To people getting their knickers in a twist: Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal, with all due respect, are hardly beacons of anti-copyright maximalism. Chances are that most of them simply couldn't be arsed to write the relevant laws, over a timespan that included such facetious events as a 2-year-long global pandemic. If I had to prioritize lawmaking, I would also put some copyright bullshit at the bottom of the pile. Now they got their ears pinched, so they'll come around doing it - or not, in which case they'll pay a fine.
> They protect rightholders from different sectors<p>At the expense of everyone else.<p>> stimulating the creation and circulation of more high-value content<p>Doubtful.
For everyone cringing at these new rules - just imagine what they would have been without Julia Reda (singular Pirate MEP at the time) who fought this law with everything that she had. We mustn't forget the many NGOs, and the fact that the Greens supported her in the fight. But Reda was something special.
>..Poland<p>They are trying to take away "personal copying exemption"<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Noncommercial_file_sharing" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Noncomm...</a><p><a href="http://www.prawoautorskie.pl/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobisty" rel="nofollow">http://www.prawoautorskie.pl/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobist...</a> <a href="https://www-prawoautorskie-pl.translate.goog/art-23-dozwolony-uzytek-osobisty?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp" rel="nofollow">https://www-prawoautorskie-pl.translate.goog/art-23-dozwolon...</a><p>>Art. 23. Permitted personal use
1. Without the consent of the author, it is allowed to use the already disseminated work free of charge for personal use. This provision does not authorize building based on someone else's architectural and architectural and urban work, and to use electronic databases that meet the characteristics of a work, unless it concerns one's own scientific use not related to a commercial purpose.<p>>2. The scope of own personal use includes the use of single copies of works by a group of people who are in a personal relationship, in particular kinship, affinity or social relationship.
Most times this kind of thing happens it is _not_ because the member states in questions want to "resist" the regulation or anything like that.<p>Instead it most times because they just failed to write down and pass a law, e.g. because they forgot, had to handle a pandemic, infighting not specific to the law dragging law making speed down and many similar issues.<p>One example I vaguely remember was when law makers wrote the country laws for some regulation they wanted to push _beyond_ what the regulation required in a bad way which lead to the law being prevented in one way or another again, and again, and again until the time period to put the regulation into local law was over...<p>So assumptions about countries being against a regulation, or "that they then shouldn't have voted for it" or similar can not be done without looking into the specifics of the country and regulation in question.
Avoiding things like this is exactly the kind of good thing thah could've come out of Brexit, except that every concievable government that could be elected there is likely to be worse on these issues rather than better.
I haven't actually read the rules themselves, but not the how. How do they do what is enumerated below from the Tweet?:<p>"These two Directives aim to modernise copyright rules for consumers and creators to make the most of the digital world. They protect rightholders from different sectors, stimulating the creation and circulation of more high-value content. 2/3 #copyrightdirective #article15"
I mean, yes, that is what happens to Member States who don't bring in legislation relating to the EU competencies when passed. That's... y'know, the point.
> Today, the European Commission decided to refer 11 Member States to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failing to notify the Commission of transposition measures under two Directives with respect to copyright.<p>> The Commission decided to refer Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal to the Court of Justice of the EU following their failure to notify complete transposition measures on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (Directive (EU) 2019/790).<p>> Secondly, with regard to a more specific EU Directive on copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions (EU Directive 2019/789), the Commission is referring Bulgaria, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal to the Court of Justice for not notifying complete transposition of EU rules to the Commission<p>That didn't need to be a tweet of a screenshot of some text really, did it?<p>Also I count six countries there, you can't double-count a country just because there are two charges.
Copyright reforms pushed by American and German copyright bullies, lobbyists, predators, and stalkers. The days of your entertainment and content will come to an end. Unfortunately the bullies will likely remain unpunished.