EU Politicians Try To Create A New 'Link Tax' To Protect Newspapers Who Don't Like Sites Linking For Free
from the don't-do-this dept
Bad ideas never die. Although there have been some recent minor steps in a positive direction concerning copyright in the EU, politicians have been trying to undermine them with really terrible ideas. We already covered the push to effectively outlaw outdoor photography, and now it appears that (despite already having this proposal voted down), some are pushing for a so-called "ancillary copyright" concept, better known as a snippet tax or a link tax.The basic idea here is that newspapers that have failed to innovate want to blame third party aggregators (mainly Google News) for somehow "damaging" their business because they link to stories with snippets, and then send traffic to those newspaper websites. We've spent years talking about how it's weird to complain about a giant site sending you traffic, but some old school publishers can't seem to get past the fact that Google is big and successful while their own sites are not -- and assume that means that Google somehow "stole" their revenue. In response, they've pushed ridiculous proposals to require anyone who aggregates content with links back to the original to pay a weird fee, above and beyond the traffic that they're sending.
These plans have backfired pretty much everywhere they've been tried. Because it's nonsensical to charge someone to send you more traffic, aggregators have done things like removing those publishers or removing snippets only to see howls of protest from those same publishers who previously claimed that such things were "stealing." In the most extreme case, in Spain, where a law was written that made it mandatory for such a link tax, Google News shut down completely -- once again leading to howls of protest from the newspapers who previously had been arguing that Google was somehow stealing from them. It's an odd sort of "stealing" where you'd run complaining to the government when it goes away.
Either way, all this leads to a silly and nonsensical resolution from MEP Angelika Niebler, working with a number of German MEPs (Germany is where the strongest push for a link tax has come from), arguing for a special new copyright right, which it claims is about supporting journalism:
Calls on the Commission to evaluate and come forward with a proposal on how quality journalism can be preserved, even in the digital age, in order to guarantee media pluralism, in particular taking into account the important role journalists, authors and media providers such as press publishers play with regard theretoWhile not directly calling for a link tax (which Niebler had pushed in an earlier amendment that had been rejected), it's a pretty obvious attempt to open the door for such a link tax to return in the near future. In the link above, MEP Julia Reda notes that Niebler's own party, the European People's Party (EPP) had already agreed that no more amendments would be added -- but Niebler went ahead and added it anyway.
The good folks at OpenMedia are vocally opposing this amendment and have set up a site at SaveTheLink.org with more information. The EU Parliament will vote on this proposal tomorrow. While it won't determine what the eventual law is, it may help guide dangerous future proposals that could have serious consequences for how the internet works (or doesn't) in Europe.
It's time for major publishers to get over the fact that they've failed to innovate and failed to keep up with the way the internet works, while others have stepped in and done a better job. Blaming others for your failures is one thing. Looking to the government to change the way the internet and free expression work, just to try to squeeze money out of the companies who did innovate, is a cynical and backwards looking move. EU citizens and their elected officials should not allow it to happen.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ancillary tax, angelika niebler, eu, europe, google tax, journalism, julia reda, link tax, media, snippet tax
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you send me traffic without paying me for the privilege of doing so, then..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If you send me traffic without paying me for the content you use, then..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know, how much did TD make with my visit? I guess you know because otherwise you wouldn't ask, right?
Besides I'm not linking that side to generate income for myself. But one might argue that by commenting here I generate income for TD so the theoretical correct question would be "How much did TD pay me for commenting here?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, google are making an income. But it is not from the news stories themselves but from a service they offer their customers. This service by the way which generates more traffic for the news outlets, it is a win win situation for both google and the newspapers.
The only thing is google can survive without news aggregation the newspapers cannot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Theirs is a zero sum world. They can't envision "win win" outcomes. If somebody else's getting something, they assume they must be losing out in some way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
' "How much did TD pay me for commenting here?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However it's spun, the newspapers are demanding to be paid for the free traffic and advertising that search engines are providing them, at no cost to the newspapers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, then according to you the newspapers must be right. The newspapers don't pay anything for the free traffic and advertising. So just to clear it up, you are for payment to the newspapers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point, which you apparently missed, either intentionally or not, was that the newspapers are getting something for free that they would normally have to pay for, that being increased traffic towards their site, and free advertising.
