Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

https://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/permanent-representations/pr-eu-brussels/documents/policy-notes/2019/02/20/joint-statement-regarding-the-copyright-directive

by pasiaj • 7 years ago

439 155 7 years ago

permanentrepresentations.nl

gpm• 7 years ago

What does this mean procedurally? Is this a veto? A statement that is likely to effect an upcoming vote?

r3bl• 7 years ago

We'd need either 13 countries or any number of countries that represents 35% of the EU population to oppose this law.

Last time, it was 8 countries representing 27% that opposed it. A handy voting calculator[0] gives us about 23.88% of the population using the countries listed here.

This is (was?) a less-likely scenario to stop it. One final attempt will be when all the MEPs get a chance to vote on it.

[0] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/...

folbec• 7 years ago

If the vote is before brexit it's 23.88% after brexit it's 27.42%.

Someone2• 7 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_...:

”At this point, the text will be reviewed by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs, and then presented to the full European Parliament for a vote. Should the vote succeed, then each of the EU's member states have up to 24 months to introduce laws within their own countries to support the Directive.”

So, this is a statement “we believe the European Parliament should vote against this proposal”.

DelightOne5• 7 years ago

introduce laws within their own countries to support the Directive.

Why so complicated? It seems a bad idea to have 28 different laws which generally say the same thing but with possibly small differences so it gets a minefield. No wonder EU is a difficult market. Who possibly thought that's a good idea?

blibble• 7 years ago

almost all EU policy areas in the council are now done using Qualified Majority Voting

55% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means 16 out of 28
the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population

more details: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/...

removing national vetos is the core idea behind the EU (replacing intergovernmentalism with supranationalism)

citilife• 7 years ago

The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the "countries" into "states". Where by, each of the states will simply answer to the two countries with the most power. Namely Germany, followed by France.

Personally, I think it's sad. It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities. Only to be centralized by powers who are only interested in their own national identity.

This is similar to the struggle the U.S. faced at the start. You cannot have a centralized government making laws without invasively deciding everything. A federation of the EU made sense. Shared currency, shared military, etc. But by trying to manage the economy (which copyright is an extension of), they are essentially going down the path of ever increasing centralization.

With that, countries like the U.K., who have a strong national identity, can and should leave - if they want to be an independent nation.

Faelian• 7 years ago

Well, I would argue that not having a centralised fiscality is the biggest EU problem at the moment.

Every country try to lower the tax for big companies to attract them, and now we have a situation where the GAFAM pay ridiculous taxes, and the citizen pay a bigger share of the pie.

raverbashing• 7 years ago

It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities.

Apart from all its faults and goals, if there's one thing the EU (the institution) is less likely to touch is national identities (Merkel "wir shaffen das" nonetheless), but usually protects it, especially in the form of national products

Oh and the "strong national identity" of the UK comes across often more as a lack of willing to modernize and adapt as just wanting to keep a national identity.

pslam• 7 years ago

You win at right wing talking-points bingo.

The whole point of the EU is that Europe is better when it's together. There were multiple wars, involving the death of many millions, and that's just the last hundred years.

Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of.

pjc502• 7 years ago

Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of.

This really needs to be phrased better, because it's the argument for technocratic global soft dictatorship.

dingaling• 7 years ago

There were multiple wars, involving the death of many millions, and that's just the last hundred years.

Of which the EU has existed for just 27 years.

For the 70 years of its existence NATO has been a strong bond and influence, with the exception of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus it has prevented violent conflict between its members. And it didn't require integration of forces; it published standards for commonality and each member nation determined the nature of its own implementation and declared its contribution to collective defence.

Mirioron5• 7 years ago

Independence is just dressed up nationalism, and all the ugly facets it is made of.

I'm not sure if this is your intention, but this one line screams authoritarianism to me.

nec4b4• 7 years ago

Pax Americana (NATO) is what is keeping Europe peaceful at the moment and not the EU. Europe had long periods of peace as well long periods of wars throughout its history.

tnolet• 7 years ago

Personally, I think it's sad. It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities.

Ha, that gave me a good chuckle. When in Europe, I would be happy to take you of a tour and show you how vastly different people live, behave and think just in the patch of land between France, The Netherlands and Germany. (I am Dutch, live in Germany and my folks live in France, so I claim at least some experience).

