it’s obviously that the whole aim of the Copyright Directive is to stop anyone except the legacy industries from being able to do anything on the Internet without getting permission and without paying for that permission. it also seems obvious as well that Voss was ‘encouraged’ to do what he did by those industries and took that ‘encouragement’ without taking the slightest bit of notice of any of the concerns raised by a myriad of people and organisations. the ultimate aim is to hand complete control of the Internet over to the copyright industries, the music and movie industries in particular and stop ordinary people from being able to do what the Internet was designed to do, ie allow everyone, everywhere, to communicate with everyone else, everywhere else, anytime over anything and anyone! those in powerful positions have been controlling the Planet and the population for far too long and have no intention of giving up that control any time soon. hence these ridiculous laws being brought in by people who take personal reward more serious than looking out for what they should be. the EU has turned into a despicable organisation and with Germany at it’s head, it will take control without having to do anything except exert it’s financial muscle! a much easier way than in the 2 previous attempts of 1914-18 and 1939-45!!

Apparently, the EU parliament is full of people frothing at the mouth to get “big tech’s” money themselves and sees the “de-fanging” of the giants as a righteous Europeon duty, the passing of these articles was met with “thunderous applause”.

It’s just a skim job to keep their kangaroo court of a government alive after the UK’s money stops funding half of the EU’s coffers (hopefully…).

Here’s an example of why piracy is bad:

Say I have a way for you to save $10-12 a month on your electric bill, which also saves $3-4 a month on your heating bill, and $1-2 a month on your grocery bill. What is my incentive to put this in a book?

The second I publish it, it will be pirated, and 99 percent of my audience will be people who didn’t payf or it. The fairytale that an appreciative audience will pay for it is generally refuted by the lack of appreciation a similar video “life hack” would make on YouTube, fromonations. Once pirated, other publishers and internet marketers would take over, and distribution would crush the indie.

o make much as I could out of the intellectual property, I would still make it as a YouTube video, and make about $1-3 per 1,000 views (CPM), and still get paid somewhat, so I’m not totally impacted, though even that is not guaranteed. My options for making money w9ould be limited by piracy, however, and tis anathema to the purpose of copyright law, plus it shows how publishing how-tos is nowhere near as profitable as “perishable” articles like here on Techdirt, where by the time anyone would pirate them, they are no longer fresh (news copies each other all the time; ever see 100 tweets from different news accounts with the samie text?).

This is just a small example. Bigger serets, like hoto makemoney in the stock market, wind up “given” away by scam artists who are promiting high-priced seminars, or the good information is restricted to a single customer or patron, or exploited by the author rather than thrown into the “pirate bay.”

This is also why many “golden geese” from the 1990s (god information) was not replaced by better information in the last twenty eyars: those who fed the good information assuming they’d be properly rewarded were not, so they jumped ship, leaving the scam artists and internet marketers to dominate the landscape.

The public did not notice the difference, or care, because they were still getting “free answers” to their problems, h te fllacy that “all infrmationd qual.,” even if, in one casek, the audience went from makg ncredible profits to screaming about being conned a decade later, due to this subtle erosion of the landcape. It’s also why today’s music absolutely tinks:no one is getting paid to make quality music.