"US Congress quietly slips cloud-spying powers into page 2,201 of spending mega-bill"[1].

Could the EU copyright law be slipped in the same way?

[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/23/cloud_act_spending_...

Technically: maybe. But the EU legislative process is very transparent (which is partially caused by the different legislative bodies that need to participate) and the European Parliament would probably not approve of such a hidden policy change.

Actually they did (in 2005) try to slip a vote on software patents in by scheduling it for an "Agriculture and Fishery" meeting. Luckily, they failed.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2005/jan/23/eusd...

> pushing what used to be extreme-right standpoints more towards the more acceptable political middle

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

It's a political tactic used since at least Roman days.

Why can't we create copyright abolition proposal to do the same the other way?

Because you need funding (and popular support).

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.

Both copyright and patent should be reformed to have the same duration, 21 years (until you are replaced by your descendant's apprentices):

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.

Who do I vote for in order to make this happen?

In some European coutnries there is Pirate Party in the parliament. They are focused on fighting oppresive intelectual property and copyright laws.

> 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.

None of these are European, though. Should be easy to sell, especially now that UK is exiting.

And the route to proposing laws in the EU is ... ?

I have no idea. Probably buy a coffee to some europarliament member and talk to him about it.

Unlike the US Congress, The European Parliament cannot initiate legislation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_initiative_(legislati...

At least judging from the description on Wikipedia, the other articles seem mostly reasonable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_...

The text and data mining restrictions are anything but reasonable. Why on earth should there be an additional copyright for processing data automatically when you already have the right to process the same data manually?

This kills European AI startups or drives them away.

They're copyright exceptions, not restrictions, meaning you don't need a license to process copyrighted data for scientific research.

They are exceptions for research and restrictions for startups at the same time.

I don't get it. How is giving more rights to researchers restricting startups?

More rights compared to what?

What matters is that EU AI startups are more restricted than US startups.

I'm pretty sure US startups also have to respect copyright law when mining data on the internet?

The U.S. has Fair Use, which adapts to novel cases. The EU has enumerated exceptions to copyright.

As a simple example ripping a CD is tortuous in the UK. It was briefly allowed for format shifting, but that was deemed too antithetical to capitalism, or some shit.

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..

Of course they do, but US startups are facing far fewer restrictions on mining data published in their home market.

Large internet companies like Google and Facebook will face even fewer restrictions because they have the clout to force economically viable terms on publishers.

EU needs reason for having more bureacrats. More regulations - more bribery, more people involved - diminished responsibility. I am glad UK decided to pull the plug just at the right moment.

The UK has two members on the legal affairs committee. The Labour member voted in favor of the copyright directive. The conservative member abstained.

There is very little chance that the UK will have substantially better rules than the EU post Brexit.

Have you read it? It's pretty reasonable without those articles.

It is a shame people don't even question if that was necessary at all...