EU copytight law madness. It has passed. It will become a reality.

[coppice]

Haha. There is nothing democratic about the EU comission. They are appointed. Except for the commission president, but then there's only one candidate put forward and the populous don't get to vote.

The parliament is there to give the illusion of some level of democracy, but the parliament's only power is to rubber stamp what's come from the commission.

Guys, please, I understand you are pissed, angry and whatever, but at least don't spout this sort of ignorant nonsense.

If the parliament's only power was to rubber stamp whatever comes from the commission, then this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. The commission has tried to ram through these draconian copyright laws (and many other things) several times before and it was stopped each time by guess who - the European parliament.

When it comes to lawmaking, the parliament is on equal footing with the commission and they must agree on the version of any text before it can be adopted. Here is how the procedure works:

https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_en

And re the commission being unelected - that's not completely true. While we don't elect the commissioners directly, the candidates are selected by the states (through their appointed representatives in the Council of Europe), taking into account the results of the European elections (that's actually part of the Lisbon treaty). Who sits on that council is determined by the governments of the individual states - which are certainly elected as well.

Once that is done, all commissioners, including the President, are elected from among the candidates by the European parliament. Typically after a good grilling session and there have been cases when the candidate was rejected by the parliament as unsuitable. (e.g.: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/slovenia-s-nominee-for-european-commission-rejected-1.1956712 )

Here is how the Commission works:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/25/the-european-commission

All in all, how the EU functions is not that much different from a normal parliamentary democracy where you elect your MPs and then those select a prime minister (EU commission president) who nominates a government (EU commissioners) which then have to be approved by the parliament again - e.g. in a vote of confidence with the entire government en-bloc, or how it is done in Brussels, one by one.

So, please, can we cut this BS now?

Can we quit this anti-democracy apologist BS now. What you just described bears no resemblance to democracy.

You appear top miss the part about all members of the government being elected by the populous and hence removable by the populous.

The EU is exactly as democratic or undemocratic as Britain. In Britain we don't vote for a government. We vote for MPs who then select a government. Its the same with the EU. The citizens of member states democratically elect people who then select the members of the commission. Love it or hate it, its really the same thing. Do you wish to overturn the British system?

[R005T3r]

Certainly are. Thankfully those laws don't apply here, just like America's DMCA :-)

But they have flow on effects that impact here.
Take the new EU GDPR, only applies to the EU right? Tell that to practically every large company that has rewritten their website privacy rules to align with it. That's why half the websites you have visited in the last few months have this annoying popup about new privacy terms. Or your inbox has been flooded with privacy updates.
I've have one US company refuse to advertise on my website (Aussie with server hosted in the US) any more unless I could prove I complied with the new GDPR regulations.

GDPR is a stupid directive, but to some (little) extent I can understand. But this? It's just insanity! I mean, with those conditions, can private users/enterprises still use ebay/their own website in the EU without being fined? Or without having to fear a colossal fine over a petty copytight dispute? Since you cannot even post a photo of a product YOU OWN!

It's inexcusable, and ridiculous, and a treachery to those who played by the rules.

Think about it: What happens if you do a negative review on a product... Some company owns the copyright, they won't like it and they will take your review down over a "copyright infringement presumption"

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"Paxman in Brussels - Who Really Rules Us"

[doobedoobedo]

The EU is exactly as democratic or undemocratic as Britain. In Britain we don't vote for a government. We vote for MPs who then select a government. Its the same with the EU. The citizens of member states democratically elect people who then select the members of the commission. Love it or hate it, its really the same thing. Do you wish to overturn the British system?

Except with the British system the government are all directly elected by the people and hence can lose their seats so not the same thing at all.

For you to conflate the EU system with the British system must mean either: that you understand nothing about the EU system, or nothing about the British system, or nothing about both.

