Dead Parrot
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 2,831
Watching this play out is going to require some more popcorn. Since the UK hasn't formally done brexit yet, wonder how they will vote?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.....What are the positive outcomes of something like this?
Spoken like someone who's fully aware that 18 of the EU countries have so little representation that they're effectively vassal states, and really likes the idea of using large cities with bad ideas to rule over everyone else. Your assertion the EU is more representative is laughable, 4 countries effectively own the rest of them.The EU is no more dictatorial, unelected, or unresponsive to the people than in the U.S. One could even make the argument that due to gross problems in our own electoral system their system is MORE free, MORE democratic and MORE representative of the people than ours. I include such things as:
- Partisan Gerrymandering
- The impact of money in politics
- The outsized influence of small states in the senate due to an equal number of senators regardless of the size of the state
- The outsized influence of small states in presidential elections due to the electoral college
- Racial/political/wealth based voter disenfranchisement efforts
- etc.
First you give them the money, then they have the money.
Spoken like someone who's fully aware that 18 of the EU countries have so little representation that they're effectively vassal states, and really likes the idea of using large cities with bad ideas to rule over everyone else. Your assertion the EU is more representative is laughable, 4 countries effectively own the rest of them.
There's a reason the founders avoided the stupidity you suggest, and it's working precisely as intended.
For a long time there have been much controversy surrounding Article 11 & Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive. The final vote is complete. It passed by 5 votes
A 'Dark Day': Copyright Law That Threatens the Internet as We Know It Passes Final EU Vote
In the EU today, because of Article 11, it now requires a licensing fee to link to news sites. The link in the very line above this one, now costs a fee. In 2015, Spain passed a new copyright law which put a tax on linking to news sites The main target was Google's news aggregation service. Instead of fighting it, Google simply pulled out of Spain. And the aftermath was a disaster.
Article 13 is well summarized by Mike Masnick of Techdirt.com:
"Sites that previously allowed content creators to freely publish content will now be forced to make impossible choices: license all content (which is literally impossible), filter all content (expensive and failure-prone), or shut down."(This is a copy of the OP of a thread I opened then closed when I spotted this one)
The link in the very line above this one, now costs a fee.
I'm not sure about that. I think what matters is if the site you link to is under EU jurisdiction, not where you yourself are located.Only if you are in Europe
I'm not sure about that. I think what matters is if the site you link to is under EU jurisdiction, not where you yourself are located.
Love this guy.
I guess I was not clear enough in the sentence before it.
Anyway, Article 13 creates just as bad of a predicament. Can you imagine what would happen to Youtube, plus many other sites, if we had such a law as article 13? There was an article I read a few years ago titled "Welcome to the Splinternet". As major regions and countries start making their own laws regulating the internet, global outreach of them could create conflicting cyber-laws. And a possible outcome of this is for the internet to become a bunch of isolated WANs. The US internet, the EU internet, Australia, Japan, etc. China and N. Korea are basically their own private WAN right now.
They'll just send an invoice for linking costs. You don't extradite your foreign business partner when they owe you money.I think they might get laughed at if they try to extradite someone in the U.S. for something like this
They'll just send an invoice for linking costs. You don't extradite your foreign business partner when they owe you money.
Can't be bothered with making an argument but are quick to call somebody who thinks differently than yourself a 'fucking idiot'.You could argue the exact opposite, actually - that being in the EU provides benefits (especially economic ones), and leaving the EU will therefore leave the UK at a considerable disadvantage. But I'm not looking to change your mind on this, and frankly the entire argument is so toxic that I simply can't be fucked with it.
If I was a UKer, this would definitely push me towards the Brexit camp. Horrid law.
Honestly, if this was enough to make you vote for Brexit then you'd be a fucking idiot.
DMCA?So, when it never gets paid, then what? File a legal complaint?
Can't be bothered with making an argument but are quick to call somebody who thinks differently than yourself a 'fucking idiot'.
You should be embarrassed you exist.
That leaving the EU may be painful for the UK in itself reflects poorly on the EU project.
You could argue the exact opposite, actually - that being in the EU provides benefits (especially economic ones), and leaving the EU will therefore leave the UK at a considerable disadvantage.
I meant that if this on its own was enough to make you vote for Brexit (which I know that the guy I was responding to did not do, because he's not in the UK), then that would indeed make you an idiot.Honestly, if this was enough to make you vote for Brexit then you'd be a fucking idiot. Brexit is going to be fucking dreadful for the UK.
DMCA?
