European Union may pass law that could lead to this site being unusable

@DarkBrawlerCF1994  
Figured i get a reply like that.
 
 

 
Understandable, hence why i said “I don’t think”.
 
 

 
Also understandable.

So it’s the 6th in France, where the main EU parliament building is.
 
Today is the day MEP’s vote on Chat Control.
 
Remember this:
 
The EU’s chat control regulation has been found to violate fundamental rights by a former judge of the European Court of Justice. According to a representative poll, 72% of EU citizens clearly reject indiscriminate screening of private correspondence. Despite all that, the Parliament’s Committee for Civil Liberties (LIBE) recommends the plenary to vote in favor of chat control.

This is how the subject of Chat Control is being framed in the Plenary:
 

 
Fucking absurd.

So, word is that Chat Control passed.
 
That means it’s up to the courts to strike it down but who knows how much damage it’ll do in the meantime.
 
Great, just fucking great.
 
Nothing like Citizens being ignored by their officials.
 
TO EU USERS HERE, YOU BEST BE CONCERNED NOW.

https://mobile.twitter.com/echo_pbreyer/status/1412450927076851715
 
Yep, it passed.

So, one of the main parties to blame for approving Chat Control is the Christian Democrats:
 

 
These same jerks also voted for the EUCD.
 
The Greens stood for the common person.

Tomorrow on July 15th, The Advocate General will give their opinion to the CJEU on how platforms like Youtube should/will be affected by the Copyright Directive.
 
They had previously given an opinion on the matter of copyright before the EUCD come into focus in 2020:
 
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/07/breaking-ag-e-advises-cjeu-to-rule-that.html
 
This will be somewhat of an update to that opinion now that the EUCD is taken into account, which also may have some affect on how Poland’s case will be decided down the road.
 
Please keep an eye out on that matter!

Thanks to Communia, we have the AG opinion.
 
This comes from a set of tweets by Communia:
 
“The Advocate General opinion in case C-401/19, the Polish request to annul #Article17 is out. The AG does not recommend to annul #Article17. Instead, implementations must contain safeguards that ensure that only manifestly illegal uploads get blocked. What does this mean?”
 
“If the Court follows the AG’s recommendation, #Article17 would stay, but Member States will have to make sure that legal uploads are protected from automated filters. Filtering would only be allowed for ‘manifestly infringing’ uploads.”
 
“Where uploads are not manifestly infringing the content concerned should not be the subject of a preventive blocking measure and rightholders will have to request the removal or blocking of the content in question by means of substantiated notifications.”
 
“Most (if not all) national implementation that we have seen so far clearly fail to meet this standard and if the CJEU follows the AG they will need to co back to the drawing board (or face legal challenges).”
 
“The AG opinion also validates the most important underlying principles of the Article 17 guidance that the commission issued last month.
 
There will be more details in the full opinion and we will be back with a more through analysis later today.”

@CaptainXtra  
Good or bad??

It’s mixed to say the least.
 
Many are still analyzing the statement.

@CaptainXtra  
Ahh.
 
Well, it at least means some modifications at least, right?

This here is the AG’s full statement on the matter of Art 13/17 in English:
 
Case C‑401/19
 
Republic of Poland
 
v
 
European Parliament,
 
Council of the European Union

Just a refresher on the topic of Chat Control:
 
Chatcontrol 2.0 will follow soon

@CaptainXtra  
Here’s a petition.

Meanwhile in the European Union, which most of you tend to forget exists:
 
The Legal Affairs Committee wants to allow online platforms to use error-prone re-upload filters. Algorithms cannot reliably identify illegal content and frequently suppress entirely legal content.
 
This is how MEPs voted:
 

 
Freedom of speech on the internet: The Legal Affairs Committee would allow any member state to order the removal of content that has been legally published in another member state. That means #Orban could have content deleted in your country.  
Voting results:
 

 
—–  
Quick reminder on Orban:
 

 

 
 
Unauthorised live streams need to be taken down within 30 minutes. This is what the Legal Affairs Committee called for today in its opinion on the #DigitalServicesAct #DSA. This is how MEPs voted:
 

 
All this info comes from Patrick Breyer
 
Even though Brexit was a stupid mistake and the majority of its supports didn’t have a fucking clue how the UK would survive once it happened, the mindset that the EU is going backwards wasn’t totally wrong.
 
 

 
Oh yeah, I won’t miss that hag Merkel.

So let me make sure I understand this because of how it sounds.
If someone from this “Legal Affairs Committee.” Doesn’t like something that was legally published in another country, they have the power to Order its removal?
Does this only apply to other Countries that are part of the “LAC” or does this mean someone can randomly declare they Dislike something and no matter where its from it has to be removed?

Ok Im tired and missed part of what id read..
So it involves just the Members States related to the LAC, and does not mean
“RAWR I dont like this American thing.. Remove it America!”

@belmontzar
I’m still piecing together how all this EU legislation could affect the global net…

Anyway…

It’s been awhile since I’ve commented on here.

There’s this from COMMUNIA:

“Small #Article17 implementation update fromFlag of France: The
@MinistereCC
has published a new implementation decree that allows the Minister of Culture to specify thresholds for when OCSSPS are considered to provide access to “large amounts of copyrighted works”.

They also included a link:
Non-French Speakers need a translation tool.

ALL I know is that it sounds like something very messy that could be heavily abused. HERE is a Crazy example that came to mind.
Country A has a bad thing happen in (Town) but does not report on it because they are at fault and dont want bad press because “elections!”
Country B reports about it because its important.
People in Country A learn about what happened thanks to Country B and start talking about it.
country A leader gets mad and tells Country B to get rid of its evidence.
Country B is forced to remove all of its evidence because Country A said so because… Commmittee rules say so.

Can someone explain what defines “Digital Libraries” here?

@CaptainXtra
I belive they are the great gatherings of public information and literature that are owned and run by the Government itself.
Websites that catalog and contain vast amounts of data, books, and media which are owned by the Government.
You know how some places like here collect art work, and how places like FIMFiction gather MLP fan fics?
There are online libraries of books and information that are funded and helped by the government,to ensure that things like Dictionaries, thesaurus, Classical, and informational texts are always available for people to use.

@belmontzar
I agree.

@Background Pony #4FDF
While I dont think its publicly available, all books that contain ISBN numbers are digitally and mostly physically stored for posterity, and can be accessed on some websites.
It just occured to me that this may not be what all nations do.
I am in the USA, I know my country has these sites, I think some of them even have computer and videogames you can play online.

@belmontzar
Aren’t they technically attacking the Public Domain?

Which would be illegal?

@CaptainXtra
Exactly, and when they do, serves them right.

@CaptainXtra
Public domain, the effect of the world wide web, and the rights within are really hard to take care of legally. Its also hard to bring any of it to court as well due to how strange internet law is.
There is also the fact that Legal Practice is very flexible depending on who is being charged for what. If its the right person on the big chair none of the evidence in the world will matter at all.
You also have to contend with the legal realm of other related countries as well.

One such loophole some Government run websites utilize is the simple act of running the page as a Non profit and functioning off donations to the website, rather than what is on the website.