In favour: 278
Against: 318
Yet, I'm worried now that those articles were just ludicrous distractions for the real problem. That is, it shouldn't pass without those articles, but those that would oppose it normally would now vote in favor of it because "at least it doesn't have those articles anymore".
like how [politics] the current political climate and news coverage is pushing what used to be extreme-right standpoints more towards the more acceptable political middle. As in,"well at least we're not separating kids from parents anymore"[/politics]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
It's a political tactic used since at least Roman days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_initiative_(legislati...
The only way to match the funding behind copyright increase is to appeal to the public, but the opposite lobby control the media which most of the public feeds on as if it were manna from heaven.
Reduce copyright to 15 years? B-but Mickey will die, and we'll be so poor at EvilMedia Corp. we won't be able to make any more Marvel or Star Wars.
1. For copyright, these 21 years should be organised as 4-12yr granted (varying on the work, lack of registration meaning public domain by default) and renewable every six months with an exponentially increasing maintenance fee (first maintainance fee might be placed in the ballpark of £8192).
2. For patents, these 21 years should be organised as 3½ years after grant (this will encourage to file as soon as possible to get protection), renewable every 3½ years with an exponentially increasing maintenance fee (first maintainance fee might be placed in the ballpark of £1,048,576).
3. For sculptures and buildings, these copyright should cease one year after construction is completed, but with a limitation that protection not allowed to exceed 7 years in total.
None of these are European, though. Should be easy to sell, especially now that UK is exiting.
This kills European AI startups or drives them away.
What matters is that EU AI startups are more restricted than US startups.
Large internet companies like Google and Facebook will face even fewer restrictions because they have the clout to force economically viable terms on publishers.
Schools have to have PRS (songwriters) and PPL (musicians) collection agency licenses if they have TV because the license they pay for TV doesn't cover the music "performamce" eg of an adverts soundtrack.
Individual solo workers can't listen to a radio at work unless they're unable to be accessed by the public.
You can time-shift a TV show (say), but you're only allowed to watch it alone, and you can't watch it twice.
UK is draconian in the extreme.
Personally I'd favour a 15 year term, and only for works that have an identical un-protected copy lodged with a central agency (at a high cost), or are DRM free. Transfer/download rights for copies bought on streaming services; format shifting, relaxed time-shifting, more educational use rights, etc..
There is very little chance that the UK will have substantially better rules than the EU post Brexit.
Could the EU copyright law be slipped in the same way?
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/23/cloud_act_spending_...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2005/jan/23/eusd...
A special award goes to a Slovenian NGO for making this hilarious vote tracking page:
The realist in me can't imagine the outrage will be any smaller the next time they try to pass it.
Greens, Regionalists, Pirate, Left and Eurosceptic Populists were strongly against, but only have 120 votes total. Eurosceptic Conservatives and Liberals were mostly against, but only have 124 total. Social Democrats (167) and Far Right (32) split evenly. And Far Right (177) were strongly in favor.
I'm guessing that Eurosceptics are mainly against more EU laws. And that it's largely Social Democrats that have the votes to pass a weaker version.