I doubt hardforum has €10 million turnover anyway.DMCA defines - to a certain extent - what is and isn't copyright infringement. I very much doubt any U.S. court would side with enforcing EU law in the US.
Essentially what will happen I'm this case is that they will be told to go pound sand. Now the multinational giants can't do this, because they do business in the EU and thus are subject to the courts thereut everyone else, like for instance the HardForums? Yeah, tell them to go pound sand.
With cooperation everyone gets something out of it...
...with competition someone wins, and the rest hates them for it...
It's inevitable that if you have something that you don't want to share, others will try to take it away from you. That is why the only way to be civilized is trough globalization. As long as nationalism exists in the world people will kill other people over arbitrary "my country your country" shit.
I don't think they intended the dictatorship of the minority we have today...
where the vote of a person in a rural small state like Wyoming is worth 20x that of someone in California or Texas.
One person one vote, right?
It is appropriate for the majority to get their way.
Not all the time on every subject, that's why we have protected constitutional rights that the electoral process cannot easily override...
In a not so unexpected, but controversial move the EU has voted in favor of copyright reform directive article 13, with 348 for and 274 against votes.
This means that link aggregate sites and basically any social media that allows its users to post external links will have to pay a fee to the original hoster of the linked articles. At least companies with an annual revenue bellow €10 million, and non-profits like wikipedia would be exempt.
How would this be enforced and what will the reaction of social media giants be, remains to be seen.
Some fear this could lead to the banning of links to sites from the EU.
I don't think they intended the dictatorship of the minority we have today, where the vote of a person in a rural small state like Wyoming is worth 20x that of someone in California or Texas.
One person one vote, right?
It is appropriate for the majority to get their way. Not all the time on every subject, that's why we have protected constitutional rights that the electoral process cannot easily override, but why should the 12 people who live in flyover country dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives?
So you say stupid people have no right to exist? I'm sorry, but they do, and it's easier to give them basic life needs, than to try to prevent them from committing crime, and after that fails, pay for legal proceedings to convict them, then pay for their stay in prison, then let them out, and start the whole thing all over again. It's an exercise in futility. It's much cheaper to provide them the cost of basing living.Or maybe learn to stop being so petty. Giving everyone a participation cookie does nothing but lower the quality of life to give largely stupid people something more for simply existing.
There is no such thing as a smart population. There are always stupid individuals in every population, no matter how much superior you think your country is to anyone else. Or do you presume to say that yours has absolutely no crime? Every society has low-iq individuals, who didn't win at the job lottery either, so they have no income. Some become bums, others criminals. Crime is a symptom, and policing a band aid, not a fix. You need fix the cause of crime (and mass migration).If you're in a primitive, miserable county I suppose that holds true. There is no reason to cater to people with such a belief system. The good news is smart populations are successful and can afford and develop the means to protect themselves. No reason to dilute your country and qualify of life to the whims of the idiotic "that isn't fair, gimmie!" countries of the world. If you want to correct these behaviors you don't give in to their demands, you let them die off. They'll be replaced by better, smarter people who are ready to join the civilized world.
..............................
- The outsized influence of small states in the senate due to an equal number of senators regardless of the size of the state
- The outsized influence of small states in presidential elections due to the electoral college
.......................................
I don't think they intended the dictatorship of the minority we have today, where the vote of a person in a rural small state like Wyoming is worth 20x that of someone in California or Texas.
One person one vote, right?
It is appropriate for the majority to get their way. Not all the time on every subject, that's why we have protected constitutional rights that the electoral process cannot easily override, but why should the 12 people who live in flyover country dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives?
England =/= The UK. Really fucks me off when people conflate the two.
No, I really think they don't understand it or the consequences that will come from it. Wanting to get paid is not mutually exclusive to not comprehending something.The EU commission understands it, they just want to be paid their dues for leading the charge in the New World Order.
Is that really the comparison you want to be making?The EU is no more dictatorial, unelected, or unresponsive to the people than in the U.S.
I'm a nationalist who believes the smaller and closer the central government is to its citizens, the better. It's easier to lobby your government to oppose/change terrible laws such as this one.
That leaving the EU may be painful for the UK in itself reflects poorly on the EU project.
Do you know of a state inside USA that would be pained from leaving the union?
"it reflects poorly on the USA if you can think of any one state that would have a hard time after leaving the common market of the union"
That is not an analogous example. At all. You should be ashamed for even thinking that.
For those of you having a hard time figuring out how it will be enforced. Let me tell you. It will be enforced selectively.
Actually it totally is.