Top German Publisher Says: 'You Wouldn't Steal A Pound Of Butter... So We Need A Snippet Tax'
from the articles-11-and-13-must-go dept
Last week, Mike provided a virtuoso excoriation of the European publishers' shameless demand to be given even more copyright control over tiny snippets of news stories as part of the awful EU copyright directive. As that post pointed out, the publishers' "mythbuster" did nothing of the sort, but it did indicate a growing panic among the industry as more critical attention is brought to bear on the ridiculous "snippet tax" -- Article 11 of the proposed new EU copyright law -- which has already failed twice elsewhere. The German site Über Medien -- "About Media" -- offers another glimpse of publishers trying desperately to justify the unjustifiable (original in German). Actually, it's one publisher in particular: Mathias Döpfner. He's the CEO of the German company Axel Springer, one of the world's largest publishers, although even his company is unlikely to benefit much from the snippet tax. Speaking on Austrian television, Döpfner made a rather remarkable claim:
It's about the question of whether the intellectual good that is produced is a protected good or not. At the moment it is a good that is not protected in the digital world. Anyone can take an article, a video, a journalistic element that a publisher has prepared, copy it, put it in another context and even market it successfully.
Yes, the boss of one of the biggest and most successful publishers in the world is claiming that digital material is not protected by copyright, and that anyone can take and use it, which is why new laws are needed. Since he was talking about the EU's Article 11, he also seems to be conflating using snippets with taking an entire article. To underline his point, Döpfner offered a homely comparison:
If I can go to the grocery store and just grab a pound of butter or a carton of milk without paying for it, why should anyone come and pay for it, and why would anyone else offer butter or milk?
But that's not what Google is doing when it uses snippets. It's more like it is taking a picture of the pound of butter, and then showing people the photo along with the address of the grocery store when they search for "butter" using Google's search engine. Google is not stealing anything, just sending business to the store. It's the same with displaying snippets that link to the original article. The Über Medien post rightly goes on to note that publishers don't really have a problem with Google showing snippets and sending them traffic. But their sense of entitlement is so great they want to force the US company to pay for the privilege of sending them traffic. Or, to put it in terms of Döpfner's forced analogy:
Publishers do not want Google to stop stealing butter and milk in their supermarkets. The publishers want to oblige Google to steal bread and milk from them and pay for it.
The fact that the head of German's biggest publisher resorts to the old "you wouldn't steal a car/pound of butter/carton of milk" rhetoric shows just how vanishingly thin the argument in favor of a snippet tax really is. It's time for the EU politicians to recognize this, and remove it from the proposed copyright directive, along with Article 13's even-more pernicious upload filter. EU citizens can use the new SaveYourInternet site to contact their representatives. Ahead of the important EU vote on the proposed law early next week, now would be a really good time to do that.
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: article 11, copyright, copyright directive, eu, link tax, mathias dopfner, snippet tax
Companies: axel springer, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And my answer is: if the owner isn't deprived from the original pound of butter? Hell yes. Would I throw him money to make better butter so I can take more copies? Hell yes. Would I go to the store physically to appreciate the original butter and give the owner money in the process? Hell yes. And producing copies of food sounds a lot better than cars because we'd solve the hunger problem :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then, to add insult to injury, they made them unskippable. Meaning that to this day people have to sit through a 30 second lecture on not pirating the copy they legitimately bought, every single time they watch it, while the pirates may never have seen the laughable propaganda once. Thereby, making a pirated copy more valuable for people who only want to watch the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would just stop indexing them. If people want to go to them directly, feel free. We've seen it before, and the results were hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You sure as hell can't force a company to put snippets up and then expect them to also PAY to do it. Google like before will just stop doing it.
The simple fact is, any one of these news sites can easily place a Robot.txt on their website and Google will not grab a single thing from them. It's so simple, yet they don't want to stop Google. They just want Google to give them money as Google sends people their way. I find this funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He knows that he will take a hit, but as one of the largest, can probably take the hit. His smaller competition, can't take the hit and is more likely to fail.
This is simply a way for him to solidify his business, but using Google's actions to take away traffic (and subsequent Ad revenue) from his competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No... but I have been known to pocket a few butter roll packets from the Diner. They use Land O Lakes. I liked Land O Lakes butter. I now buy a pound of Land O Lakes Butter every week.
*No affiliation with Land O Lakes Butter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snippet Tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snippet Tax
They know it, it's been demonstrated multiple times at this point, it's just their greed keeps getting the better of them and they're sure that this time they can get the big payday. This time the other side will blink first and the money will start rolling in with no effort on their part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pound?
At any rate, the German fixation on butter is irritating. Probably comes from the Goebbels speech at the sports palace "Wollt ihr Butter oder Kanonen?" and the Germans figured out by now than cannons were the worse choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear government
When you play fair, I will play fair too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear government
Give me Liberty or give me something of lesser or equal value! Or a coupon for it! As long as it is entertaining and amusing. Oh, look! A shiny! Liberty Version 3.0! And it's on sale!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I might steal a pound of butter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a butter analogy
Next year I'll make even more money by filing copyright violations on anyone who sends mail to these businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
--
It's more like taking a picture using that picture and linking to dozens of paid sites that want to sell their butter and burying the originating producer of the butter under grease.
