Talk:Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001

message: The article used to include this text:
:For example, the UK Patent Office withdrew its initial proposal for a fast-track implementation (using the European Communities Act), and British parliament may now have to pass customised implementation legislation.
I have removed it, because the UK did pass the EUCD into law in 2003. Although the linked text of the law says "Coming into force ... 31st October 2003", the previous page says "Came into force on 31 October 2003."
This removal detracts from the remaining sentence that preceded it:
:Many important details are not specified in the Directive, and as a result, EU member states have significant freedom in certain aspects of directive implementation.
Can someone find another example of problematic implementation, or re-work this sentence?  — PhilHibbs | talk 13:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed only example of problematic legislation

message: This page doesn't say anything about the actual law... What it does, etc. Retinarow 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of content?

message: I think the current article name is inappropriate.  It think it should be moved back to "EU Copyright directive", or perhaps EU 2001 Copyright Directive.  We have no obligation to refer to something by the official name.  That makes linking and such unnecessarily difficult.  Thoughts? Superm401 - Talk 05:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong disagree.  Most EU directives don't have "short titles", and those common names that do exist are usually ambiguous (there are half a dozen directives covering copyright, for example). Use of the full name (or rather an abbreviated version, omitting the number and date which are given in the lead paragraph and table) is the only way to ensure consistent naming of articles on EU directives. Linking can be facilitated by making as many redirects as you like—"Redirects are cheap", and that's what they're there for! Physchim62 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree too. The current article name is the actual name of the directive. Other forms are well-known too, but they're shortened forms with no consensus on which of those would be most appropriate. I think the article name should be the official name and would find it hard to justify changing it for esthetic reasons. As for the convenience reasons, a number of these short forms have been set up as redirects. — Northgrove 12:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Some proposed amendments to WP:EU/MOS would require renaming this article. For comments please go to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Style guidelines#Some proposed amendments. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. In fact my views on the subject have changed in the last two years, and I would no longer oppose a page move. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The directive is referred to as InfoSoc Directive among professionals and academics alike and definitely deservs a redirect. EU Copyright Directive is not a precise title (as there are several others which deal with certain aspects of copyright) but should also probably redirect here. --As286 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: "Copyright Directive" is by far the commonest title. If it were so ambiguous, why does "EU Copyright Directive" redirect here instead of being a disambiguation page. The article could and should contain links to other directives which involve copyright. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: A search of the European Commission's website produces only 18 hits for the "InfoSoc Directive" but 317 for the "Copyright Directive". — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: InfoSoc Directive redirects to this article. --Red King (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name (again) 

message: copyrightexceptions.eu presents a list of implemented exceptions per jurisdiction. Its data is licensed as CC0. I cannot include the data into this article, I'm the projects principal researcher and don't want to be slapped with an 'original research' remark. However, if other find this topic interesting I might suggest using http://copyrightexceptions.eu/#table as a way to show which exceptions is implemented in which jurisdciton.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martsniez (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  Thanks for pointing this out.  (And for making that very useful website!)  I'll give it a go.  Great floors (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enrichment of the implemented exceptions per jurisdiction 

message: The 2016 European Commission copyright reform proposal
should be discussed on this page.  It is not yet settled as of October 2017.  I don't think this reform has a page of its own already, but ideally it should.  With best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed directive from 2016 (which is currently in the ordinary Co-decision procedure is being described at Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. This is plausible as the CDSM-Directive will not replace and only slightly alter the existing InfoSoc-Directive. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 copyright reform 

message: I have requested that the page be moved to Information Society Directive (not InfoSoc Directive, as it is a bit newspeak. When the move has gone through, that name can be set up as a redirect). Afterwards we will have to go through the "what directs here" to see whether they are good to continue to Copyright Law or whether they are actually talking about the Information Society Directive. But that is routine after any page move. --Red King (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the move is complete. Work needs to begin now on reviewing the "what directs here" pages for Copyright Directive, please. I have already done InfoSoc Directive. --Red King (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the links arise from their use of :Template:Legislation of the European Union, which I have just changed. So I suggest waiting 24 hours until this propagates and then see what is left to do. --Red King (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Done