[Mr. Scram]

But they have flow on effects that impact here.
Take the new EU GDPR, only applies to the EU right? Tell that to practically every large company that has rewritten their website privacy rules to align with it. That's why half the websites you have visited in the last few months have this annoying popup about new privacy terms. Or your inbox has been flooded with privacy updates.
I've have one US company refuse to advertise on my website (Aussie with server hosted in the US) any more unless I could prove I complied with the new GDPR regulations.

The GPDR is well worth the price of admission. It's a landslide victory for consumer rights. In the current corporate climate and rapidly evolving technological arena consumers tend to end up with the smelly end of the stick, so having things slanted a bit more in their favour is both very welcome and necessary.

[coppice]

The EU is exactly as democratic or undemocratic as Britain. In Britain we don't vote for a government. We vote for MPs who then select a government. Its the same with the EU. The citizens of member states democratically elect people who then select the members of the commission. Love it or hate it, its really the same thing. Do you wish to overturn the British system?

Except with the British system the government are all directly elected by the people and hence can lose their seats so not the same thing at all.

For you to conflate the EU system with the British system must mean either: that you understand nothing about the EU system, or nothing about the British system, or nothing about both.

When Alex Douglas-Home became Prime Minister he had never been elected. As an honourable guy, he sought the first opportunity to be elected, but there in nothing is the rules which enforced that. Among the MPs the electorate has no direct say about which MPs are in the government, and what their roles are. Since our current local MP is not in the government, I have no power as a voter to have any direct say about who is in the government. Just like the EU, I can only vote for my local MP and hope that they act well in influencing who is actually in government.

[doobedoobedo]

The EU is exactly as democratic or undemocratic as Britain. In Britain we don't vote for a government. We vote for MPs who then select a government. Its the same with the EU. The citizens of member states democratically elect people who then select the members of the commission. Love it or hate it, its really the same thing. Do you wish to overturn the British system?

Except with the British system the government are all directly elected by the people and hence can lose their seats so not the same thing at all.

For you to conflate the EU system with the British system must mean either: that you understand nothing about the EU system, or nothing about the British system, or nothing about both.

When Alex Douglas-Home became Prime Minister he had never been elected. As an honourable guy, he sought the first opportunity to be elected, but there in nothing is the rules which enforced that. Among the MPs the electorate has no direct say about which MPs are in the government, and what their roles are. Since our current local MP is not in the government, I have no power as a voter to have any direct say about who is in the government. Just like the EU, I can only vote for my local MP and hope that they act well in influencing who is actually in government.

So because something could happen (despite several members of the government resigning in protest as in Douglas-Home's case). It'll never happen again. Wikipedia has an awesome quote from a newspaper at the time:

But Caligula's appointment of his horse as a consul was an act of prudent statesmanship compared with this

So to summarise your argument:
So this happened once - nobody thought it was a good idea - lets make that what we always do!

[bitwelder]

That's why it is important to lobby your MEPs, lobby your national governments and vote in the upcoming EU elections (which most people ignore and then they are surprised what did that evil EU impose on them again!).

Luckily is not too difficult to go to the EU parliament website, check the roll call for some important votes (like this one), and remember about it at the upcoming election time, or directly question the MEPs about their voting choices.

[james_s]

Given the gigantic fines the EU has imposed on Microsoft and Google, it is not surprising that a smaller organization would simply disconnect from the EU.  Heck, I thought Microsoft should have quit selling Windows of any flavor in the EU the first time they were sued (over Internet Explorer).  To expect Microsoft to include a competitor's product on their distribution CDs is absurd!

I'm sure they have gone over the numbers and found that they can make more profit by continuing to sell it in the region. They aren't forced to include a competitor's product, that is only because they claimed they could not offer a version without Internet Explorer. Using a position of dominance to push another product is illegal, as it should be. They got slapped hard here in the US too and apparently didn't learn from it.

[Mr. Scram]

The EU is a massive market. Companies like Microsoft can't afford to just drop it or leave it to the competition.

[Bud]

Nothing can beat corporate greed. I heard Google might return to China, bending to their Government requirements. Talk about fixing the History at google search level.

