Leaked EU Copyright Proposal A Complete Mess: Want To Tax Google To Prop Up Failing Publishers
from the that's-not-the-role-of-copyright dept
Well, here we go again with the bad EU copyright proposals. Just a few days ago, Mozilla actually launched a petition to call on the EU to update its copyright laws for the 21st century, to make it "so we can tinker, create, share, and learn on the internet." Apparently the EU's answer to this is "Fuck You!"According to a leaked draft of the EU Commission's plan to "modernize" copyright, the plan really seems focused on coming up with new ways to tax successful internet companies, like Google, to prop up other companies and industries that have failed to adapt. Apparently, the EU Commission thinks that copyright should be a tool to punish innovation and to reward those who have refused to innovate.
The leaked draft talks repeatedly about this silly idea of a "value gap." Just a few weeks ago we discussed why the "value gap" is a misleading talking point. It's being used by companies that didn't innovate to try to guarantee a business model, with that model being "have the government force successful companies to subsidize us, because we didn't adapt to the current market." And this draft is full of that kind of thinking.
The draft also continues to weigh "the impact" of various proposals on different stake holders. For example, it notes whether different proposals will have a "positive, neutral, or negative" impact on rightsholders, internet services, consumers and "fundamental rights." While it's nice that they include the "fundamental rights" (and the public -- who, it should be noted, are more than just "consumers") it feels like they're trying to set up proposals again that are sort of "balancing" all of these interests, rather than finding the one that maximizes overall utility. In fact, it's quite troubling that they seem to think that anything that directly expands copyright automatically benefits "rightsholders." We've seen how that's not true at all. Greater freedom to remix, reuse and build on the works of others allow everyday people to become creators themselves more easily. And saddling internet platforms also harms many, many content creators who are only able to create, publicize, distribute, connect and monetize because of these new platforms. But the draft doesn't seem to take much of that into account -- or sort of hand-waves it away.
Even the way the draft describes "problems" show that it's biased at looking for ways to prop up old industries:
In particular intervention at EU level is expected, because of its scale, to strengthen publishers bargaining powers in a more effective way than it has happened under national measures such as the "ancillary rights" adopted in DE and ES, where major online service providers either closed down their news aggregation services (ES) or concluded free licences for the use of publishers' content (DE) which did not generate any remuneration for publishers so far. Moreover the related right granted to press publishers under this option would be different from the ES law insofar as it would be an exclusive right and not an unwaivable compensation: this would leave news publishers a greater margin for manoeuvre to negotiate different types of agreements with service providers and is therefore expected to be more effective for them in the long run (notably as it will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a flexible way).Basically, so much is looking at how can we prop up newspaper businesses by basically forcing Google to pay them to link to them. Even more ridiculously, the report says that basically pushing Google to pay to link to news will "benefit consumers" because it will mean more "high quality" news. That seems like a dubious assumption.
Consumers reap considerable benefits from news aggregators and social media news providers. At the same time they also benefit from high quality newspaper content feeding these channels of consumption. By fostering the production of high quality news content, this option is expected to have a positive impact on consumers. Better market conditions for the news publishing industry could give rise to the development of innovative offers for the digital distribution of news content, with larger catalogues and more choice. Digital subscription of newspapers and magazines are expected to be further developed, which will be particularly beneficial to consumers given the decline of print products.That seems like the EU Commission is only thinking a single step out, and not any further about how business models may develop. Doing this will also lock in Google as the dominant player and not allow newer, better, more innovative startups to enter the market without first having to raise significant amounts of capital. The report notes that consumer groups disagree with the assumption that consumers will benefit under such a plan, but the entirety of the Commissions reason for this is "well, this is different from the Spanish law that made Google News shut down."
All in all, this looks like (unfortunately typical for Europe) plan written by bureaucrats looking to basically minimize the number of people who are upset, rather than creating the best actual overall plan. As a result, the proposals look to be a mess, that will almost certainly harm innovation and creativity in Europe.
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 copyright, copyright, copyright reform, eu, google tax, publishers
Reader Comments
The First Word
“...and there's the problem right there. The goal of copyright is (or originally was, at least) explicitly to keep publishers in check and suppress their abusive behavior. Any copyright law designed to aid and strengthen publishers (see also: the DMCA) should be looked upon with horror and revulsion by anyone aware of the historical context.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The new publisher `business model' more likely appears to prepare for blaming Google at their eventual demise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is really important to keep a healthy press alive, but this is not the way...
