Its gone for now, but will most certainly come back in some form.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44712475

From what I understand it's not rejected, simply that they have open the possibility to have discussions and make amendments to it.

It's a victory but only a small one, nothing is finished yet.

Good that it has been defeated, bad that it isn't dead yet.

That should keep Palpatine at bay for at least a little while longer.



DAMMIT! I confused Article 13 with Order 66 again!
I gotta stop doing that!

Don't keep your hopes up, it's all still open.
They rejected the current formula, but they can easily come up with something more insidious. Or not, nothing is said for now.

Still a good sign that at least it does not seem to be as easy to get this through as we feared when they passed the first hurdle. Of course we still have to be careful and see what the future holds. Then again - the intention of the law in itself imo is not a bad thing. It is just the wrong way to reach this goal. So maybe future drafts are more thought through *fingers crossed*.

Can I check somewhere which members of parliament voted in favour of/against these new laws?

original source from the EU parliament
www.europarl.europa.eu
(check page 7)

nicer overview on reddit:
https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/8wblrj/mep_votes_on_the_eu_copyright_directive_by_name/

I'm suprised that so many UK MEPs voted - seeing as our government seems to be wanting to police the net quite badly. Also thanks for the old.reddit link I really hate their new design.

I'll also say i'm glad this failed, whilst I don't like piracy, and agree it should be stamped out this article is the wrong way to combat it.

Thanks!

Once again, the German "Christian Democrats" have proven themselves to be an absolute blight upon the land (or rather the continent in this particular case).

I'm glad the vote went against these law changes, for the simple reason that such blanket laws often tend to do more harm than good. Where the internet and copyright are concerned, there's no one size fits all solution, which is why more time and care needs to be given to fully investigating the potential ramifications of such new laws.

As a writer and journalist who makes my living online, producing and creating original content, I have first hand experience of the arguments both for and against such bills as these being introduced. Sadly, they usually only end up protecting the interests of those already at the top of the digital food chain.

I've suffered financial loss because of my work and creative content being stolen and published elsewhere, without even the courtesy of being cited or accredited as the original source. Usually the biggest culprits were the supposedly reputable big brand media outlets and press agencies. Yes, there are legal routes that can be taken to protect copyright content, but when you're a small fish, they take so much time, effort and cost, as to be worthless.

That said, I also ran a site that suffered because of the Spanish government introducing "link tax" legislation, which protected the interests of the big media outlets here, but took a "f*ck the rest" approach with everyone else, which led to Google News and the leading aggregation services pulling the plug on Spanish websites. As a small outlet reliant on those aggregation services to bring in visitors, within a matter of days our readership halved, our revenues nosedived and we went out of business. So much for the "idea" of protecting the content creators, eh!

There are no easy solutions, especially when politicians are involved who haven't got the first clue about what they're dealing with, in the digital age. Unfortunately, the single biggest driving force for most changes and legislature is greed. The big get bigger, while the small end up disappearing.