[coppice]

The EU is exactly as democratic or undemocratic as Britain. In Britain we don't vote for a government. We vote for MPs who then select a government. Its the same with the EU. The citizens of member states democratically elect people who then select the members of the commission. Love it or hate it, its really the same thing. Do you wish to overturn the British system?

Except with the British system the government are all directly elected by the people and hence can lose their seats so not the same thing at all.

For you to conflate the EU system with the British system must mean either: that you understand nothing about the EU system, or nothing about the British system, or nothing about both.

When Alex Douglas-Home became Prime Minister he had never been elected. As an honourable guy, he sought the first opportunity to be elected, but there in nothing is the rules which enforced that. Among the MPs the electorate has no direct say about which MPs are in the government, and what their roles are. Since our current local MP is not in the government, I have no power as a voter to have any direct say about who is in the government. Just like the EU, I can only vote for my local MP and hope that they act well in influencing who is actually in government.

So because something could happen (despite several members of the government resigning in protest as in Douglas-Home's case). It'll never happen again. Wikipedia has an awesome quote from a newspaper at the time:

But Caligula's appointment of his horse as a consul was an act of prudent statesmanship compared with this

So to summarise your argument:
So this happened once - nobody thought it was a good idea - lets make that what we always do!

Nobody thought it was a good idea? I assume the supporters who got Home into the position were OK with it. 1963 was a big year - we moved house and I had to change schools. Politics had its moments, too. It was a very contentious period in the Conservative party, with several people fighting to take over from MacMillan. Home was not even the only Lord contesting the role of Prime Minister at that time. Hyperbole like the Caligula reference was to be expected. Home renounced his peerage on becoming Prime Minister, but the 20th century started with a prime minster who actually lead the government from the Lords.

Alec Douglas Home was foreign secretary before becoming prime minister, and that was pretty uncontentious. It has been quite normal for one or two cabinet ministers to be from the Lords, and something like 20% of non-cabinet ministers are typically from the Lords. There are actually no rules requiring ministers to be from either house of parliament, although appointing a true outsider seems to be regarded as bad form.

I notice you only responded to the less problematic of the two issues of accountability I raised.

[rstofer]

I'm sure they have gone over the numbers and found that they can make more profit by continuing to sell it in the region. They aren't forced to include a competitor's product, that is only because they claimed they could not offer a version without Internet Explorer. Using a position of dominance to push another product is illegal, as it should be. They got slapped hard here in the US too and apparently didn't learn from it.

Nobody was ever forced to use Internet Explorer, they could just use it once to download Google Chrome and be done with it.  If they really disliked IE, they could circulate Chrome on a CD.  Nobody was harmed by the inclusion of IE and the fine was absolutely BS.  BTW, they knew that IE came with Windows when the bought it.  They could have bought something else.  Nobody forced them to buy Windows!  But no, let's try a chicken**** fine!

As I said, were I running Microsoft, I would have pulled out of Europe and left them in the backwoods with Linux.  It would have held them back for 20 years (or more).

Same story with Google.  Before I would pay the crooks of the EU several billion dollars, I would disable the connections to any EU country.  Simple as that.

And, voila', I'm going to get my way.  This ignorant copyright law may force the issue.  As I understand it, if Google posts a link to The Guardian in a reply to a search, they are supposed to send money to The Guardian because they own the copyright on the name of the paper.  Fine, don't provide those replies.  In fact, don't provide replies for any EU company or organization.  No reply, no copyright violation!  Keep providing replies for companies that pay for the privilege and dump the rest.

We're starting to see that idea today where companies won't accept connections from the EU.  Good for them!

This anti- and non-competitive attitude of the EU is why there is no magic invented in the EU.

[MK14]

As I said, were I running Microsoft, I would have pulled out of Europe and left them in the backwoods with Linux.  It would have held them back for 20 years (or more).

If Microsoft had done that. Would they still exist now, and in 10 or 20 years ?

The EU is a huge market place. Probably easily big enough for us, to come up with practical alternatives to windows, and better than Linux, even for people who do not know much about computers.