As a sidenote, what do they mean with bargain power? Newssite have none at all. The choice they have is let google link, or demand pay and watch them stop doing it, killing traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Google must pay us for all the bandwidth THEIR customers are sucking out of our websites!!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hasn't the business model of copyright owning gatekeepers always been to do nothing, keeping the money rolling in from copyright, while giving the talented people little to nothing? Keep the legislative machine greased with money. Erect as many troll gates as possible. Collect fees and royalties on things one has no actual copyright ownership of. Suppress any innovation that might be perceived as a threat -- even if it actually turns out to be the next big money stream for the copyright owners. Use copyright to censor anything unfavorable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"did not generate any remuneration for publishers so far."
Since when should it be the government's job to guarantee or maximize publisher profits. If an aggregator chooses to only link to freely available content and one publisher doesn't like that he can opt out. No one is forcing them to have their content linked to. Why are the profit margins of publishers of such concern to the government?
"Digital subscription of newspapers and magazines are expected to be further developed, which will be particularly beneficial to consumers given the decline of print products. "
and what does the decline of paper and print products have to do with the alleged benefits of digital subscriptions and newspapers. Why can't the government let consumers better choose for themselves what they want to do instead of passing laws intended to choose for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny then that they do use robots.txt to delist themselves from Google. They could even try to get Google to pay them for the privilege of listing their site and using snippets. They know what the impact on their profits of being delisted is, and how much Google actually values their content as opposed to the value of the custom they drive their way, hence the attempts to get a Google tax passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned if they do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and there's the problem right there. The goal of copyright is (or originally was, at least) explicitly to keep publishers in check and suppress their abusive behavior. Any copyright law designed to aid and strengthen publishers (see also: the DMCA) should be looked upon with horror and revulsion by anyone aware of the historical context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Instead we build governments that just give the people we are asking to be saved from more power and money.
Copyright is just ONE of the many RESULTS of that. How many governments of history must fall for humanity to see this? How many civilians, peasants, and slaves must suffer and die before they realize that a government big enough to save them from everything is big enough to take from them EVERYTHING!
You are calling the symptom a problem, instead of the root cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's a pretty large portion of society that can barely take care of itself (elderly, disabled, etc.). Those would fall first.
At best we'd end up under a form of modern feudalism. Only much more savage than its medieval counterpart.
Sure, you and I have morals but there's a lot of Shkrelis and Bresches out there. Enough to make any form of anarchy a no-go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why we can't have nice things.
Anything successful must be dragged down and leeched to failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why we can't have nice things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems Very Backwards
Seriously??
The news sites should be paying Google...
This will not happen, the first thing Google will do is delist the sites and when their traffic does a nose dive they will be screaming to get the law overturned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems Very Backwards
From what we saw over the past years that's a no. Google removes them, and offers to add them again if they sign a contract not to charge Google. The newspapers sign it and then sue Google for illegal business practices based on abuse of monopoly.
iirc they wanted something like 4% of Googles global revenue and those were just German newspapers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave Europe to European companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians sell "protection"
Old-tech publishers donate to get protection from new-tech publishers. New-tech publishers donate to be allowed to continue their business.
Savvy politicians thrive from such rivalries. They conspire with other politicians to heighten awareness and apprehension among opposing industries by alternately promoting one side over the other.
To understand populist politics think, "professional wrestling."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thats because you are conflating rightsholders and creators.. The rightsholders they are talking about are their customers.. The ones that don't create anything, but hold the rights to stuff made in the past. Things that help creators don't help them and things that help creators publish their own works *really* don't help them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We'll call if the 'Make Google Pay Us' act of 2016
'It's not an unwaivable right, it's just one you're not allowed to not charge for, totally different!'
Yeah, they tried to force Google to pay for linking and Google wasn't stupid enough to oblige, instead opting to drop those that charged and only display those that were fine not being paid for the extra traffic Google sends them, so now they're trying to remove that option entirely so that sites have to charge.
Hmm, I wonder if history has anything to say about how that is likely to work out...
They need to stop all this pathetically transparent blather about how this is about 'protecting creators' and just come out and admit that Google has money because it provides products and services people like and use, the old companies didn't bother to actually keep up with what people wanted and assumed that they could just continue doing the same forever without a problem, leading to decreasing profits and control, and they want to force Google to subsidize said failures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny.
2. HOW to control information(BS) limit access.
Let tax every person who passes around the Info in your paper..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that is what they have turned copyright into. With each passing year they keep bastardizing the intended purpose of copyright more and more into what it is now, nothing more than a tool for obsolete businesses to steal money from successful new businesses.
Copyright and all associated laws could be and should be completely eliminated and the entire world would be much much better off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]