Why Is The EU Parliament Pushing Fake Propaganda From Hollywood?

from the a-hollywood-story dept

What the hell is going on in the EU these days? The EU Commission put out a Medium post that literally mocked the public as an “angry mob” for raising legitimate concerns about the EU’s proposed Copyright Directive. And that followed a bizarrely incoherent “Q & A” page put out by the EU Parliament’s Legislative Affairs Committee (JURI), spewing pure nonsense about the Copyright Directive. In both cases, those involved were publicly mocked for this (to the point that the Commission even took down its post, but blaming others for misunderstanding it as the reason).

But now the EU Parliament is doubling down on this absurdity. Its official Twitter feed posted this bit of pure propaganda:

If, for some reason, you can’t read that, it says:

Your memes are safe ? Freedom of expression is not affected ? It’s all about fair payment to content creators ?

And then urges people to watch a short video that is simply bullshit propaganda put forth by an industry association, called “Europe for Creators.” Think about this for a second. Here is the official feed of the entire European Parliament — which has not yet voted on the EU Copyright Directive — posting corporate propaganda from a trade group, pushing misleading to outright false messages, in support of a bill that is designed to financially benefit that industry.

In what world is that okay?

MEP Julia Reda has gone through and highlighted many of the problems with the video in a detailed Twitter thread. To make it easier to read, I’m turning that thread into plaintext here:

This video by @Europarl_EN on the draft #copyright directive has sparked a lot of outrage, and rightfully so! First, the Commission called critics of the reform as a mob, now the Parliament chimes in…. The Parliament should maintain neutrality in its communication until the final version of the #copyright directive is adopted. The video not only creates the impression that the directive has already been agreed, there are several factual mistakes and problematic aspects:

In the beginning of the video a balloon is shown, carrying the ?Europe for Creators? logo. It belongs to a controversial lobby campaign by a group of collecting societies, music publishers and record producers. The logo of Europe for Creators tries to rip off the logo of @EFF, possibly to create the impression that this is a civil society campaign. Advertisements for commercial interest groups have no place in a video of a political institution.

The video claims that the reform is directed at ?large platforms?: In fact, the size of the platform does not matter for the application of #article13, merely whether it hosts ?large amounts? of protected content. This can also be the case for a platform run by a single person. The video says a lighter regime applies to platfoms that have an turnover below 10 Million *or* less than 5 million unique visitors. This is just wrong. Actually, the lighter regime only applies if both criteria are met, and platforms are also younger than 3 years old.

Another false statement is that ?there is no requirement for platforms to put filters in place?: Yes there is, as soon as a rightholder does not wish to offer a license, para 4 (b) and (c) require platforms to use an #uploadfilter in order to escape liability.

The video says ?your memes are safe?: This is misleading. #Article13 says that member states should allow parodies, but the criticism is not that memes will be illegal, but that filters will block them automatically, because they can?t distinguish a parody from ?? infringement.

At the end, @AxelVossMdEP says that any change to a copyrighted work is allowed under #Article13. It?s not. There?s a list of exceptions in Article 13 (5) that should apply: quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody & pastiche. Other transformative uses remain forbidden.

Reda then notes that, as a member of Parliament, she has submitted a request to inspect the internal documents that resulted in this video being made and published on the official EU Parliament Twitter feed. I actually think Reda could have gone even further. Beyond the flat out lies by Axel Voss in the video (saying 10 million Euros “or” less than 5 million uniques, and leaving out that those only apply to companies less than 3 years old), Voss also makes this odd statement, saying that if a company qualifies they are “a little bit exempted.” How is one “a little bit exempted”? He’s actually choosing his words carefully, because he knows that even if you qualify for all three conditions (which will only cover a very small number of platforms) you’re not really exempted at all. You just have slightly less onerous conditions thrust upon you.

Of course, with elections coming up in just a few months, it does seem like the EU Parliament may regret this decision. Just skimming through most of the responses to this tweet, it doesn’t seem to be convincing anyone of anything… other than that they want to vote the bums out in May.

