I'm worried not so much about the outcome of this decision (which indeed is bad), but more about the whole decision-making process and how often we'll see such uninformed decisionmaking in the future.
I'd rather not call it "uninformed". We pay good amounts of money to parliamentarians, including their personal assistants.
It's more like a "bug" in democracy as such. As long as a topic doesn't have widespread attention, it's the lobbyists who make the laws, not the citizens. I am pretty sure there are other bad laws in other very specific areas, we as techies don't have a clue about.
As I've written in another comment here, this is obviously an unavoidable "bug", but the more centralized a legislation process is, the more it is prone to exactly this "bug".
Why unavoidable? For example, if a sufficient number of qualified people complain about any law, isn't it possible to hold MEPs accountable by openly questioning them about their reasoning? I'm sure there are journalists who can make good use of any suspicious argumentation.
That's shifting the problem a bit, but does not solve it. Which journalist would investigate a topic which is considered unimportant by most of the readers (and in this specific case the decision is also welcomed by most of the journalists employers).
And who would read MEPs reasonings about something "uninteresting"?
So, yes, there is plenty of room to improve democratic processes today, especially with the communication tools we have. However, I guess that laws which make things worse for the general public but are in too complex niche areas for people to actually realize the issues, will ever remain a problem. Try ask your non-tech social contacts if they consider it fair, that big internet companies like Google don't have to pay for other peoples' work. And this is the narrative of the supporters.
Unfortunately this bug, which is in my opinion most of the time caused by the people and not the system democracy itself, can be exploited by both lobbyists and populists.
Considering that communists are historically against private property and their usage as a means of production, eventhough the statement is very loaded and inflamatory it still is somewhat appropriate when addressing critics who are against the use of intellectual (private) property as a mean of production.
> Considering that communists are historically against private property and their usage as a means of production
No, Communist are against “private property” where “private property” is specifically defined as exclusionary ownership of the means of production. If it isn't specifically in the means of production, “private property” in sense the term is used in the modern capitalist world is not “private property” as opposed by Communists (in more like what many Communists accept as acceptable “personal property”, which again is different than what that term means in capitalist society.)
And it's not clear to me that intellectual property (or other intangible personal property not representing control of tangible goods), strictly speaking, can be a “means of production” in the sense Communists are concerned about; it's certainly not in the sense of basic Communist theory.
> No, Communist are against “private property” where “private property” is specifically defined as exclusionary ownership of the means of production.
...and in this case it's the intellectual property of content providers who use it to run their business.
>And it's not clear to me that intellectual property (or other intangible personal property not representing control of tangible goods), strictly speaking, can be a “means of production” in the sense Communists are concerned about.
Even if we ignore how this law was created to help private media companies that are vilified for controlling the press, I'm sure that we can agree that media companies do depend on the existence of strong intellectual properly rights to run their business. That's pretty much thr central argument: if they can't enforce their rights over their private property them it ceases to serve its purpose as a means of production.
> and in this case it's the intellectual property of content providers who use it to run their business.
No, that's not a “means of production”, in the Communist sense, and so ownership of it is not “private property” in the sense that Communist theory opposes such.
> I'm sure that we can agree that media companies do depend on the existence of strong intellectual properly rights to run their business.
That's irrelevant to whether intellectual property qualifies as a means of production in Communist theory, which does not define “means of production ” as “anything a business relies on to run”, but instead as the physical instruments to which human labor is applied in the course of production.
Opposing media companies on this is not something which has anything to do with the Communist opposition to property rights in the means of production.
Communists are ideologically against privare property. Historically, not so much.
Be that as it may, I don't get your point. Communists opposing private property, therefore I, as opponent of the "law", must be a communist? Please, I expect better from the HN crowd, although not from the insufferable mr. Rohde, MEP.
> Be that as it may, I don't get your point. Communists opposing private property, therefore I, as opponent of the "law", must be a communist?
I'm not defending the idea. I'm pointing out that the accusation is not baseless. If you oppose the right to use private property as a means of production, and consequently oppose a law that enforces your right to profit from your private property, then you're clearly advocating a basic communist dogma.
> I'm not defending the idea. I'm pointing out that the accusation is not baseless.
Having a tangential thematic connection with a fact doesn't stop an accusation from being baseless.
> If you oppose the right to use private property as a means of production, and consequently oppose a law that enforces your right to profit from your private property, then you're clearly advocating a basic communist dogma.
No, you aren't. Communists do not oppose the right to derive profits from property, they oppose the right to have propietary ownership of the physical instrumentalities of production.
Intellectual property is not a thing which can be a “means of production” in the sense used in “basic communist dogma”, and thus ownership of it is not “private property” in the sense of “basic communist dogma” (in communist theory, “private property ” is exclusionary ownership of the “means of production”, and the “means of production” are physical instruments to which human labor is applied in the production process.)
I'm not aware of opposing such a right.
I'm not aware of being a communist, and that's putting it mildly.
I'm very much aware of being opposed to the deluge of terrifiyng, imbecilic megastatecontrol over ever increasing areas of my life from the sinecured, corrupt, and largely incompetent members of the EU so-called parliament.
Any thoughts on how that relates to Axel Voss and his friends? We know about Ajit Pai's dodgy dealings, but is Voss in someone's pocket? He seems too young to be this dumb about tech.
He's not young, and Axel Springer has been cited as a potential "sponsor" of this (I assume companies behind GEMA as well, which I could only describe with adjectives not allowed here)
