Omg, omg I'm smelling blood here. It's not like a big corporation abusing their power against the small guy that barely has money to sustain himself. No, it's more like a clash of titans (specially because behind the MAFIAA you have a collective of companies).
Gentleman, this may end in a very good way for everybody. I have my issues with Google but I hope they win a smashing victory against the MAFIAA and their facade starts to crumble so the public will see them for what they are: rotten, greedy bastards.
A digital communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
Nothing is said about context. And even within a context some things said can sound threatening.
A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.
Who defines what is grossly offensive? One of the involved parts may use dirty words regularly while the other may be some sort of pure saint that will be grossly offended. Where do you draw the line?
A digital communication should not be indecent or obscene.
Couple breaks up, 'sexy' messages used to screw the other part. Friend makes obscene joke, gets into some bad argument, other part files lawsuit over the obscene joke, comment.
This law is beyond bad. It spells selective enforcement all over it. In any case...
We are supposed to rely on the beneficence of the enforcers. That is bad lawmaking.
This is the main problem with law makers today. You must ALWAYS assume somebody in the future will be bad and will abuse of legal loopholes or broad wording. You must assume that at some point, some authoritarian asshole will be there thus the laws must be narrowly focused while allowing plenty of room for defense.
Depending how entrenched in the power chain of NATO and its countries the company is we can safely assume the powers will deploy the full power of the Justice Hammer™ while gleefully ignoring they were doing business with shady Governments. Definition of which Governments are shady pending.
It's ok, you can design an algorithm that plays somewhat loosely even if it means overblocking. Google already presents a heavily watered down version of Youtube in German soil so why not make it even less useful? As I said above they should actively and aggressively try to extend the ruling and the rest of the idiocy to every single service to the point it turns the Internet into some useless cat video platform (to paraphrase a common preconception).
Oh but Google has played that game before. They can set up an algorithm to filter stuff and play loosely when not sure. Overblocking? No problem, blame GEMMA with a precise notice ("this content is preemptively blocked due to judicial ruling X on behalf of GEMMA"). At some point Germans will be pissed enough. On the side lines Google should be pro-actively searching for other services to extend such ruling to them (fairnes, right?) to make German Internet completely unusable. Then we'll see how long this madness stands.
That's why I said understandable. I don't think it is acceptable but it's understandable given the current context. And I agree with you, and it's fast evolving into 'different opinions equal terrorism' mindset. I think that what's happening now shows how human beings are still more animals than civilized and have plenty to evolve.
ISIS is a byproduct of places on the outskirts of the law like Guantanamo (I don't remember the Iraqi main facility name). The US is fully to blame for what's happening right now. You heap what you sow. Which makes the US Executive an even worse type of terrorists.
These kinds of statements are cartoonishly evil. They're the kind of ridiculous statements one would have hoped you'd only see in late night TV fictional TV dramas, not coming from an actually elected leader of a major western power.
When reality meets art it seems.
Good thing he rules the UK and the UK alone so the worst he can do is screw the UK citizens into non-encrypted nightmare. Which can be a good thing. Once one western country collapses under the weight of its own stupidity such ideas may lose traction. Not that I'm advocating that the British people should be thrown under the bus as an example but it could be a good thing.
(and my fellow Britons, what the fuck were you thinking when you re-elected him??? What are you want to go full blown street protests against this?)
Hmm, what's the problem with that? One point doesn't invalidate another. And let's consider that while IP maximalism has its greatest drivers in the US media the tech companies mentioned are actually calling for a more balanced system. Besides, there's no EU equivalent to these companies. If Youtube was European would they be hammering it that hard? I'd point that it's more IP maximalism than anti-americanism and it's just a "successful companies must pay me because reasons" that happens to have American companies at its focus right now.