And there are a lot more like that. Indeed, I don’t seem to see anyone actually praising the EU Parliament’s decision to post this nonsense, which makes you wonder why they even bothered.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Why Is The EU Parliament Pushing Fake Propaganda From Hollywood?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

We reached Peak Ajit Pai levels of political corruption.

Pushing an internet breaking policy against all expert protest, blatantly dismissing the opposition as fakes, and spreading all out propaganda from corrupt Corporations. It just can’t be a coincidence that these are all exactly the same tactics that Ajit Pai used to repeal net neutrality. Either Ajit Pai has a double job, or the EU is simply taking a leaf from the Trump Administration to blatantly lie to their citizens without regard to the consequences.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: We reached Peak Ajit Pai levels of political corruption.

Kill the pigs, burn the schools, baricade the streets and march on parliament!
We all already know that voting doesn’t change anything when all the parties are centrist or adopt centrist politics as soon as they are voted in. Banish the unbearable status quo!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

rejected by the "legacy" industry and makes several million a year on YouTube, as do many other independent creators

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT! Hold the phone! You just admitted that indie creators ON THE INTERNET make several million a year, but your whole schtick is predicated on the fact that people can only make good money (or any money really, since you consider online content to be "garbage") by using the legacy studios. And before you deny that, I give you exhibit A from one of your posts farther down:

Online content creators are amateur night. Hollywood operates professionally. The two have very little in common. Start with their daily scale wages:

$0 Online (or state minimum wages)

So, shill, what’s it going to be? More lies? Or more lies? Because it’s quite obvious you are incapable of telling the truth and will spin any lie, no matter how contradictory, if it will support your argument. Weasle your way out of that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "Election in November, Election in November"

Yeah, I would, but at least in my country they are not even close to the only true pirates, greek pirates.
They are centrist and rather reactionary like the rest of the government and actually propose more mild and consumer-hostile laws than the rest. Corporate whores.

Anonymous Coward says:

So that’s what voters are now. An angry mob. If you are in the overwhelming majority of those that are tired of a tyrant minority aristrocrat independently writing laws solely in their own interests and you disagree with them then you are part of the angry mob.

Yes, we are an angry mob. Rightfully so. We want our governments to behave like a democracy. And we are tired of a small minority of IP extremists that don’t believe in democracy writing all of our laws.

IP extremists don’t believe in democracy. They steal from taxpayers every time taxpayer funded research is locked behind copy’right’ paywalls or subject to patents so they clearly believe in theft (but not infringement) yet they claim that IP is all about protecting authors, creators, inventors, and musicians from intellectual ‘theft’. When it’s pointed out to them that no one has a moral entitlement to IP and that its purpose, if it is to exist, should only be to serve the public interest they then claim that IP is in the public interest and they even go so far as to say that publishers stealing from taxpayers is in the public interest. They claim that it’s for the poor poor authors and creators and musicians yet it’s always been big corporate conglomerates responsible for pushing these laws.

For instance it was Disney that pushed the copy’right’ extensions. Not the poor poor artists.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

See response to

""This model could potentially undermine peer review, the process vital for ensuring the rigour and quality of published research. It could also increase costs of publication for researchers and funding bodies.""


by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, @05:11PM (#807055)

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Angry mobs

Dissenters are always terrorists and shills according to authoritarians.

If someone is calling you these things it means they don’t (maybe can’t) care about your position. The question then is why?

Assuming they’re not like POTUS, an old man with delusional beliefs and attitude polarization, it’s probably something like their paycheck depending on their beliefs staying polarized.

That’s the norm here in the states. I’d assume it’s pretty common in the EU.

Anonymous Coward says:

"Indeed, I don’t seem to see anyone actually praising the EU Parliament’s decision to post this nonsense, which makes you wonder why they even bothered."