They know full well the value of what the search engines are giving them(for free in case you forgot), as evidenced by the screaming and begging the last few times they've tried this stunt and Google has called their bluff by pulling the excerpts.
Both times they were practically begging Google to re-list them in a matter of days at most, as the traffic to their sites plummeted without those excerpts showing up, so the idea that Google should, in addition to sending them traffic, be paying for the 'privilege', is beyond absurd, and greed at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It'd be interesting to see the publisher's reaction if search was to demand a fee in turn; the publishers clearly value what search provides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would really be an interesting moment when people ask to be paid for traffic. On one side for the reaction the publishers would have but on another side what would happen in general.
F.e. TD links to a news story or background information on another site. This site might get traffic from the link but should you be able to force them to pay you?
An extreme example might be a blog post consisting of links only. Each word had a link you can click on. How do you meassure that? What about ppl with ref blockers?
So the best solution is the War Games one, don't start a war because noone is going to win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More importantly, the newspapers obviously didnt' learn fromt he example of either Spain or France; when these kinds of laws were pushed through, advertising revenues plummeted and threatened those newspapers who had lobbied for those laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It makes sense if you are a middleman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is exactly what cable companies have to do to be able to carry advertising supported TV content. Not doing so, and not being allowed to do so is what killed Aereo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How do they "use" it if they're just directing others to it, girl?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
News article
No actual content used, so there's no need to pay. I'm sure the publishers will love the amount of traffic these links generate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overwhelming greed and short-term gains
Google and other search engines are sending them increased traffic, at no cost to them, and yet all they can think about is, 'How can we make them pay for the increased traffic they're sending our way?'
Companies pay large sums in order to draw in more people to their sites, yet these parasites just can't get enough, and just can't stop themselves from attacking the very companies helping them for free. The sooner they crash and burn for good the better off everyone will be, and hopefully their replacements will be a little smarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains
As someone else put it, the only real right you have is to choose (the one right that everyone else wants to take away from you, whether it be government, business, your neighbour, etc.) some course of action. But this right requires that you accept responsibility for your choice.
This MEP and the businesses she supports want to remove choice from everyone but themselves and then place responsibility for their choices back onto those that they have removed choice from. How does the meerkat say it - Simple, ehh!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains
This "age" has been going on for some time, something on the order of 195,000 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains
Mind you, it appears that the litigious nature of the USA has promulgated around the world. When we were young, we always thought you Yanks were real nutcases when you did something obviously stupid and brought out the legal guns to blame someone else for your own stoopidity.
What we have observed since is that this same mindset has moved into other areas like a slow moving bacterial infection that cannot be stopped by the best anti-bacterial medicines available.
It now infects every area of society in lots of nations around the world, from politics to education to business to social welfare to entertainment to etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains
You may not have been exposed to it in your youth, but it was there all along. Evidence is scattered throughout the history of the human race.
Some refer to it as human nature, I think of it as animalistic fear. Do unto others before they do unto you.
Hopefully, humans will some day see how this is detrimental to their well being and stop being such dicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains
This has been one of the big shifts in social dynamics in the last lot of [decayeds].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains
... and they believe that they are allowed to use, without attribution or compensation, any and all content they find anywhere. They just do it and when called out they feign ignorance and blame some lowly intern who they do not even pay. Or, they come up with a bizarre rational for why they are allowed to so and then claim they are being persecuted by relentless nobodies who feel entitled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains
Firstly, providing a link to the content is even better than simple attribution, so you're wrong there. Second, you don't explain why they shouldn't be allowed to use, with attribution, any and all content they find freely distributed anywhere, particular when the linked publisher benefits directly from it at no cost to them.
