EU Publishers Acknowledge Snippet Tax Concerns, But Say: 'It's OK, You Can Trust Us'
from the yeah,-sure dept
Techdirt has been following the ridiculous proposal to extend EU copyright even further to include tiny snippets from articles for years now. The idea has already been tried twice in the European Union, and failed dismally on both occasions. In Spain, a study showed the move there caused serious economic damage, especially to smaller companies; German publishers tacitly admitted the law was pointless when they granted Google a free license to use snippets from their titles. More recently, the European Commission's own research confirmed that far from harming publishers, news aggregators have a positive impact on the industry's advertising revenue. Despite the clear indications that a snippet tax is a terrible idea, some want to go even further, and make it apply to hyperlinks too. Writing in the French newspaper Le Monde back in December, large news agencies including Germany's DPA and France's AFP complained that sites:
offer internet users the work done by others, the news media, by freely publishing hypertext links to their stories. […] Solutions must be found. […] We strongly urge our governments, the European parliament and the commission to proceed with this directive.
Now EU publishers have weighed in on the snippet tax, formally known as Article 11 of the proposed Copyright Directive. Their latest position paper, embedded below, makes a confession:
We acknowledge that concerns have been raised that Article 11 as proposed by the Commission may have a negative effect on the legitimate personal non-commercial use of excerpts from press publications by a natural person by way of hyperlinking or sharing.
But there's no reason to worry, they say, for the following reason:
However, we would like to emphasize that it is in publishers' interest to make their products available as widely as possible, on as many platforms as possible and this is why publishers themselves encourage their readers to share articles and news on social media for free.
In other words: trust us, we won't misuse a new right to forbid anyone from sharing even tiny snippets. Except, of course, copyright holders have repeatedly abused their intellectual monopoly to censor material, in precisely this way. EU publishers want this new right to block snippets to apply even to single words:
We therefore question the necessity of introducing in the new [EU] Presidency's compromise text, a reduction of the scope of protection granted to press publishers to acts of reproduction and making available to the public performed by "service providers" and excluding "individual words or very short extracts of text".
They also want to extend the scope of the snippet ban:
In our view it is essential that any commercial entity or organisation, regardless of their business model, including those currently licensed by press publishers, exclusively or collectively, continues to be within scope of protection. Typically these organisations can be aggregators, media monitoring and press clipping agencies, individual companies, or public institutions.
This isn't just about making search engines pay for the privilege of using snippets of text: it would include every company, of whatever size, and every public body, however meritorious or altruistic its activities, that uses them. The new position paper is important because it makes clearer than ever before that the snippet tax is not about stopping a few big players like Google from indexing stories from publications. After all, that could be easily achieved by blocking the crawlers using the robot.txt file. Article 11 is about something much bigger. It is the latest expression of the publishing industry's apparently infinite sense of entitlement -- that it has a right to control even "individual words or very short extracts of text" used by "any commercial entity or organisation, regardless of their business model", as the document puts it. The egotism of publishers is so monstrous that they don't even care if achieving this insane level of control over the Internet goes against their own economic interests, as the evidence shows it will. Power, it seems, is more important than profits.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
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: aggregation, copyright, copyright directive, eu, link tax, publishers, snippet tax
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And a snippet tax will reduce that availability. As to trust in your intent, once you have new source of income you will expand to replace shrinking income elsewhere in your business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meaning that if you link without snippet - only a title - the title could be declared a snippet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only more important than short term profits. They are playing the long game. Once they have established that it is their god given right to be paid for snippets you can bet they will will move onto whatever the next stage of regulatory capture is. In the mean time, they just grant a free license to anyone big enough they can't bully and otherwise use it to sue (or at least settle with) small companies who can't defend themselves..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their actions betray their words
However, we would like to emphasize that it is in publishers' interest to make their products available as widely as possible, on as many platforms as possible and this is why publishers themselves encourage their readers to share articles and news on social media for free.
And yet they are pushing for something that will drastically reduce that availability across platforms and services by demanding to be paid for the traffic they are being sent.
The funny thing is they're half right, it is in their best interests to have their products available as widely as possible, but their problem is in their short-sighted greed they're going about it entirely wrong, thinking only about the (non-existent) piles of money they'll get once they can finally demand payment for being sent traffic, and completely ignoring the multiple past examples showing that that's just not how it works.
At this point I'm pretty sure that the primary goal of this is to screw over the smaller publishers, with an extra payday a bonus, but not the main goal, as if they are actually trying to help themselves here, then their actions are colossally stupid and counter-productive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Their actions betray their words
This isn't true. This is internet meme only, not grounded in reality.
> they are pushing for something that will drastically reduce that availability across platforms
No author can reach the whole world. It's surpricingly small area of the world that the author can properly provide reasonable service. Author needs to be active in the whole area, to provide the best service that the users want. It is illegal to distribute the product outside the area where the author is active. Maintaining the product isn't possible outside that area. Copyright infringement lawsuits are usually coming from areas of the world where author has no way to provide reasonable service, since his reach does not extend to that area of the world.
