Rather than go back and forth with a bunch of posts, I'm just going to put my thoughts into a single post and let it be...
Thought #1
There is relative safety from predators for a single zebra in a vast herd. The probability of falling prey to a lion or cheetah is comparatively small and might not feel like a big deal. For the zebras that do fall prey, it is a very big deal.
The "herd" breaks speed limits on the freeway every day. It's not enforced en masse. This emboldens the masses to accept comparatively low risk and break the speed limit, thinking it's not a big deal. For those of us that have been pulled over and received a speeding ticket, it's a big deal.
Thought #2
Practical enforceability changes with technology. When I lived in New Zealand, there were speed cameras employed for limit enforcement. Some were mobile, some were fixed in place. No one pulls you over -- you just get your violation and fine in the mailbox.
If municipalities wanted to enforce speed limits en masse, they could, thanks to technology. The reason they don't? It's the same as any vice tax purported to discourage the vice: if it's too successful, the revenue from fines dries up. If it's not successful enough, the revenue dries up.
Thought #3
Technology for enforcing copyrights for images will advance. In years ahead, recognition algorithms might advance to the point where images posted online, regardless of the context, will be tagged and flagged by automated technology designed to identify possible copyright infringement and notify the rights holder. Such technology can be a blessing, but it can also be a vehicle for enforcing ill-conceived laws.
France and Italy might not enforce the current copyright/photography laws, like a cop with a radar gun against the tide of traffic, but things could be very different once they trade that "cop" in for the cyber-enforcement equivalent of a speed camera.
Thought #4
Those wishing to enforce copyrights for images taken of their public structures without permission will be the initiator, not a municipality. That produces a very different dynamic. Think of patent enforcement and even patent trolling, but for photographs. If I receive (authentic!) notice from attorneys representing the owner of a prominent building in Europe, and I don't have the funds for a legal battle, I might opt to pay the fine because it will cost me less in the long run, regardless of whether or not I was within or without the law and how "commercial use" is defined.
Thought #5
If I remember correctly, there were mentions at the start of this thread of getting input from attorneys to better understand the proposed law as it is currently written. When references to attorneys' opinions/testimony on the very subject were provided, they were dismissed as just opinion. Such opinions need not be sufficient to prove an outcome in order to be relevant to demonstrating the
potential outcomes. After all, it will be attorneys who argue before judges when it comes time to enforce the law. You might not agree with their opinion
now, but a judge might
then.
Thought #6
One might argue that, as the motion is currently written, some of the sensationalizing is unwarranted. Let's also remember that laws are often poorly written. It could very well be that this law is intended to do what the "sensationalists" purport but was just poorly written. The concerns represented by the media reports might be from interviews of the backers of the motion who communicated more clearly an intent that was poorly encoded in the motion verbiage.
Discouraging sensationalizing is one thing. Getting sidetracked in trying to prove the accuracy or inaccuracy of predictions of the practical effects of a law is quite another. Perhaps we can be less confrontational in this dialogue, eh?
Thought #7
Freedom is not protected by playing the odds of enforcement. It is protected by vigilance and guarding against the enactment of laws that expand power, even if that merely opens the unlikely
possibility of it being "lawfully" enforced to the fullest. Historically, governments tend to continue to expand their power, reach and appetite for central control. Only very rarely to do governments relinquish control back to the people without bloodshed. Thus, it is imperative that those who love freedom are watchful. I would prefer not to leave my practical freedom to the whims of enforcement of a law that should never have been enacted. I'm not in favor of sensationalism, but let's also be sure not to label exploration of potential outcomes as sensationalism.
To American readers (and to those elsewhere who share the sentiments of the holiday), Happy Independence Day tomorrow!
PS: I normally avoid writing such long posts. For those who made it all the way through, I hope it was easy to "connect the
dots thoughts."