Think of it another way, applied to U.S. politics.
You're a voter, you want information on a local political candidate, when you go to look for info on the web you find dozens of national political ads about your local candidates. Your local coverage has is buried under the hundreds of links to national coverage. Each link is a potential ad click and revenue for Google. Google makes money, the political candidate gets distorted coverage and the voter casts a vote without full details of that candidate from local sources.
I see Google allowing others to benefit and sell on a topic or product that didn't create the product or story to begin with.
It's cultural, they want their local businesses to benefit from their work.
I get why they are doing this.
Google redirects (obfuscates! through their shear number of links) away from the source material or product and makes money irregardless of the consumer looking for local information.
Google could do better, could always highlight the originating story or product and keep it in view, but that would lesson the number of 'promoted' links and thus not generate ad revenue. I see Google as the problem and everyone else in the story trying to fight a behemoth that does NOT care about anything but their ad revenue. Yes they are approaching this the wrong way, but how do local entities fight Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
If they truly view Google as an enemy, block them with a robots.txt file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Springer actually opted in!!!
Google delisted Springer.
And Springer begged Google on their knees to list them again. Free of charge, of course, since the extra traffic Google generates makes them a lot of money. Especially since they introduced paywalls for their major products ...
Raises the question why Döpfner wants to repeat the exercise on a European level...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Springer actually opted in!!!
Greed. They've seen it fail again, and again, and again, but they see all the money Google has and they just can't help themselves, sure that this time it will work, this time Google will just pay them and they'll be able to just sit back and collect the piles of money they're sure the latest attempt will get them.
Alternatively(or additionally), they saw what happened in Spain and decided to try it on a larger scale. Sure everyone got less traffic after Google News pulled out of the country, but the smaller sites were hit much harder than the larger ones, which was great for eliminating any pesky competition indirectly, without actually having to compete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Springer actually opted in!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
These are the big guys. They not only depend on Google to drive traffic to their sites, but they're already listed on the first page of results, and they craft their webpages and place ads on Google to make sure you see their link on the first page. Then they use the free Google Analytics to evaluate their own website and further optimize the structure. They place Google Ads on their sites, so that when Google directs people to their site, they'll make even more money when that same person clicks on the ad. These guys want a snippet tax because people actually see and click on their snippets. That hometown rag on page 13, it's simply not going to get enough click-through volume to make a snippet tax worthwhile.
And if you think it reasonable that Google would pay a snippet tax to every entry on all 23 pages of results, then you're nuts. If that happens, they'd just list the top dozen results, and the small guy's result back on page 13 would never even appear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
That is possibly the most painful analogy I've ever read. It's actually more like giving a free sample of the butter and telling people where to go buy some if they want more.
"Google redirects (obfuscates! through their shear number of links) away from the source material or product and makes money irregardless of the consumer looking for local information."
Google do not show ads on the news service, so any extra they make is as a result of other things associated and not directly through providing the service.
"Google could do better, could always highlight the originating story or product and keep it in view"
I'd have a look at Google News if I were you, because you apparently have no idea what it looks like.
"Yes they are approaching this the wrong way, but how do local entities fight Google?"
If they really don't want Google to show their stories, they already have the tools available to them.
Unfortunately, that's not the real issue. They are just trying to get free money from someone making more money than them. The fact that they haven't decided to block Google traffic is evidence of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
is not a word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for them!
After all, news is news. There was a time-honoured tradition where small-town newspapers would simply re-write wire stories. If the news sources then start complaining that rewrites should count, the next step in AI is to automatically rewrite the story using multiple sources.
Then what? If you mention a topic that was on our website (and others) you owe us all a snippet tax? Wait until video rendering can re-create news stories without the need to pay the TV networks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't steal Butter. They do!
Not always, though: Springer management has been quoted instructing their staff to lift crime victims pictures and info from Facebook and other social media - stating that grieving parents have other things on their mind than suing newspapers for copyright infringement.
Some cheek for the Master Thieves to accuse the rest of the world of stealing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about Spineless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck wrong article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax for giving directions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When your actions undermine your words
As always when they try to argue that the mean old Google is stealing from them it's worth pointing out that for all their wailing and gnashing of teeth, their tears of victim-hood, they could stop the 'theft' in a day by simply making a slight change to their site's code.
They want to be 'stolen' from because they and everyone else who'd been paying attention know that it benefits them, they just want that benefit and to be paid for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying vs. stealing
The copyright cartel has a hard time grasping the very basic nature of copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copying vs. stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robots.txt
The 'stolen' analogy is broken, but since they want to go with it... In Germany you have to(!) take precautions not to let things to be stolen (otherwise you are partially responsible). So - you have to lock your car (otherwise you might be fined).
They did not lock the butter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Butter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steal and Pay?
That's not how stealing works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Döpfner's quotes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I can go to the grocery store
then I will. Because of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]