Exactly. I want to be very clear on this. IP laws have never been expanded due to public pressure. At most you have astroturfing groups pushing for them. IP laws have always been pushed by a very small minority of corporate interests. I have seen huge groups of people gather in protests against SOPA, for instance. I have never seen huge groups of people gather in favor of IP laws. IP has been extended, for example, due to pressure from Disney. Not from artists, not from the public. and Disney does not care about the artists, to even think that is ridiculous. They lobby only in their own interests.

This undemocratic nonsense is absolutely unacceptable. I want democracy. I do not want a small minority of corporate interests unilaterally writing our laws and bribing our politicians. IP extremists do not believe in democracy and they do not care for the poor poor artists and authors. They do not care to stop theft. They only want to steal from the public. This nonsense needs to stop.

Anonymous Coward says:

Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....

Given how the main beneficiaries of this are Hollywood, who stand to take back a lot of the power they lost to smaller content creators online, and the established big silicon valley players in the online world who this basically grandfathers in as the sole arbiters of what content gets to be uploaded, as their competition is priced out of the market, you’d almost think this was an attempt by the EU to try and push confidence in some kinda Calexit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....

Hollywood attracts top talent because their minimum wages are phenomenal, as in over $900 a DAY for actors, with all kinds of minimums for the other unions and guilds.

"Legacy" producers are required to pay their talent UP FRONT, and protecting the fruits of that labor is definitely a valid legal priority. Those wages they pay result in a lot of payroll tax revenue that governments like, revenue which is threatened by piracy or aggregation.

Masnick is whining like a spoiled toddler, his writing at about the same level. Almost amusing to watch if it weren’t so pathetic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....

Hollywood attracts top talent because their minimum wages are phenomenal

And because of that, they are extremely selective in who they hire. ONLY the top talent gets hired. Every other talent gets a giant f*** you. Yeah, sounds great.

"Legacy" producers are required to pay their talent UP FRONT,

They are required to do no such thing. Citations please.

protecting the fruits of that labor is definitely a valid legal priority.

Not at the expense of preventing anyone else from being able to make money on their own.

Those wages they pay result in a lot of payroll tax revenue that governments like, revenue which is threatened by piracy or aggregation.

Ah ha! So you admit the only reason you, legacy companies, and governments are all gung ho for these laws is because you’re all a bunch of greedy bastards who don’t want to have to compete. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

anymouse says:

Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....

Please explain how piracy makes any difference in the tax payments that go to governments based on payroll.

Are you saying that studios pay actors less everytime something is pirated??? That $900 a day just turned into $9 a day? NO?? Then you are just full of crap and don’t know what you are talking about.

Piracy GENERATES revenue, you know how much money those pirates PAY to their ISP and electric company in order to be able to pirate? It costs a lot of money to pirate successfully, where as an "actor" just needs to show up and often don’t even need their own clothes (wardrobe provided).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....

Online content creators are amateur night. Hollywood operates professionally. The two have very little in common. Start with their daily scale wages:

$0 Online (or state minimum wages)

Jobs and tax revenue are a vital public interest. Memes and piracy are not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....

I need a source to prove that SAG-AFTRA requires that performers be paid up front? Look up "SAG-AFTRA scale" if you’re really curious.

I’d think someone supposedly familiar with Hollywood would already know what "scale" means.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..

I need a source to prove that SAG-AFTRA requires that performers be paid up front? Look up "SAG-AFTRA scale" if you’re really curious.

I will not do your research for you. Do you have a source, or no?

I’d think someone supposed familiar with Hollywood would be able to source their data when requested.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....

Online content creators are amateur night.

Really? Because some of those "amateurs" put the Hollywood acts to shame. Besides that, who are you to decide what is good content or not? Hollywood doesn’t just come out of nowhere, that talent comes from somewhere. And one of those places is online.

Hollywood operates professionally.

So do online content creators. Your point?

The two have very little in common.

You’re right. But that doesn’t make one automatically better than the other.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this....

Yeah, the 10-15 million viewers of top network shows, or the people who give half-billion dollar box offices to top films, couldn’t agree more with the whining internet toddlers.