You will quickly see national identities are well and alive, regardless of EU centralization.

avar4• 7 years ago

This is not at all what's happening. Structurally, those big countries can easily get outvoted, and to change EU law it needs to be proposed by the commission, which is voted in by the council, where all member states have an equal vote.

It then needs to be passed by the parliament, where votes are proportional to population. There Germany and France have the most members, but just over 1/5 of the overall membership.

What actually happens is that all the other states also want these policies, and then when their electorate doesn't like it they say "the big bad EU made us do it!". This is in no small part the cause for Brexit.

sc11• 7 years ago

It then needs to be passed by the parliament, where votes are proportional to population.

Votes in the parliament aren't directly proportional to population in order to prevent large countries from dominating votes. Germany has 1 MEP per ~855k citizens, France ~870k while smaller countries like Belgium or Ireland have 1 MEP per 400-500k citizens.

raxxorrax2• 7 years ago

The problem I have is that within these big countries, the policy doesn't have a majority. For me, that questions the democratic legitimacy for the european legislative process.

Because it can evidently be abused to push through "unpopular" laws that only serve special interests.

DubiousPusher4• 7 years ago

The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that, contemporary. National identities didn't arise naturally. Many of them were very thoughtfully and intentionally invented. For most of human history, the idea that people over a geography the size of Engalnd would see themselves as one people would've been ridiculous.

It's really only in the last 200-400 years that people have accepted the nation as their identifying place. Previously people's place identity came the much smaller geography of their county, kingdom, principality or hamlet. Joining these smaller identities into larger national identities was a big win that came with many benefits. Of course it meant that these places had to give up some autonomy. Just as there are many benefits of nations giving up some autonomy to act collectively in a regional power structure.

It's only our contemporary bias that tells us that the subordination of the political will of the hamlet to the nation is good and that the subordination of the national will to a continental or regional will is bad.

TadaScientist• 7 years ago

Oh really? National identities didn't arise naturally? Ask the Greeks and the Italians

carom• 7 years ago

Comments like this remind me how much I like California. It's nice to be in a place that doesn't conflate regional identity with race or religion. It was a surprise to me when living on the east coast how often people asked about my heritage.

My people are whoever comes down to Old Muscle Beach to work out, whoever is at the skate park. I'm super happy that those crowds are varied.

aikah2• 7 years ago

The pedestal contemporary people put national identity on is just that, contemporary.

As opposed to the pedestal people put supra national institutions such as the EU? Rome? Napoleon's Empire? all failed eventually.

National identities didn't arise naturally.

Neither did the European Union. All societies are man made constructs, what your point?

It's only our contemporary bias that tells us that the subordination of the political will of the hamlet to the nation is good and that the subordination of the national will to a continental or regional will is bad.

Well, the EU is more power concentrated in the hands of fewer people. By nature it will always be less democratic than governance at a smaller scale. And these structures tend to seek even more power as time goes, not less.

What is better? more tyranny,bureaucracy or more democracy?

Ignoring local cultures and socio-economics specificities by trying to impose arbitrary rules to an entire continent? In that case there will always be winners and losers.

deogeo• 7 years ago

the idea that people over a geography the size of Engalnd would see themselves as one people would've been ridiculous

Yet they were related people, ethnically, linguistically, and culturally. It's like saying the idea of a family would've been ridiculous, because brothers used to fight and bicker.

eecc• 7 years ago

Mah, my take on the resurgence of Nationalism is that it is simply a reaction/struggle to Neoliberal Globalization.

Previous attempts at developing an international counterpoint to Neoliberals’ “End of History” have either fizzled on their own or were smashed apart (GenovaG8, World Social Forum, Occupy.)

The latest attempt at interpreting displeasure for TINA comes from the Right, which in Europe has meant rejecting the “Global Village”, unearthing very unpleasant forms of chauvinism and racist rhetoric, longing for a “gilded age” of Nations (where Countries and People - as in, homogeneous ethnic groups - identify.)

And the most recent - and counterproductive - development has been the disdainful elitism of the EU technocrats and their political supporters (in the last 10–20 years, the former gained a lot of respect and power at the expense of the latter.) They are literally shouting “There Is No Alternative to us and our policies, you stupid crowd of gullible populists!”

I can’t see this going anywhere good

zapnuk• 7 years ago

The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the "countries" into "states". Where by, each of the states will simply answer to the two countries with the most power. Namely Germany, followed by France.

