what they got for changing their minds!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Pirate Bay enables piracy on a massive scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't Sweden rule that downloading unauthorized works was not piracy? Its own citizens will be just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back then, the virus of piracy did not overwhelm the host. Now it does. Article 13 is the result. Blame the pirates for creating the need for it, not those who expect copyright law to be enforced.
Locking up the individual pirates is the next step. Whatever it takes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope you like paying taxes, because if you plan to lock up individual infringers for even the slightest infraction (which I certainly believe you would), you’ll be paying a lot more in taxes to build more prisons to house all the people that’ll be getting tossed into cells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please point to anything in Article 13 that refers to "piracy" and how the proposed laws are going to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everything is covered by the magic unicorn that Google and somehow nobody else will need to use to filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Swedens MEP will vote, the tally
Jasenko Selimovic - Liberalerna (Liberals): No if §11 & 13 is not reworked
Jakob Dalunde - Miljöpartiet (Green Party): No on §13
Anna Hedh - Socialdemokraterna (Social Democrats): No if §13 isn't removed
Marita Ulvskog - Socialdemokraterna (Social Democrats): Yes
Jytte Guteland - Socialdemokraterna (Social Democrats): Yes
Fredrick Federley - Centerpartiet (Centrist Party): No if §11 & §13 isn't removed
Kristina Winberg - Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats): No
Anders Sellström - Kristdemokraterna (Christian Democrats): No unless reworked
Max Andersson - Partiet Vändpunkt (splinter from the Green Party): No if §11 & §13 isn't removed
Soroya Post - Feministiskt initiativ (Feminist Initiative): No
Gunnar Hökmark - Moderaterna (Moderate Party): No
Malin Björck - Vänsterpartiet (Left Party): No
Total of 12 votes:
Yes - 2
No - 4
No with caveats: 6
Source: https://www.svt.se/kultur/partienkat-upphovsrattsdirektivet
Note: Any errors are mine or google translate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this THE END for Techdirt?
Ok - quick question for you clever boys:
Last week, the Russian Collusion Conspiracy was put to rest.
This week, Copyright Law will be advanced in Europe.
Isn’t this pretty much THE END for Techdirt? Everything advocated here is now documented historical absurdity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this THE END for Techdirt?
"Last week, the Russian Collusion Conspiracy was put to rest."
It's unlikely that the Mueller report will be the end of it, and even so it's exposed enough criminal activity to be worth the investigation without finding the end result it was set up to find. But, it is an ongoing set of circumstances.
"This week, Copyright Law will be advanced in Europe."
If that happens, we will most likely have fun talking about the negative consequences you said wouldn't happen. Well, until part of the discussion is shut down by those things of course.
"Everything advocated here is now documented historical absurdity."
You have a funny definition of "everything" even if you weren't lying. But, it's your style to reduce any subject to 2 things and then argue some nonsense around the false dichotomy, as I'm not surprised you can only think of 2 stories dicussed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this THE END for Techdirt?
I'm also sort of baffled by the assertion that "the Russian Collusion Conspiracy" is one of the major topics that Techdirt covers. I can think of a couple of articles concerning the Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections, but I'm not sure Techdirt has talked about the Mueller investigation at all.
Troll seems to be starting with usual troll premises -- "Techdirt is part of the leftist media" and "the leftist media is obsessed with the Mueller investigation" -- and arriving at the conclusion that Techdirt is obsessed with the Mueller investigation. All evidence to the contrary.
(I'm sure Roger Stone will be relieved to know that the Russian Collusion Conspiracy has been put to rest, though.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this THE END for Techdirt?
One of our regulars has been spamming this thread for many months:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180203/17114939148/devin-nunes-releases-memo-that-doesnt -show-surveillance-abuses-he-hypocritically-cares-about.shtml
It seems to be an unhealthy obsession, although as you can see I don't mind prodding him when I'm bored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this THE END for Techdirt?
Oh Lord, is Blue doing his "I'm going to write a bunch of identical posts criticizing Blue so they won't know I am Blue" thing again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this THE END for Techdirt?
Well, what's worse - knowingly colluding with the Russians or being stupid enough to be played like a fiddle by the Russians?
You do know there's another vote coming right?
The vote today was for 2 things: should the articles be amended/revised and should the articles be sent to the parliament for a ratification vote.
The Council vote for or against ratification hinges on 1 vote, which is 2 weeks away.
So, there will be "advancement" of copyright law in the EU this week. Also, Europe isn't the same as EU but I guess details isn't something that you care about.
We have all seen the absurdity of your posts but since Techdirts reason to exist doesn't depend on you shitposting it'll do just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonderful information
Thank you for sharing such a wonderful blog post. I am a huge fan of your blogging.
https://easywebplans.home.blog/2019/03/16/website-designing-course-patiala/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]