Ask the top celebrities how many of them are available for non-union work. Answer: ZERO.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..

Funny how those multi-million dollar productions keep getting made and keep grossing massively despite this apparent epidemic of piracy.

I guess those are all just pipe dreams that won’t come to exist or get any audiences unless Article 13 gets passed. Oh, what might have been, if the Marvel Cinematic Universe were able to exist. Alas, that the pirates made sure it didn’t!

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Honestly, given the main beneficiaries o

I did not realize you were in the music industry! My heart goes out to them for the failure of the MCU’s soundtracks to come into existence, or the lack of existence of Beyonce’s music, or Kanye West’s music, or Britney Spears’ music, or Eminem’s tracks, or Nikki Minaj. It is too bad that these multi-million dollar productions failed to exist because of piracy. Such a sad day.

I also didn’t realize that you were in the authorial realms! It’s too bad that Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, and Robert Jordan were entirely unable to realize the existence of their bodies of literature because of piracy. Too bad that George RR Martin was unable to bring Game of Thrones to market due to piracy. Such a crying shame.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..

As we all know, the quality of writing is a direct function of the revenue it generates.

I believe you meant to say the revenue is a direct function of the quality.

No wonder you just repeat the words "toddler" and "whining" over and over. Best to stick to words you know how to use correctly in a sentence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..

As we all know, the quality of writing is a direct function of the revenue it generates.

No, it’s really not. Many people write high quality works for fun, but never sell it. Some even post it online for free. In fact, scientists and researchers have a tendency to do this very thing. Not to mention all major news and journalism outfits post at least some of their content online for free.

Besides, you are putting the cart before the horse. You can’t generate revenue until you write something. You have no idea whether what you write will be good and generate lots of revenue until you write it and try selling it. By your assertion, high revenue produces good writing, but how do get high revenue if you haven’t written anything?

The previous poster should have just written "I’m a social-climbing idiot."

Considering your sentence immediately prior is logically not possible, I would question who the idiot really is here.

These toddler-tantrums are getting epic.

Something’s epic alright, and contains a B and an S.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Honestly, given the main beneficiaries of this..

the quality of writing is a direct function of the revenue it generates

Funny, I thought one of your main arguments was that quality doesn’t matter for copyright protection; it always commands revenue from even people who didn’t want to buy or download it.

David says:

You just see the results of successful hard work

People have votes, corporations don’t. If corporations want to prevail over people, they need to work with propoganda (making people vote against their interest) and lobbying (making votes meaningless because all relevant parties will represent the interests of corporations rather than people). A great way of lobbying is selflessly providing the elected representatives of the people with talking points.

The EU actually has a European Commission with the sole purpose of doing all the hard work for the European Parliament and providing it with all its talking points including proposals for all of the laws the parliament passes. It’s sort of the counterthesis to the Communist one-party system which is a comparatively blunt way of making the people’s votes count for nothing.

It’s also a bit more elaborate than the U.S. system where companies are allowed to just directly bribe politicians, often in the form of campaign contributions necessary for gaining relevant votes of the dumb public.

So if you see elected representatives spout nonsense directly in conflict with the interests of their electorate, there is a reason for it, a reason that can be expressed in terms of dollars or in this case Euros. They get their talking points conveniently predigested. Now you may think that the people deserve better and also should be paying someone to prepare the talking points in their interest. Unfortunately, the elected parliament members are already those supposed to prepare the talking points in the interest of the people paying their wages.

It’s just easier for them to let someone else do that job, even someone who does not have at all the interests of the people in mind.

Anonymous Coward says:

the scary thing is which body actually encouraged (and paid for it) to be posted? what did the members of the EU Parliament get for posting it? why have the rights of all citizens been removed and replaced by corporate interests, particularly those of the entertainment industries? why are these industries more important than every citizen and every other company, corporation and industry that uses the Internet? why must everything that the rich, the famous and the powerful remain hidden but even the slightest of things said or done by an ordinary person have to be known and spread everywhere?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

No it is not, because the digital product is still just as available through legitimate channels. It is not in any way a tax on legitimate purchases.