Internet is no different. Some areas of the internet (like darknet) are inaccessible to many authors, and they are not required to maintain that area of the world. If it turns out that piracy requires them to maintain that area, expect copyright infringement lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Their actions betray their words
Why? Sorry, you have to do better here than "my bare assertion is better than your bare assertion". Explain, in detail, why this is not a benefit to publishers.
"No author can reach the whole world"
Define "reach" in this context. There are several definitions, and your assertion is false under at least one of them.
"It's surpricingly small area of the world that the author can properly provide reasonable service."
Define "reasonable service".
"It is illegal to distribute the product outside the area where the author is active"
False. It may be illegal to provide it to an area where neither the author nor an authorised distributor has given express permission for it to be distributed, but nothing says that the author has to personally be active there. The author may not even have to give express permission, depending on the type of work and area (for example, if you say you allow something to be distributed in France, you may actually be giving permission across the entire EU, depending on the type or product. So, a guy in Poland may be able to buy it even if you didn't say it could be distributed there).
"Maintaining the product isn't possible outside that area"
Absolute bull. The maintenance of the product and the area of distribution are two completely different things. It also, again, depends on your definition of "maintenance", so you need to be more clear. If you're talking ab out things like marketing and translation, these are rarely undertaken by the original author anyway.
"Copyright infringement lawsuits are usually coming from areas of the world where author has no way to provide reasonable service, since his reach does not extend to that area of the world."
Then, surely he'd be better served extending his reach rather than suing people who have no way of paying him for a legal service even if they want to.
Your arguments are vague and lacking. Would you like to explain yourself better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Their actions betray their words
Extending the reach isn't possible. If you stretch it too much, humans turn to robots and become machines which can only follow intructions from their environment. You could consider it a failure to maintain free will, when internet keeps demanding for maintainance of past products.
Think for example all these computers that the internet is built from. Soon all of them will be e-waste, shipped somewhere to the africa, since european countries do not know what to do with the waste. Sadly EU decided that the gadgets need to stay within the area of the world that actually benefitted from their creation. This way poor countries that cannot yet control their borders do not get environmental problems coming from creation of the internet.
This same way, author's area of influence -- i.e. how widely his products were used, determines the area of the world that the author is responsible of. If he created the next world war, he needs to take responsibility of it's creation. If his books or products creates havoc somewhere in the world, the author is obviously responsible. This is why authors need to be active in the area where his products are being used. And this is why copyright restricts how widely the product can be DISTRIBUTED.
Now distribution is just part of what copyright is all about. There's also performance and display limitations. But maybe we'll leave that to the next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Their actions betray their words
OK, I thought you were just unable to express exactly what you were talking about. I see now that you're insane and don't have anything worth talking about in the context of authors reaching their audience. Sorry to waste your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They know it failed several times, so they want to try it on a bigger scale. "The solution to the problem is more of the problem", which is the insanity I thought the US had a monopoly on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't have to win the lawsuit. Simply responding to a few thousand individual lawsuits should be enough of a financial hit that the publishers will be back begging the EU to change the law, or they go bankrupt. Either result will be a win for the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Trust us" translated into plain English.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Trust us" translated into plain English.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Trust us" translated into plain English.
"That's not too hard, that's what, a few feet of distance?"
"Oh, sorry, when we say 'our foot' we're actually talking about something else, a particular object that we've placed on the other side of a number of businesses, a house or two, and an orphanage just for fun. Also we're using a howitzer rather than a handgun so... duck?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's ultimately what this is about - they're failing to make money, other people are, so they want the money other people are getting without having to innovate for it. They just want the maximum leverage they can claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How exactly is this supposed to benefit the publishers, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well clearly their stuff is just so valuable that people will be tripping over themselves in order to pay for the privilege of linking to them and/or providing snippets that could sent traffic their way.
You know, just like how it worked the last several times they've tried this stunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parasites vs. Symbionts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two butts
Widely share their publications, except you will need a license for specific 'words'. Which will no doubt be more expensive if you should ever want to use a short bit of text.
The farce is strong with that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This might not be a "publishing vs Google" fight....
What is the simplest, most logical response that Google can take to this mess? Drop all EU publishers off their platform, of course. It's no skin off their noses, after all and a perfect opportunity to improve their automatic translation services.
So what is the simple, reasonable response that a news publishing company can make in such a situation? Well, create an offshore shell company, somewhere well outside EU borders that they will "sell" their own news to so that Google can link to it!
From the news agency's point of view, it's a perfect opportunity to improve their standing in Google's rankings and perhaps push the competition out of the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the EU is busy burning itself to the ground, Spain and Italy have expressed a desire to leave and are in the early stages of planning Brexit-style referendums. (referendii?).
The whole crapshoot is collapsing faster than my new years resolution to eat less junk food and go to the gym.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know it's hard to keep track of with the "we honestly don't know what we're doing but somehow it'll all be magically better even though we didn't do any real research before triggering article 50, trust us!" approach to Brexit, but there is far worse coming from Westminster without the EU having to say a word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Meanwhile, the consequences of leaving are framed as "punishment," but that's just for us. Any EU citizen stupid enough to apply for UK citizenship having been married to a Brit for 20 years or more is apparently only experiencing consequences when they receive deportation orders, it's not punishment or anything.
Ladies and gentlemen... Brexit. What a dumpster fire of utter stupidity and magical thinking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]