Then, the new EU non-Microsoft "windows", could also be sold in the rest of the world.

Hence Microsoft could have had major competition for windows. Which could ultimately, have reduced Microsoft to bankruptcy, with them disappearing forever. Much like all the other computer companies which no longer exist these days.

E.g. Radio Shack (they did some early, mainly Z80 computers and stuff).

[rstofer]

As I said, were I running Microsoft, I would have pulled out of Europe and left them in the backwoods with Linux.  It would have held them back for 20 years (or more).

If Microsoft had done that. Would they still exist now, and in 10 or 20 years ?

The EU is a huge market place. Probably easily big enough for us, to come up with practical alternatives to windows, and better than Linux, even for people who do not know much about computers.

Then, the new EU non-Microsoft "windows", could also be sold in the rest of the world.

Hence Microsoft could have had major competition for windows. Which could ultimately, have reduced Microsoft to bankruptcy, with them disappearing forever. Much like all the other computer companies which no longer exist these days.

E.g. Radio Shack (they did some early, mainly Z80 computers and stuff).

There's no question that the EU hates large US businesses and despite all that there is still no competition for Windows.  Linux, on it's best day, represents 2% of the desktop computers.  Had Microsoft left EU to Linux, the EU would be stuck 20 years back.  Actually, I'm surprised that the EU countries didn't just adopt Linux by edict.  "Everybody use Linux".

What would have happened had Microsoft pulled back is that the lawsuit would have been dropped or there would have been an uprising from the business world.  There were too many businesses invested in Microsoft to have their platform of choice pulled out from under them.  In fact, had Microsoft pulled out, how would the EU have collected the fine?  What court had jurisdiction over a private US company?

In the end, Microsoft probably recovered the fine by raising the prices in the EU.  So customers got to pay for something they didn't get.  Outstanding!  It's pretty clear that the fine didn't harm Microsoft.

It isn't the billion dollars, Microsoft could afford that out of the petty cash drawer.  It's the principle of the thing.  Never pay extortion!

[MK14]

There's no question that the EU hates large US businesses and despite all that there is still no competition for Windows.  Linux, on it's best day, represents 2% of the desktop computers.  Had Microsoft left EU to Linux, the EU would be stuck 20 years back.  Actually, I'm surprised that the EU countries didn't just adopt Linux by edict.  "Everybody use Linux".

What would have happened had Microsoft pulled back is that the lawsuit would have been dropped or there would have been an uprising from the business world.  There were too many businesses invested in Microsoft to have their platform of choice pulled out from under them.  In fact, had Microsoft pulled out, how would the EU have collected the fine?  What court had jurisdiction over a private US company?

In the end, Microsoft probably recovered the fine by raising the prices in the EU.  So customers got to pay for something they didn't get.  Outstanding!  It's pretty clear that the fine didn't harm Microsoft.

It isn't the billion dollars, Microsoft could afford that out of the petty cash drawer.  It's the principle of the thing.  Never pay extortion!

I agree. That sounds about right, and perfectly reasonable.

I've heard about similar, unbelievably massive fines for companies like Google. But not really spent time, going into the details of it. Since there are many news items each day, and one has to be selective, about what you spend time looking into detail about, and what you just largely ignore.

Google, seem to be a basically good/sound business. Especially compared to companies like Microsoft, which seem to be way, way less friendly to its customers.
So I feel sorry for them getting the massive fines, from time to time. Which I don't really understand, as to how Google got handed all these fines.

Microsoft probably considered things such as your post, and the longer term picture, and decided to "eat" the fine (accept it).

As regards planet Earth (World), I'm disappointed that we haven't, as a massive population (world-wide). Developed a really good operating system, that everyone can benefit from.
There is win10, which doesn't really seem better than windows7 (it does have some benefits), in many respects, and seems to have all sorts of negatives, which windows7 didn't have.

There are various alternatives, such as various flavours of Linux (which I'm typing this on now!), and other things like openBSD, OSX, Android/Chrome etc etc.