The commission consists of one commissioner per country. The parlement has (currenlty) 705 seats. Germany is represented by 96, and france by 79 seats.

On paper it is entirely possible for smaller countries to stick together and work against the interests of germany and/or france. If they don't I assume that it's because they get an economic benefit as a compansation in exchange.

I don't agree with your take on national identies at all. I don't think national identities have changed (much) in the last 20 years and I doubt they will in the near future.

If they do won't be due to too much EU, it will be because the EU institutions/mechanics are too weak+slow and cannot address problems at hand. Similar to the rather slow reaction to the migrant crises.

However, this won't be an EU specific problem. We see similar problems in the UK and US (and other EU countries) where political parties are too divided that they are seemingly unable to work together and solve (pressing) problems.

isostatic16• 7 years ago

The commission consists of one commissioner per country

However they don't work for the country.

I guess the closest analogy for the U.S. would be the white house - but where the president is elected by the electoral college (in the E.U it's by the council, although that's just a rubber stamp based on the party who gets the highest number of votes in the equivelent of House vote)

However instead of the president choosing heads of department himself, he gets to choose from 28 people sent from each countries.

The "U.S. Senate" equivalent is the council, where every country gets 1 vote, regardless of size.

To get things passed through the Council, a double majority needs to happen - both a number (55% of countries I think) and a population (countries representing 65% of the population). This ensures that small countries can't gang up on large ones, and vice versa.

Imagine the U.S. senate, where you need 55 votes to pass, and that can't just be from states like Wyoming and Vermont, but would have to include at least a couple of states like California or Florida.

Then to pass into law, it also has to pass through the MEPs, who represent the voters of the EU (rather than the governments), in a roughly proportional manner.

lawn4• 7 years ago

As a Swede this is exactly why I'm against the EU.

Free trade is great, I get that, but I really don't like the centralization and getting less and less influence. I don't want Germany and France to shove idiotic internet laws down my throat.

In some way it's also why I'm rooting for U.K. to leave the EU and for it to work out.

beefield3• 7 years ago

Just wondering, what exactly makes you think the laws shoved to your throat by Sweden would on average be any less idiotic? And why would just Sweden be the right size of entity that optimizes the idiocy of the laws, why independent Skåne would not be shoving less idiotic laws to your throat?

craigsmansion• 7 years ago

I don't want Germany and France

That's basically UK propaganda (though they like to focus on Germany).

Granted, the workings of the EU are complicated, but they are not opaque, or particularly unfair towards smaller countries. Downthread you mention connecting to politicians, and it being easier with local politicians. Try e-mailing your MEP once.

As far as things being shoved down one's throat: as far as I know, Sweden is still not using the Euro.

Also, being pro-EU (or at least not anti-EU) is not the same as being pro-federalisation. As you say, "free trade is great", and I think you'll agree that clean beaches aren't too bad either. EU directives and regulations in general are really just the largest common denominator opinions that most countries agree on, and as such get out-sourced to the EU. Our "president" is a moderator of a panel of elected heads of state. There is no reason the EU has to turn out like the US, and not really a lot of appetite for that in various member states.

But regardless, as unbelievable as it sounds for an institution covering 100s of millions of people, the EU is what you make of it. You're a citizen.

decebalus1• 7 years ago

With that, countries like the U.K., who have a strong national identity, can and should leave - if they want to be an independent nation.

I want what you're smoking. What are you talking about? Do the Scots identify with the Welsh or the Irish? The UK, as all countries is an artificial construct which did not 'organically' came to existence based on the 'national' awakening of Its population.

isostatic16• 7 years ago

Quite, as a UK citizen I struggle to see anything in common with 52% of my fellow citizens

mtgx• 7 years ago

I don't know what you mean by "centralized economy" but centralized markets have their (huge) benefits. Think about how much easier it is to launch a service within all the United States of America at once compared to launching it in all of the countries in the European Union. The language barrier is a huge obstacle, no doubt, but it's far from the only one.

Another way to look at "centralization" is from the point of view of "standardization" for markets and platforms, and that has huge benefits for startups and big companies alike.

Kurtz792• 7 years ago

Yes. A small example from my very small world (railway).

Materials to be used on rolling stock (trains) must comply with Fire/Smoke/Toxicity standards. A few years ago these standards were only at national level, there is a French standard, a German one, etc... It was hell to demonstrate that your German-made widget could be used in a train meant to operate in UK.

