(If you are looking for information about federal transfers to a certain province, or federal expenditures vs revenues in the provinces, please go to either this post for information about all federal transfers to all the provinces, and this post for a…
I found this unusual mix of painting and glass to be rather striking, and the haunting quality of this work certainly resonates with me as a depression survivor.
I took these photos back in 2010 when they were on display at KWArtzlab in Kitchener.
I am horrified that I’ve misplaced the artist’s name…. does anyone know? (I hate not being able to credit the artist.)
I found this unusual mix of painting and glass to be rather striking, and the haunting quality of this work certainly resonates with me as a depression survivor.
I took these photos back in 2010 when they were on display at KWArtzlab in Kitchener.
I am horrified that I’ve misplaced the artist’s name…. does anyone know? (I hate not being able to credit the artist.)
Suicide is a last resort. It is often a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Talk to someone. If you can’t talk, you may be suffering from clinical depression; see a doctor.
Happy birthday to Édouard Manet, born on this day in 1832. Manet was one of the first artists to paint modern life, and was a major figure in the transition from Realism to Impressionism.
The European Union’s Copyright Directive has led a
tortured life, even by the standards of EU law. This bundle of
legislation, intended to comprehensively update copyright for the
internet age, was hotly debated in Parliament and public all last year. But as of the beginning of this month, it seemed to be edging its way toward a final vote.
That is until last Friday, when six countries switched sides during negotiations, booting the proposed directive back into legislative limbo yet again.
Strangely, the points being debated haven’t changed
substantially since last year. While most of the Copyright Directive
contains commonsense updates to laws written in 2001, there are two
regulations that are causing trouble. These are Articles 11 and 13,
which critics have dubbed the “link tax” and “upload filter.”
Article 11 gives publishers the right to charge a fee
when platforms like Google or Facebook show snippets of their articles,
while Article 13 makes these platforms directly liable for user-uploaded
content that infringes copyright. The reason the latter is referred to
as the “upload filter” is that it would likely be enforced by scanning
content before it’s uploaded. Think of it like YouTube’s Content ID, but preemptively covering most of the internet.
Why did negotiations fail?
Articles 11 and 13 are currently locked into the
Copyright Directive itself. The way legislation like this is passed in
the EU is that different parts of the government come up with their own
versions and then negotiate with member states to create a compromise
text that satisfies all parties (theoretically, anyway). Last year, both
the European Council and the European Parliament approved versions of the text with Articles 11 and 13, which means these proposals aren’t going anywhere. What can change are the details of their implementation.
The current set of negotiations — a three-way discussion
between the Council, Parliament, and member states known as “trilogues” —
were meant to discuss exactly that. But talks were derailed last week
because of disagreements over the exact wording of these articles.
For Article 11, the key question was the definition of a
“snippet.” Should it constitute the first paragraph of an article? The
headline and opening sentence? Or just any text at all?
For Article 13, the issue was whether all user-generated
platforms should be liable for copyright infringement, or if special
dispensations should be made for smaller companies, those with revenues
of less than €20 million a year, for example.
There’s no qualified majority to reject changes or keep them in
“The council is in a deadlock because there is no
qualified majority for keeping [these changes] in or for taking them
out,” Julia Reda, an MEP for the Pirate Party and one of the Copyright
Directive’s leading critics, told The Verge. “The
result is that the trilogue that was planned for [Monday, January 23rd]
was cancelled and we now have to wait for the Council to come up with a
new position.”
Prior to Friday’s talks, a minority group of the EU’s 28
member states were fighting for more generous interpretations of these
articles. These were Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, and
Slovenia. But on Friday, they were joined by representatives from
Sweden, Croatia, Portugal, Luxembourg, Poland, and Italy, creating a
sizable bloc.
What will happen next?
From this point on, the Copyright Directive is drifting into uncharted waters.
If the legislation is going to be accepted into law
across the EU (and then implemented by individual member states), it
needs to be approved in a plenary vote by the European Parliament. (Yes,
that’s right — there’s more voting to be done.)
But, as there is a limited number of plenary sessions
this year before EU elections take place in May, time is running out.
After the elections, any fragile consensus among MEPs that are
established in the next few months could be destroyed as new politicians
take office. This could “completely upend the process,” says Cory
Doctorow, blogger, activist, and special adviser to the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. “Especially given the other kinds of political
turmoil roiling EU member-states.”
Changes in EU governments have created problems for the copyright directive
The evidence that this could happen is clear just from
the breakdown of talks last week. Part of the reason the negotiations
failed on Friday is that Italy switched its position, which was caused
by a change in government last year from a more technocratically minded
center-left coalition to a populist, center-right coalition.
If the directive is to reach a plenary vote in whatever
form, trilogues need to be resumed and a compromise text agreed upon
quickly. According to Reda, the longer this takes, the less likely it is
that the legislation will pass this spring. “If by the beginning of
February they have found a new text they will have the final vote,” she
says. “But if nothing happens by the end of the month … the final vote
would take place under the next parliament.”
Whether this will happen is anyone’s guess. When The Verge
asked the European Council whether a new text would be proposed soon, a
spokesperson said only that “the Council needs more time to finalize
its position” and that there is “no other date for a trilogue yet.”
For those fighting what they say will be the worst
effects of the legislation — automated censorship and a stifling of free
expression online — recent events do offer some hope. Reda says that if
there hadn’t been public outcry, the proposal would already have been
adopted. “We still have a possibility to stop Article 11 or 13 or at
least remove the most problematic parts,” she says.
A fair result: everyone’s unhappy
For those on the sidelines, removing Article 11 and 13
and coming back to them later does seem like the easy option. Exactly
why this hasn’t happened isn’t clear, although most blame the entrenched
positions of the entertainment industry, which is refusing to
compromise on these articles, despite widespread criticism from
academics and activists.
“Why can’t the Directive be adopted without these
controversial provisions? The answer is likely that copyright policy is
not based on evidence but on horse trading,” Martin Kretschmer, a
professor of intellectual property law at the University of Glasgow,
tells The Verge. “Provisions favoring one sector, or political
interests in one member state, are traded against interests in another
country or sector.”
Even some industry lobbyists are backing away from the directive
Another reason is that there has been little stable
ground on which a compromise could be built. As well as changes in
member states’ positions and in the composition of the European
Parliament, industry lobbyists have also flip-flopped.
Big publishers and news outlets are fighting Google for the link tax, but many small publishers have sided
with the tech giants. (To them, traffic from news snippets is more
important than license fees.) Music and film companies were originally
responsible for the inclusion of upload filter, battling platforms like
YouTube for it, but many of these rights-holders are now backing away from the filter,
worried about the difficulty of enforcing such a measure now that
there’s a chance they’ll be partly responsible for its upkeep.
It is, in short, an almighty mess. It’s perhaps exactly
what you’d expect when a political organization like the EU that’s built
on the principle of compromise attempts to exert control over an entity
like the internet, an ecosystem with as many stakeholders as users. But
one thing is clear: the Copyright Directive is still coming, whether
it’s welcome or not.