But none of them, seem to be as good as, you can probably achieve on a modern PC these days. If this notional/hypothetical super-operating-system was ever created, on a world wide basis. (Or I'm day-dreaming too much!).

But in all fairness, Linux is not too bad at all. It is only really let down by certain sets of software (especially games), which don't run very well (or at all) on it and if you get into certain difficulties, it can be a really hard, uphill struggle to sort it out.
Whereas windows, with similar problems, would just have been a lot easier to sort out.

[james_s]

I don't feel sorry for them at all. If you want to play the game, you play by the rules, if a company doesn't want to play by the rules then they can face the consequences or they can pull out and another company will step in and take that profit. Big companies have whole teams of lawyers, they knew exactly what they were doing and knew that they might get fined. They gambled on the fine being less than the potential profit to be gained in doing what they did.

Microsoft didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to use Internet Explorer, but by bundling the browser with Windows they used their market dominance of the virtual monopoly on Windows to push IE, and usage numbers at the time showed that it worked. Agree with the law or not, that's illegal, they knew the rules, they willfully violated the rules, and they got slapped with a fine over it, boo hoo. Ironically I'd bet that the same people who advocate a corporation should be able to do whatever they please would throw a fit if an individual willfully violated the law and then went around whining for sympathy that the punishment they received was too severe.

[MK14]

I don't feel sorry for them at all. If you want to play the game, you play by the rules

The problem or counter argument to that, is that (I'm NOT an expert or even especially knowledgeable about these laws, so could be spouting nonsense) I get the impression. That are lot of the modern laws, by the UK and especially by the EU. Are these wishy-washy laws, that could be applied to almost any business. Because of the woolly, weak/ambiguous way the laws have been written.

Analogy:
Some forums have some arbitrary rules (I'm NOT referring to this one). Which essentially boil down to that if you say something which the Moderator/Administrator, strongly disagrees with. They can say that is "against the unwritten rules", and delete the offending post(s) and/or lock the thread.

When that happens on a forum, it can be annoying, but it is not the end of the world.

But when the EU, says "Naughty Google, you should not have done your search results that way, with that advertiser going higher" (or whatever they got fined for). They slam a (think of some mind boggling huge amount), such as $50,000,000,000 fine!
For doing something, which on the face of it, does not sound terribly bad and/or many other companies are doing a similar thing, and yet never getting fined for it.

tl;dr
I'm NOT sure if these fines (e.g. Google) are a good or bad thing. I'm undecided.
But I accept that if we never fined any business, ever. We could have mayhem and anarchy, so we need to draw the line (law), somewhere/somehow.

tl;dr2
I really need to read up on the news articles (and other sources) about the big Google/Microsoft fines. Because my relative disinterest in such matters, appears to be adversely affecting my ability to reply to threads like this.

[Red Squirrel]

IP laws in general are getting so ridiculous.  The system is only designed to cater to the rich corporations, it's insane.  And they keep making it worse by passing all these laws.  What makes it even more absurd is that in lot of cases IP laws are not only enforced internationally (you can get extradited for breaking another country's IP laws) but they also tend to have stronger sentences and faster court time than real crimes that actually harm people, like murder.

[rstofer]

I don't feel sorry for them at all. If you want to play the game, you play by the rules

But when the EU, says "Naughty Google, you should not have done your search results that way, with that advertiser going higher" (or whatever they got fined for). They slam a (think of some mind boggling huge amount), such as $50,000,000,000 fine!
For doing something, which on the face of it, does not sound terribly bad and/or many other companies are doing a similar thing, and yet never getting fined for it.

tl;dr
I'm NOT sure if these fines (e.g. Google) are a good or bad thing. I'm undecided.
But I accept that if we never fined any business, ever. We could have mayhem and anarchy, so we need to draw the line (law), somewhere/somehow.

But nobody is forcing anybody to use Google.  Folks in the EU can use any service they wish.  Clearly, if they don't like Google ordering search replies by revenue gained from including the reply, they can use something else.  Maybe Microsoft Bing using Microsoft Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows.