In the last few years this has been harmonized in a EU-level standard, which makes much simpler and cheaper for manufacturers to market their products across the Union and for customers to integrate them in their systems.

Mirioron5• 7 years ago

Well, I'm looking at it, and considering how the EU basically has almost no major tech companies, I would say that the EU is not really serving its purpose. Even right now different parts of the EU are region locked into different services. Eg sometimes the Baltic states are clumped in with CIS. Add on the many additional regulations and the EU seems to be a worse place to launch a service than in most developed places in the world.

Spearchucker• 7 years ago

Monetary policy without a fiscal policy to give it teeth is why Greece was able to use Germany's good credit rating to get a loan they couldn't repay.

And yes I believe the EU is becoming more like a federation. How do you think it isn't?

How is the central EU government deciding everything? The diesel laws in German cities aren't an EU law. France and Germany can't pass EU laws on their own.

My last point is based on belief. I cannot fathom why leavers in the UK believe the UK can be stronger alone. Or that the economy can grow without migrant workers and immigrants. Two are ALWAYS going to be stronger than one. And the EU has what, 27 member states (excluding the UK)?

beefield3• 7 years ago

Personally, I think it's sad. It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities.

I am perfectly willing to accept that you think this is sad. Just like I am willing to accept that some people like blue color over red. But have you ever thought why you think that is sad? In some real, rational terms?

NeedMoreTea4• 7 years ago

countries like the U.K., who have a strong national identity

I laughed, good one. You're aware of Scotland almost voting for independence, and Northern Ireland being demographically only a matter of time until independence (reunification with Ireland)? Or that both of those places voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU? Gibraltar voted 99% remain.

So which bit of the UK wants to be an independent nation? There's about a dozen permutations you can arrive at. If Scotland and / or Northern Ireland goes, expect independence for Yorkshire and Cornwall, maybe Northumbria campaigns.

I think just about the only thing that unites the UK at present is the dire quality of this generation of Westminster politicians. Perhaps also embarrassment of being British and associated with them.

mstade5• 7 years ago

As a non-brit having lived in London for a few years my (mostly but not entirely tounge in cheek) take on it is that it seems pretty much all parts of England loathes every other part of England, to variying degrees; while all other parts of the kingdom also dislikes most of England, to varying degrees. The only thing that seems to unite the British, in my mind, is non-londoner's (and some londoner's too!) dislike for London! (Particularly Westminster, as you mention.)

I suppose they all unite also when England performs well in big soccer games. If they don't do well however...

gammateam• 7 years ago

The UK was the only one vetoing a real EU military

So with them gone, expect it

Just going to have to accept that Germany is better at this game

rtkwe• 7 years ago

But by trying to manage the economy (which copyright is an extension of), they are essentially going down the path of ever increasing centralization.

That management is core to one of the major benefits of the EU though the free movement of goods. By necessity to have that completely free movement goods have to be produced, sold and consumed under the same set of laws. Otherwise a product produced legally in one country could be illegal in another which would start to inch back towards border checks over time as national laws diverged.

petre2• 7 years ago

I do not think the EU surpresses national identity but I have a problem with how the decisional process is influenced by special interests in two countries.

anoncake2• 7 years ago

The issue I see with the EU, is that it's essentially centralizing all the "countries" into "states".
It's as if we're watching the destruction of all the national identities.

You don't live in a federation, do you?

amelius• 7 years ago

That's it? Less than half a page to make their argument?

ptaipale2• 7 years ago

The detailed argumentation is made elsewhere, in a longer format. For a declaration, I think half page is just right. Happy with my government for doing this (but very unhappy with the union).

ddebernardy• 7 years ago

Save your being unhappy with the union for when the MEPs don't vote this down. Until then, be outraged at the lobbyists that nudged elected governments to support this, while keeping in mind that these elected governments' heads of state are the ones that nominate the head of the EC.

yeahforsureman3• 7 years ago

What the hell, where's Sweden and Denmark? Or the much-hyped E-stonia? (Not that it would've made a difference.)

