Talk:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 150 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Wikipedia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2019 and 17 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ambiguityy.

Above undated message substituted from

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2019 and 17 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ambiguityy.

Above undated message substituted from

Is breakdown of votes between political groups available? If so, it should be included next to information that 348 MPs voted in favor and 278 MPs voted against. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a breakdown by MP is appropriate but we can do breakdown by country, as it has been established in most sources that support/opposition is primarily demonstrated at that level. --Masem (t) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both might be appropriate, since the Directive has largely been a project of the center-right parties. Unfortunately, such information is not yet available as far as I can see. Pretty sure activists will want to mobilize against those in favor wrt the EU elections in May, so I expect a list to appear sooner rather than later. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The breakdown could be quite interesting. From what little I've seen collated so far, the breakdowns within nations could be significantly different from the totals. E.g., the S&D overall were 99 in favour, 54 opposed and 6 abstaining, while I've heard that within the German contingent, only 1 SPD member was in favour. Waiting for more comprehensive lists is probably the best course of action, and shouldn't take long.

talk) 17:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The vote even by party line would be questionable unless it is clear other third-party sources are doing it, otherwise it creates the appearance of original research (Framing data in a way not previously framed before). By I do know that vote-by-country is how its been framed throughout the working through passage, so its not so much original research. --Masem (t) 18:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did add a chart with the votes by political group to the article. It shows the corrected voted (7 MPs of S&D changed their vote because they said they made a "mistake" for example see page 53 -a lot of EPP MPs made mistakes as well but in addition it only changes 1 vote against and 1 abstention-) In detail the results after corrections are:

EPP +153 -29 a12 (without corrections +153 -28 a13)

S&D +92 -61 a6 (without corrections +99 -54 a6)

ECR +23 -42 a2

ALDE +35 -26 a3 (without correction +36 -25 a3)

Greens-EFA +4 -39 a4

GUE/NGL +5 -36 a3

EFDD +6 -28 a1

ENF +15 -14 a3

Non-Inscrits +5 -9 a2 (without corrections +7 -8 a1)

In the chart I did add the members who were not present to the abstentions. (By the way: The European Parliament itself lists the votes by political group and not by country. Makes sense because the MPs sit with their political group and not with all MPs of their country. On the other hand in a lot of countries MPs of different parties did vote very different, although they are from the same country. Most members of the Greens and GUE/NGL for example voted against the directive, although most MPs of their countries voted for the directive) --Yoda1893 (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can find the numbers without corrections. But I think it makes more sense to include them. --Yoda1893 (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the corrections in the chart because they were not actually counted and would not have changed the decision. [1] --Yoda1893 (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section needs be edited to reflect Susan Wojcicki's status as former ceo 24.31.27.227 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]