It’s not a theft of labor, either, because no additional work on the part of producers is required to produce additional copies. You’re not depriving anyone of anything they were all but guaranteed to have otherwise by pirating.

That’s the thing: the flat cost of the “master copy”, so to speak, is irrelevant to whether or not something copied or stolen costs the producer anything. Nor is it generally relevant for what the value of a product is. The important thing is how much it costs to produce/ship additional copies, as well as what value the end product has. Consumers don’t care about flat costs. They care about reproduction costs, utility, quality, and scarcity. When you steal a physical good, you are increasing the scarcity of the good without compensation. This doesn’t happen with unauthorized copies of digital goods.

Regardless of whether it’s fair, legal, or moral or not, it’s not analogous to theft of physical items.

Erudite in Arizona says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Yeah, huh?

Where I live, people who:

1) agree with Mike ALL THE TIME, and run code and scripts to block debate on controversial topics, and target speakers of words that cause ouchies, and

2)who think actively and mindlessly supporting the racist ADL-SPLC religion based reactionary discourse and other moral binaries and deplatforming initiatives of the One Percent is

3) a worthwhile substitute for intellect and critical thinking, we

4)vastly outnumber the dumb, "definitely some of them are” people who get flagged by the Great Defenders of First Amendment Rights of Corpirate Media, and who

5)thereby think flagging posts at TD is akin to running the underground railroad, saving a swastika hoax victim from an Israeli threatener, or ferrying Armenian/Rwandan /Guatemalan Genocide survivors across the Ganges River-or wherever the hell it is that "those people ” go when they get gassed/bombed /machete’d/ BOLOd /etc about something- counts as intellect.

Lastly, may I go on record stating that most of us good peeple wear brown, or black shirts, but with small rainbow lapel pins, and sensible shoes.

Jane Vaginahat says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Its possible that you are experiencing "thought broadcasting, " which is a classic sign of schizophreniform narrative.

I would try to send a few well armed squad cars to your house, to do a wellness check, but its hard to send help to anonymous cowards, who obviously are in danger of listening to CNN, WaPo, and regarding it as "truth " instead of "noise broadcasting."

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Article 12:

"Member States with compensation-sharing systems between authors and publishers for exceptions and limitations may provide that where an author has transferred or licensed a right to a publisher, such a transfer or a licence constitutes a sufficient legal basis for the publisher to claim a share of the compensation for the uses of the work made under an exception or limitation to the transferred or licensed right, provided that an equivalent compensation-sharing system was in operation in that Member State before 12 November 2015.

The first paragraph shall be without prejudice to the arrangements in Member States concerning public lending rights, the management of rights not based on exceptions or limitations to copyright, such as extended collective licensing schemes, or concerning remuneration rights on the basis of national law."

Unless I’m finding something different from what it actually is, I’m not seeing anything applicable to effigy’s here…

Anonymous Coward says:

Piracy needs to be stopped.

The public doesn’t clamor for IP rights, just the tax revenue it generates.

The internet won’t break for anyone but the thieves who steal content made by others. The louder they whine, the more ridiculous they sound, just like that "angry mob of thieves" government is talking about.

If there is an alternative that will STOP PIRACY, by all means present it. Otherwise, it is the pirates who chose to urinate in your freedom pool despite warnings that this was coming. Blame them .

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It’s an opinion, and any citation would be to other opinions.

I know your side of this debate is very desperate now that it’s clear how badly they’re LOSING, but that makes me the opposite, not really caring about all the whining other than to derive some amusement from how pathetic the pro-piracy "movement" is.

Reality is winning here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

increased tax revenue

Oh yes, because citizens are so happy to just keep paying bigger percentages of their incomes in taxes. You’re a moron.

disingenuity from the other side

Sorry, what was that? I couldn’t hear you over the disingenuous claims you made that taxpayers want to pay more in taxes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

No, those who stole my work took bitcoin, after I cut off their other means of payment.

