The European Parliament, Article 13

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:13 pm

Jimmy somehow got his wish......
To all our readers in the UK

This Wednesday we need your help. On 5 July 2018, the European Parliament will vote on a new copyright directive. If approved, these changes threaten to disrupt the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of. You have time to act. Join the discussion. Thank you.

Contact your MEP Read about it on Wikipedia Learn more
Clicking read about it Wikipedia takes you to the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market article, where you of course will not find the claim it will "disrupt the open Internet", not in Wikipedia voice, or even as one of the opinions of people who oppose it.

So, who wrote this scaremongering garbage, and what consequences do the Wikimedia Foundation, who hold neutrality as one of their core values, face for using their platform to disseminate it?

The answers of course, are nobody knows (if the author or Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want you to know), and none.

Is this the open internet they speak of?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:39 pm

What a surprise, it appears Jimmy got his way by virtue of the WMF being able to just slap up a banner across a number of Wikipedias by tweaking a bit of code.

As hilarious as that is, yet another reminder to the Wikipediots that they have no real power whatsoever, it is even more hilarious that the way it was done has violated their own "Usage guidelines", specifically this bit......
Wikimedia only - Banners must link to Wikimedia-controlled domains (owned either by Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia affiliates or Wikimedia volunteers identified to the Wikimedia Foundation).
Anyone gonna get fired for that? Or course not.

The guilty party is Joseph Seddon, Community & Audience Engagement Associate.

I'm case anyone is minded to think this was a case of the WMF deciding to override local English Wikipedia consensus as part of an emergency need to tackle an existential threat, this fucker was working on this banner as long ago as 28 June.....

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=18162774

They were always going to have a banner, whether the Wikipedians wanted one or not. And they have repeatedly said since that date, they did not.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:43 pm

I think it very important to note that I completely reject the idea that my opposition to Article 13 as currently written is in any way involves "supporting the notion that other websites... may steal other people's work". That's a pretty outrageous take on the matter. Badly written laws proposing measures which are not likely to help, while at the same time imposing burdens on innocent people, can be opposed even when the alleged goal is noble. We might as well say that opposition a law mandating mandatory breath tests before getting behind the wheel of a car is supporting the notion of drunk driving.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice use of the word alleged there.......

If anyone has any clue what Jimmy's actual proposal for stopping people abusing their apparently God given right to share stuff on the internet, can they let me know what it is.

Jimmy is the sort of cunt who lets a person spend thousands on buying photographic equipment and trek into the jungle as part of an attemp to highlight the plight of an endangered species, and Jimmy then decides he's rather like to bankrupt him so they can retain this nebulous concept of a free and open internet.

Nobody should be in any doubt what Jimmy's proposal is - do nothing.

With no sense of irony, during this nonsense Jimmy has created about ten sections on the Vilage Pump (Proposals) board. In each one of them he can be seen happily admitting he is not offering a proposal, he's just popping in to let people know what he wants (other people's proposals killed, using the powah of Teh People).

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:55 pm

CrowsNest wrote:With no sense of irony, during this nonsense Jimmy has created about ten sections on the Vilage Pump (Proposals) board. In each one of them he can be seen happily admitting he is not offering a proposal, he's just popping in to let people know what he wants (other people's proposals killed, using the powah of Teh People).

Well, I have read that 10 sections, and most of the participates have no idea where article13 is about. And Jimmy made a very dangers move, because for sure the proponents are starting to search for ammunition, and, for sure Wikipedia will be there target!

I think it is very wise for them to keep the champagne closed, because it is much harder for them to fool that complete European parlement than that commission. Because, WMF is not the only lobby group, all big editors and newspapers are doing the same. So, it it absolute not for sure they are better of in September, because the European parlement will be much better informed at that time.
For me it was a great day for European democracy, and lets see how it ends up in September. But I have the feeling not good for Jimmy.....

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:44 pm


User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:49 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Article 13
Passed. :-( [6] wumbolo ^^^ 15:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like Jimboh or the Wikinauts have much use for Jimbotalk now, this sad little post being the only related content.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:47 pm

On Jimbo talk:

@Herostratus Since the European Parliament isn't a legislative body............... Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


Well, that is great news! And someone who has no idea about Europe, because the most powerful institute in Europe is the `Europarlement in combination with the other European institutions. And in that links is so much wrong info, it is simple not treu! It's propaganda, the Euro parlement has spoken, and for the end of the year is there a law.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by Dysklyver » Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:56 pm

The situation really is great.

After the rejection last time round, the EU made hundreds of minor tweaks, the effect of which is minor, but really just makes the wording less objectionable in places.

Then they pass it, but to keep everyone happy, they publish a press release saying "wikipedia and open source sites are exempt".

But it's a directive, and as Graaf has pointed out many times n the past, the national law of each EU country is not the business of the EU.

A directive is an instruction for each EU country to incorporate the concept into their own law, will they keep Wikipedia exempt?

Unlikely, the only evidence Wikipedia is supposed to be exempt is a random press release. I see no provision in the directive that gives any open source projects or advocacy numbnuts a leg to stand on. They will be totally screwed over in due course.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:53 pm

Dysklyver wrote:The situation really is great.

After the rejection last time round, the EU made hundreds of minor tweaks, the effect of which is minor, but really just makes the wording less objectionable in places.

Then they pass it, but to keep everyone happy, they publish a press release saying "wikipedia and open source sites are exempt".

But it's a directive, and as Graaf has pointed out many times n the past, the national law of each EU country is not the business of the EU.

A directive is an instruction for each EU country to incorporate the concept into their own law, will they keep Wikipedia exempt?

Unlikely, the only evidence Wikipedia is supposed to be exempt is a random press release. I see no provision in the directive that gives any open source projects or advocacy numbnuts a leg to stand on. They will be totally screwed over in due course.

Of course not! There is not a thing as a European copyright, and no national parliament will accept the EU change anything in there copyright law what they don't want! The EU is a bad marriage and at it worst a divorce! There will be no exception, for no one, because that is legal impossible. The different country now will pick out what they like, and implant that in there local regulation and for sure without exemptions. The European countries want to be sovereign, they don't want other country's or the EU telling them what to do.

The European copyright laws are so limited that the only way to create free source is by creating it by yourself. It is legal technical impossible to "liberate" the work if you don't have the rights yourself. Because there is no fair use and the quotation law is very restricted, and even a SanFanBAn doesn't change that....

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The European Parliament, Article 13

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:44 am

An EU Directive supersedes any local law. This is one of the costs of being an EU member, you cannot make your own laws. The idea that you are still sovereign because you are making your own laws at the direction of the EU is an untenable farce. Hence Brexit.

The issue here is that Wikipedia was already exempt in the first draft, and they knew it. And yet they still went into campaign mode.

Post Reply