What Google needs to do is incorporate in their terms of use something along the lines of "this is how we do it, if you don't like it, go elsewhere".  And "by using our product, which is free BTW, you agree to our terms and conditions".

Nobody was forcing the EU to buy Microsoft Windows which came with a free version of Internet Explorer.  Only the EU could find harm in getting something for free!  At one point they wanted Microsoft to include on the distribution CD copies of competing browsers.  I don't know how that worked out.  There is no way in hell that Microsoft should have been compelled to provide a competing product.  Only in the EU...

The reason was pretty simple:  If the competing browser wasn't on the installation CD and Internet Explorer couldn't be included (for free, BTW) on the CD, the end user would have no way to download their chosen browser.  They would have had to deal with CDs and some form of secondary distribution.  No, they didn't want the free browser, they wanted a competing browser and they wanted Microsoft to hand it to them - plus pay a huge fine.

I had always thought that the entire EU would have moved to Linux because it's free.  I guess it didn't happen.

[jmelson]

But in all fairness, Linux is not too bad at all. It is only really let down by certain sets of software (especially games), which don't run very well (or at all) on it and if you get into certain difficulties, it can be a really hard, uphill struggle to sort it out.
Whereas windows, with similar problems, would just have been a lot easier to sort out.

Well, I don't know.  Maybe some packages do install more easily on Windows, but I've been running Linux on my desktop for 20 years.  There are a FEW apps that are Windows only, I run them under VirtualBox (used to use VMWare, but their PAID customer support is an absolute JOKE).
When something doesn't work right on Linux, I can usually look up the solution in less than 5 minutes online.  FASTER than a support call!

I run a web server at home, and am constantly getting hackers trying to get in through one scheme or another.  I haven't been successfully hacked in WELL OVER 10 years.  (Yes, I used to not know that much about security, and left some doors unlocked.)

Jon

[MK14]

By and large, I'm very pleased with a range of Linux and similar, operating systems.
I know there are ways of running windows software on Linux, such as Wine and virtual machines.
But I prefer to use real windows, when using software which either doesn't run on Linux natively, or is best run on windows. As the Linux version does not work so well.
Also, some hardware, is not so well supported on Linux.
E.g. Development kit, whose drivers (if applicable), only support windows. If I remember correctly, various FPGA development stuff, only really supports windows. As does its VHDL/Verilog software utility's as well.

Linux is great for servers, development/programming, internet and many other uses. Has easy/free licencing and is much "cleaner" than windows. I.e. It does what it says on the tin.
Rather than says "Updating", then 3 minutes later "Updating 2 of 98 updates complete". While one desperately wants to go on the internet.

Windows could be really good and useful. But I am extremely disappointed by the way that Microsoft, operates as a company.
They seem purely interested in $'s, and NOT interested in creating nice, decent, honest, flexible, useful etc, products for people worldwide.
I know business's are business's. But there are nice business's, not so nice business's, and down right horrible business's.
I will leave it to any readers of this post, to guess where in that spectrum, I think Micro$oft belongs.

[Bud]

Linux may be great for developers but it is nightmare for users, because developers do not give crap to each others work. That is seen as i install a program if breaks some other program(s). How in bloody hell can i use this shit?

[MK14]

Linux may be great for developers but it is nightmare for users, because developers do not give crap to each others work. That is seen as i install a program if breaks some other program(s). How in bloody hell can i use this shit?

I think that there is a lot of room for improvement, in Linux, as regards installing applications.
I agree with you.
It is one of my big complaints (although I like (it overall) and use Linux a lot), about Linux.

Another complaint, is that it is NOT what I would consider "user friendly", especially for users who are relatively clueless about computers and how to use them.

[Tepe]

I think that there is a lot of room for improvement, in Linux, as regards installing applications.

There will always be room for improving things, of course. Windows, however is not a paragon of excellence in the software installation - and uninstallation - department.

My main beef with the GNU world is the dual abominations autoconf and automake (*shudder*) which have spread like a cancer in the open source world.