Not that it matters, since Perfect 10 lost its case against Visa, with the court saying that even if Visa knew it was processing payments for pirated material, they still weren’t "in control of the infringing conduct." The Perfect 10 cases are the ones that made piracy flourish online.

I’d be against Article 13 if the other side would agree to hold webhosts, payment processors, and search engines liable under the old "notice" standard that used to apply. Even a ruling that payment processors commit unjust enrichment by making money off of theft would have stopped it.

The American courts are actually the indirect drivers of Article 13.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

The American courts are actually the indirect drivers of Article 13.

No shit?

The Perfect 10 cases are the ones that made piracy flourish online.

Which Perfect 10 brought to begin with, so you can thank copyright enforcement for fucking that up for everybody. Thanks for breaking it, hero!

No, those who stole my work took bitcoin, after I cut off their other means of payment.

I thought your complaint was that the pirates were backed by somebody too difficult to take down, now you’ve got payment processors doing your bidding?

You ever consider keeping track of your story with a Notepad file? Or posting it on fanfiction.net?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Was I talking about pirates? No, I was not. Nice try at deflection. Your statement has nothing to do with legit people and companies paying taxes. But your statement would be an argument for reasons why pirates are able to get away with not paying taxes.

Or are you suggesting that these legacy studios are all pirates and not paying proper taxes on the revenue they take in? In that case maybe instead of passing supposed laws to combat piracy, we should crack down on legacy studios and force them to pay billions that they owe in back taxes. You know, actually I like that idea. Glad you thought of it!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The internet won’t break for anyone but the thieves who steal content made by others.

Your world view is myopic and childish. You lack the ability to see beyond the talking points of the music industry. You really ought to get out more. Or less. Either might work though the latter would be more satisfying.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

More like I see that piracy is a cancer that needs to be stopped. The public may not care about IP, but they sure care about the tax revenue it generates.

The pirates are whining little toddlers….keep whining, NO ONE cares beyond that little cluster**** of thieves who contribute nothing.

Jane Vaginahat says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Oh, Chip, your such a script!

I am so happy that Frequent Flagger Thad wrote you, and how Mike just adores you as a binary bit of code; yet frequently misses how his comment flagging system is abused by ideologues, Aspergers types, and the ADL -Israeli -AIPAC flagging brigades.


Chip is so old school derailing.

Matthew Cline (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The public doesn’t clamor for IP rights, just the tax revenue it generates.

How much tax revenue is being lost to piracy? You can argue that even if the pirate wouldn’t have bought a copy if they’d had had to pay money that 1) it’s still theft of IP, and 2) it robs the content owner of adding a new person to their rentable mailing lists. However, that doesn’t apply to tax revenue: if the pirate would never have bought a copy, that act of piracy isn’t reducing tax revenue.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If the pirate would never have bought a copy, then it’s not a "potential sale" that is often used to justify it.

There is no ethical foundation on which piracy may rest. Article 13 is necessary to stop it. Those who don’t like Article 13 should blame the pirates who created the need for it.

Matthew Cline (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So your position is that the collateral damage opponents claim Article 13 will cause is overstated, and the actual amount of collateral damage won’t be nearly enough to avoid enacting it? Or is your position that if companies can’t comply with the law then it merely means that their business model is broken, and thus it doesn’t count as collateral damage at all? If the latter, then what about non-profits like Wikipedia which host user generated content, and also private individuals whose content gets false positives by filters?

Pope Nose says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

haha. I said Nose. Does anyone have copyright on that?

Guys like Harvey Weinstein, Haym Saban, and other Hollywoid /Israeli gangsters fully support land theft, aka Israeli land grabs, and ethnic cleansing, then create pro-Semitic propaganda, and then, convince the world the "the real pirates ” are old grandmothers whose grand kids ran p2p, stoned teenagers, and wannabe rappers who cant afford the record /movie /other crap in the first place, much less have an actual market to sell it in.

