Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Then those parts of UK that were part of the Roman empire would outside the EU, while those parts outside the Roman empire would be in the EU.

The Spanish emperor Hadrian built a wall against the Caledonians, while the Spanish prime minister Rajoy (preoccupied with those pesky Catalan separatists) would veto a Scottish EU membership.

Today, in a vote that split almost every major EU party, Members of the European Parliament adopted every terrible proposal in the new Copyright Directive and rejected every good one, setting the stage for mass, automated surveillance and arbitrary censorship of the internet.

Today, Europe Lost The Internet.

The directive was originally rejected by MEPs in July following criticism of two key provisions: Articles 11 and 13, dubbed the “link tax” and “upload filter” by critics. However, in parliament this morning, an updated version of the directive was approved, along with amended versions of Articles 11 and 13. [...] The directive itself still faces a vote in January 2019 (although experts say it’s unlikely it will be rejected). After that it will need to be implemented by individual EU member states, who could very well vary significantly in how they choose to interpret the directive’s text.

The proposal requires Member States to establish mechanisms aiming at facilitating the clearance of copyright and related rights in the fields of out-of-commerce works and online exploitation of audiovisual works. Whereas the proposal aims at ensuring a wider access and dissemination of content, it does so while preserving the rights of authors and other rightholders. Several safeguards are put in place to that effect (e.g. opt-out possibilities, preservation of licensing possibilities, participation in the negotiation forum on a voluntary basis). The proposal does not go further than what is necessary to achieve the intended aim while leaving sufficient room for Member States to make decisions as regards the specifics of these mechanisms and does not impose disproportionate costs.

What this law wants?
A door opener for mass, automated surveillance and arbitrary censorship of the Internet.

What this law wants?
A door opener for mass, automated surveillance and arbitrary censorship of the Internet.

If Article 13 only applies to big companies, it is not so much of a concern, regardless of the stupidity of the particular regulation. Google News is crap anyway.

And I don't believe Google News is a useful or profitable thing anyway, so I'd be fine if Google scrapped the thing entirely.

Not sure what specifically could have been copyrighted in my video

In your case it sounds like a simple false positive.

Nothing has changed with regard to earlier regulations except that people are being bugged for consent.

It seems Russians are nervous with just 300.000 vehicles and troops a few km of their borders.

Maybe we should have sent the double.

How about an extra NATO tax imposed on each EU citizen to finance such upcoming war games?

'm sure that all Portuguese would be delighted for paying such an extra tax to make the Russians "nervous".

What's going on in Europe? Norway invited Nato to do the biggest military exercise these days in their mainland.
It seems Russians are nervous with just 300.000 vehicles and troops a few km of their borders.
Maybe we should have sent the double.

Peace might break out in South Sudan. Then again, it might not. 

What are the prospects for South Sudan’s new peace agreement? Here are the critical next steps.

Initially the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia rebranded themselves as the new Axis of Evil, an inauspicious start. Pledges and goals were notable by their absence.

[Human rights] court, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, ruled Greece violated the European Convention on Human Rights by applying Sharia law in the case, under which a Muslim Greek man’s will bequeathing all he owned to his wife was deemed invalid after it was challenged by his sisters.

The man’s widow, Chatitze Molla Sali, appealed to the European court in 2014, having lost three quarters of her inheritance. She argued she had been discriminated against on religious grounds as, had her husband not been Muslim, she would have inherited his entire estate under Greek law.

[...]

"Greece was the only country in Europe which, up until the material time, had applied Sharia law to a section of its citizens against their wishes," the court said in its ruling.

"That was particularly problematic in the present case because the application of Sharia law had led to a situation that was detrimental to the individual rights of a widow who had inherited her husband’s estate in accordance with the rules of civil law but who had then found herself in a legal situation which neither she nor her husband had intended."

Molla Sali’s husband had drawn up his will according to Greek law, and both a first instance and an appeals court initially ruled in her favor in the dispute with her sisters-in-law. But further court decisions ruled that inheritance issues within the Muslim minority had to be dealt with under Islamic religious law, and the will was deemed invalid.