Well the European parliament is often enough a laughable assembly, but the British long stopped to be any fun ...

I read up about the decision process for this law, it now has to pass a "Trilog" with member states and commission, before returning again to parliament.

Regarding Brexit: you may count on a bespoke "red, white and blue" copyright law in Britain, but once the UK ceased to be a member state, it'll have no say anymore on EU laws.

And I suppose there are far more UK web firms depending on European clients than the other way round.

Hence another epic fail...

And what makes you think that this or similar laws will be abandoned by any UK gov after Brexit?

I do not know how UK members-of-EU-parliament voted, or if they indeed voted in one solid bloc against the law but I would think that there must be some very strong financial interests in action here, extending beyond the corpus of small-time-crooks within the EU parliament.

I can not just believe that it is idiocy or some other inability to think coherently, the reason that such a blatant (and idiotic in its execution) law was proposed in the first place.

And I can not just believe that when any country leaves the EU, their collective common sense will increase and will see the light. They will only be subjected to different kind of financial interests which may or may not favour such a law for the time being, hence adopt a different program of brain wash.

It may be true that a smaller country can be controlled easier by the voters. Maybe, but it is rarely reality in the countries around me. For example, millions against iraq war but it did happen and it was broad daylight, with blatant lies.

Do we know who benefits from this law? Who lobbied for it?

And what makes you think that this or similar laws will be abandoned by any UK gov after Brexit?

I don't think it will but I hope that it will. The rationale for such hope is that HMG is enacting Brexit and therefore logically* should be at least hesitant in rushing through any last-minute horror shows like this for fear of a public backlash. Also they are in the happy position of being able to play wait-and-see: they can simply see how bad this is for the rEU after implementation there (and it has the potential to be very bad indeed) and then decide at a later date to shelve it completely.

Do we know who benefits from this law? Who lobbied for it?

The audio and video rights holders will and did.

* Yes, I realise the humour potential in this.

let's hope then

Well I was against the crap shroud and I didn't get my way. I say that only because a majority opinion doesn't make it correct, or incorrect. Not that it has anything to do with the thread, but in 2003 mostly people agreed with the war in Iraq. Just like Americans largely agreed with going to Vietnam in mid to late 1960s. And they'll largely agree the next time and the next after that. Cause you don't get to all out war without large public support, by design. The Gallup Iraq poll shows 52% wanted to remove Saddam "with ground troops" 6 months before Sept 11. Why has USA not seriously attacked Syria? Because there is not enough public support to do so.

Wait, am I allowed to link to these news sites now? Maybe this law will be good for some, they can claim it's too expensive to supply evidence for internet arguments. Let the misinformation campaigns begin!

Proudly swimming upstream since I was a sperm, bw bliako