On that last bit, can you explain why publishers shouldn't have to compensate news aggregators for providing a service that collects attentive eyeballs and directs them their way? We know it's a valuable service because they complain when it's taken away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains
I was ranting against those who claim their precious links are being pirated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That way they can not complain about the links being removed like they did last time, but the effect is very similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those who scream loudly "If you don't like our terms, then do without" need to follow their own advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful what you wish for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quality journalism
Easy - you preserve quality journalism by preserving the quality of the journalism, and not just copy official statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which amounts to the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many snippets do you read?
That's probably the issue here. If I read a snippet and decide not to click the link, I've read content from the site without actually viewing the site and benefiting the site owner.
It benefits the site with the snippets, because I go there to decide which sites to visit - but the producer of the content receives no benefit unless I click to visit the site.
On the other hand, I wouldn't even know the site had the content available unless I saw the snippet. I'd never know to visit the site unless I was made aware of the content that it offered. So, aggregators provide free advertising for the sites with content.
I propose that all news aggregators charge an advertising fee to any site they advertise content for by posting snippets equal to any link tax imposed by the new law.
You don't want to provide me content (snippets) for free, I won't advertise your content for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many magazine headlines do you read while waiting in line at the grocery store and then not purchase even one of those rags?
"It benefits the site with the snippets, because I go there to decide which sites to visit "
Just like I go to the grocery store to decide which pathetic magazine to buy.
"I propose that all news aggregators charge an advertising fee to any site they advertise content for by posting snippets equal to any link tax imposed by the new law. "
That proposal seems a bit petty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The entire argument that news aggregators should pay a link tax is petty. I was just taking things to their absurd but logical conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...do they complain about RSS feeds?
Do those same newspapers have RSS feeds? Several that do send their links straight to a paywall! NYT, WSJ, Aviation Week to name a few. What's the difference between an RSS feed and a third party aggregator? BOTH send readers to their stories.
Now getting their story read might be another issue. If there's a paywall...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today's Internet suffers from an implementation problem.
"You're smart, Geordie. Just make it work."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Round and round we go...
But probably will let it happen - at least long enough to realize their mistake the hard way, as usual.
(Not that I actually think that the EU citizens have any more control over their government's activities than Americans have over their own government's activities, of course.)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Einstein sez (sorta)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
URL are like an Address of a Building
As far as snippets, they are covered by the Fair Use provisions of the U.S. copyright law. Unfortunately not all countries have similar laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traffic Not The Same As Profitability
A lot of abuse against 'greedy publishers' is being thrown around in this debate. But people are making a basic mis-assumption -- that 'traffic' to a site is the same as profitability.
In fact, clickbait culture means the old economic models that supported quality journalism are broken. The seriousness of this cannot be overstated -- it has contributed to the rise of a 'post-truth society that allows things like Trump and Brexit.
Google makes money out of content it does not create. The creators of that content have no easy means, nowadays, of making money from it, no matter how high this 'traffic' they should apparently be so grateful for.
Perhaps this link tax is a clumsy solution but I don't see much awareness in the above debate that there's a real problem out there that the publishers are trying to solve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really. It maybe true that traffic itself isn't a guarantee for profit. Bu the traffic at least is an opportunity to make profit. If a newsmaker gets lots of traffic and then fails to exploit this opportunity to somehow turn a profit, this isn't really the agregator's fault (or problem).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approve d
The thing is Goolge is no LexisNexis. Such service aggregators like LexisNexis create a searchable database of all content that had originally appeared in print. These service aggregators will pay for the printed content allowing them to have it in their database. In otherwords LexisNexis purchases content that was never released on the internet and make it availabe on their website. Google aggregates content already freely available on the internet. Big difference here wherein LexisNexis generates web traffic exclusively to their website requiring paid membership to access their aggregated content while Google generates traffic to the orinators' content website.
It's odd to "tax" Google or the like for the mere act of providing a free "service" benefiting the content owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]