Strom• 7 years ago

The lack of Estonia seemed curious to me as well, given Estonia's voting history regarding Article 13. Then I looked up the voting history for all these countries. [1] The votes against Article 13 have been as follows:

  Poland      72% (36 vs 14)
  Netherlands 71% (17 vs 7)
  Finland     50% (6 vs 6)
  Italy       38% (25 vs 41)
  Luxembourg  33% (2 vs 4)
    
  Sweden      100% (18 vs 0)
  Estonia     83% (5 vs 1)
  Denmark     17% (2 vs 10)

Looking at this frankly raises more questions than it answers. Has there been a big change of heart in say Italy suddenly? They've been voting in favor of article 13 thus far.

[1] https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/

Kurtz792• 7 years ago

In Italy there has been a radical change in terms of governing parties/policy towards the EU over the last year.

Right now the majority elected for the EU parliament does not really match the actual government's disposition.

Tuna-Fish2• 7 years ago

What you are looking at are the views of the MEPs. MEPs represent specific people living in the country, not the country as whole. This statement was issued by the countries, meaning the representatives of the governments currently in power in those countries.

jaabe3• 7 years ago

Italy is currently run by populist who dislike the EU, so you can say there has been a rather big change.

KozmoNau7• 7 years ago

Unfortunately, the majority of parties in Denmark have a real hard-on for this copyright directive. Either from a belief that it will protect the artists, or from a "law and order" perspective that this will finally stick it those eeeeeevil pirates by giving even more power to the rights holders, in an attempt to completely abolish fair use doctrines.

The ramifications if this directive passes are absolutely disastrous, potentially putting a gigantic legalistic roadblock in the way of any free sharing of information online. I've tried writing my representatives to explain just how extreme the consequences will be, but they just refuse to listen, and insist on sticking to the party line, most of the replies I got were just canned responses. Or I guess they prefer listening to the lobbyists instead of their constituents.

As someone who became a huge music fan through file sharing with my friends and later through the internet via FTPs, IRC channels and DCC, Napster, Kazaa, torrents and shady Russian forums, I think this unprecedented tightening of the net will be a real detriment to culture and art.

petre2• 7 years ago

Yup, it's the same in my country. I'm going to specifically vote for an independent MP who was against this directive. I won't try to contact the others and explain anything because it doesn't work. Some party MPs have a split view on the issue and it's risky to vote for a party because you never know who they send to the EP.

jaabe3• 7 years ago

Why would we be against it? I know it’s an unpopular opinion on HN, but I don’t have a problem with Facebook and Google being made liable for the content on their platforms.

Here is why: if you produce content, like music, you can put it on YouTube and YouTube will pay you for the views. They’ll only pay you for the content in your channels though, while themselves earning money from both the legal and illegal copies.

I’m not personally too worried about the privacy, people will always find a way to share, but the fact that YouTube makes money of the illegal content legally, just doesn’t sit right with me.

What’s even worse is that YouTube won’t tell us the profit ratios on our own content. Sure they’ll pay a record company to put music videos on an official channel, but they’ll never disclose how much money YouTube earns from it. Maybe it’s a fair split, maybe it’s not, but you have no way of knowing and you kind of have to be on YouTube. I mean, this last bit is where it becomes obvious that viewers are the product, because we only upload stuff to YouTube because they have all the damn users.

I know the fear machine, wants us to believe that private citizens wouldn’t be able to upload a video we filmed with a song playing in the background. But that’s actually already illegal. Only in its current form, it’s the private citizen who is liable and not the platform. I have no problem with switching that around, and make the platform liable instead of the individual. Maybe that will lead to more closed platforms, but my pets bet is that someone out there is willing to build a platform that allows the content and simply pays the royalties, for the same reason we accept the godawful YouTube contract. The users are valuable.

In Denmark, Sweden and Estonia we prefer the government to Google or Facebook, so naturally we support laws that moves power from the companies to the people.

yeahforsureman3• 7 years ago

tl;dr Never let your pets bet!

icebraining2• 7 years ago

Thinking this law only affects Google and Facebook is the problem.

Google and Facebook can afford to build those content recognition systems and pay those royalties. Can your local non-profit photo sharing community? Can a new video hosting service that makes less money because it doesn't surveil its users?

kfwhp2• 7 years ago

As long as France and Germany like it, that's all there is to it. Arguing will get you nowhere.

rasz• 7 years ago

Yep, just like Germany building Nord Stream 2 to bypass another EU country at the bidding of Putin.

thecleaner• 7 years ago

I had no idea the copyright lobbying was so strong in Germany. We absolutely suck.

Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Italy Oppose EU Copyright Directive

Related Stories