The power of the paranoid delusion of anti -semitism is so great that the EU et al even debates this shit is that enormous.

Pope Nose says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You might have noticed that what you call racism comes straight out of the ass of the ADL, one of the most racist organizations in the US, and straight into your mouth.

Take it up with them, and the flagger brigade。

That said, exactly how do they get morons like you to sqwawk it on cue?

And, Im surprised you didnt bring up conspiracy theories, like how a secretive and actual cabal of (ADL -SPLC ) control media.

Look at the flagged posts above, if you need evidence.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

How much tax revenue is being lost to piracy?

Answer: None. Someone who doesn’t pay for a song/move/book doesn’t proceed to burn the money they would have spent, they spend it on something else.

Saying copyright infringement causes a loss of tax revenue is like saying that cooking at come reduces tax revenue because you’re not paying for a meal at a restaurant; just because the money isn’t being spent on one thing doesn’t mean the money’s not being spent.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 No justification for piracy

People who cook at home don’t do it with stolen food.

No, but restaurants cook oysters caught without a license by oyster pirates which is how media pirates are so named (and not copyright infringers or media highwaymen)

And the justification for piracy is that the whole intellectual property thing (copyright, patents, etc) is a rent-seeking racket from the 15th century that only got into the US Constitution because it was written by a bunch of guilded freemasons.

And nowadays, patents, copyrights and even trademarks fail to serve the intent of our constitutional framers. You want to end media piracy, make the intellectual property system actually serve the public.

Until then…
Yo, ho, haul together,
hoist the colors high.
Heave ho, thieves and beggars,
never shall we die!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 No justification for piracy

If you’re against copyright, that’s a separate issue. Article 13 is predicated on the notion that copyright infringement is illegal.

We already saw what Napster did to the quality of music. Piracy has also turned porn actors into prostitutes who use their films as calling cards to, as Masnick has talked about, "connect with fans."

Performers are protected by their unions, who ensure that you can’t hire anyone without guaranteeing them a large amount of money. Want to hire a SAG-AFTRA member? Submit a copy of your script to the union, your insurance certificate, proof that you can afford to produce your work, and you also have to pay the union, who pays the talent. Break even one rule and you are up against lawyers who make the RIAA’s seem like choir boys.

Producers need protection of the massive investment they make in creating works which are viewed by audiences in the tens of millions.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:4 No justification for piracy

Producers need protection of the massive investment they make in creating works which are viewed by audiences in the tens of millions.

What about the protection for the small, indie producers? Hmm? Doesn’t they count? What about the artist trying to sell his drawings on the internet?

It’s clear as day that you can’t reasoned with, because you have decided you are right no matter what.

You have NEVER backed up any of your statements with facts, you often claim that it’s facts but as anyone can attest to – claiming something as a fact and providing evidence it is a fact is the difference between a liar and bullshitter vs someone that is actually interested in proving a point.

The thing is, people who refuse to consider the point of view of any other party in an argument has a special name – they are called fanatics and as the name implies, they can’t be reasoned with.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Piracy turned porn actors into prostitutes.

In contrast to Hollywood, who assured that the non-porn talent had to perform sexually for their contracts anyway? The Weinstein affair is current news, as is #metoo. The casting couch apparently has never gone out of style.

In the meantime, yeah, we’re seeing more indie projects that beat out studios by simply being willing to take risks outside of big studio best practices.

Really Anonymous Coward, the worst thing we pirates can do to the movies of big Hollywood is not watch them, and not distribute them. If we don’t care, we don’t talk about them. They cease to become a part of culture and then public interest dies.

Be glad pirates do their thing because they love the art, not because they despise the institutions.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 No justification for piracy

Article 13 is predicated on the notion that copyright infringement is illegal.

What specific language in Article 13 directly addresses illicit filesharing in particular and copyright infringement in general, such that the implementation of Article 13 will directly target “piracy” without going after activities that are currently legal under EU law? Make sure to cite the actual language of Article 13 alongside your interpretation of it. A single sentence without any citations (e.g., “pirates will run afoul of the licensing provisions of Article 13”) is not an acceptable answer.

(In other words: Answer the question as if you were in a classroom instead of a playground, you sweet summer child.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

First IP was about promoting the progress of the sciences and useful arts. It’s clearly not doing that. Then they made it about compensating the poor poor poor artists. It’s clearly not doing that either.

Now it’s about increasing tax revenue. Wow, IP extremists are getting pretty desperate here.

The purpose of IP should not be to increase tax revenue. It should only be to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts and to serve a public interest by encouraging artists, authors, creators, musicians, researchers, engineers, inventors to create more stuff in the public interest. (and to claim that the constitution intended for IP to promote the progress through increased tax revenue is silly).

The government shouldn’t pass laws to get us to pay for things just to generate tax. Perhaps the government should pass a law requiring me to pay my neighbor for the air I breathe so that I can pay taxes on it and the government can collect more tax revenue. Then my neighbor can do the same and pay taxes. No, if the government feels like it needs more taxes how about directly passing a tax on things people pay for instead of making people pay for something they wouldn’t otherwise pay for just to increase tax revenue.

The absurd nonsense IP extremists are coming up with now to justify their agenda comes off as very desperate.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Do you WANT torches and pitchforks?

I’m not sure if it’s stupidity paired with dismissive arrogance or if they’re actually trying to start riots, because continually dismissing people’s objections as though they were just idiots while you make multiple obvious lies in a pathetic attempt to defend trying to blatantly screw them over is a great way to get an angry mob, or several.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Pirates are too lazy to riot.

Pirates don’t need to riot. Like the internet, they route around censorship like bad sectors. Less-desperate pirates will vector their ill-gotten booty toward public availability.

It’s the public that needs to riot, or join the pirates.

And either of these are better for Hollywood than the third alternative, which is for everyone to just stop consuming its schlock.

Anonymous Coward says:

Europe isn’t doing itself any favors with this, especially in regards to the people who treat the legitimacy of the European Union with skepticism. They’re playing into the hands of a lot of bad people with this move when what they should really be doing is enacting reforms to make the EU more accountable to and representative of its populace.

P.S. Please stop feeding the blatant trolls.

Michael Riendeau says:

Re: Re:

This is really making me support Brexit and the further dismantlement of the EU out of spite. If the EU doesn’t want to be my friend (that is if I lived in the EU and not in America) then I will become one of it’s greatest problems, pushing for right wing governments to leave and tear down the farce of democracy.

Dean Archer Armstead, Lackawanna Research Station says:

"What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"

Well, besides this: unlimited immigration is splitting up the entire notion just barely ahead of entire prior cultures being wiped out.

You can’t understand the break-up of Europe nor even the "draconian" new rules that are put in place despite popular protest without the obvious: a conspiracy that involves Rich globalist mattoids intent on ruling the entire world with divide and conquer, so you’ll forever wonder, college-boy — even though think you’re an Insider on the plan.

SA Church Lady says:

Re: Re: "What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"

Good, clever, snarky HIGHLY ORIGINAL comeback, Anonymous Coward.

Which One Percent funded, pro-corporate, pro-globalist, anti -democracy think tank, NGO /intelligence agency /crisis PR firm did you say you work for?

I am looking for original thinkers JUST LIKE YOU.

Signed –
Hasbara Cockroach Scout

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"

Hello, church lady. Any reason why you’re intervening on behalf of another "unrelated" commenter?

You do realize your shining saint John Steele is going to be sentenced soon, don’t you? Wouldn’t be it devastating for copyright law if that happened?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re: "What the hell is going on in the EU these days?"

Based on the comment you’re replying to, it was a fairly trollish response to a troll post. You can technically consider it all spam. My own response to Church Lady should probably get flagged and hidden – that would be entirely fair, since it doesn’t really add to the conversation.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...