Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
from the bye-bye-news-content dept
While much of the focus concerning the EU's Copyright Directive have been about Article 13 and the censorship and mandatory filters it will require, an equally troubling part is Article 11, which will create a "snippet" tax on anyone who aggregates news and sends traffic back to the original sites (for free) without paying those news sites. This is dumb for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that this plan has been tried in both Germany and Spain, and failed miserably in both places. Indeed, studies in Spain showed that this law actually did tremendous harm to smaller news sites (which the EU insists this law is designed to help). The latest version we've seen in the EU Copyright Directive is even worse than the laws in Germany and Spain in that it is so vague and so unclear that it is possible to read them to say that using more than a single word will make the aggregator liable for the tax.
In Spain, as you may recall, when that law was passed, Google responded by turning off Google News in Spain entirely, saying that it was impossible to remain in the country under that law. As they noted (and which everyone pushing for these laws always ignores), Google actually doesn't put any advertisements on Google News. It's not monetizing it (despite lies from supporters of these laws that Google is "profiting" off of their work, when Google is actually sending traffic for free). So there were some questions about what Google would do with Google News in Europe if Article 11 becomes law.
The company has now hinted at its plans by leaking a beta test of what Google News would look like under Article 11. The answer? It would look almost entirely empty:
As you can see, because the tax applies to using any words from the articles, what a "compliant" Google News looks like is a Google News page where none of the content actually loads. All you get is the names of the publications and nothing else.
Of course, this is going to infuriate supporters of Article 11, who will insist that this is awful and some terrible game that Google is playing. But it's their own fault for writing a law that says this is what you have to do. Supporters will again argue that this is not what they intended -- instead, the whole point of Article 11 is to try to force Google to "license" the news it links to. But these leaked screenshots more or less highlight how the EU Copyright Directive is truly little more than a shakedown of Google. Basically, the entire point of the law is "Google, give money to failing newspapers, or we'll force your News site to look like shit." And Google is suggesting it might just call the EU's bluff on this.
At the very least, this makes it clear that the entire point of the EU Copyright Directive -- especially Articles 11 and 13 -- are a weak attempt to say "Google is successful, therefore, Google should give a lot more of its money to companies that haven't been successful in the internet age." If the EU just named it "the tax Google because our own industries failed to innovate" Directive, it would at least be a bit more intellectually honest.
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, eu, eu copyright directive, google news, link tax, news aggregation, snippet tax
Companies: google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“It kind of is, from a certain point of view. There's a reason the technical term for this kind of behavior is malicious compliance, afterall.
That doesn't mean it isn't kind of awesome. If Europe wants to live by the electronic sword, as it were, then let them die by the same sword.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
News?
I really want to know how the EU thinks this is *supposed* to work out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not enough
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It kind of is, from a certain point of view. There's a reason the technical term for this kind of behavior is malicious compliance, afterall.
That doesn't mean it isn't kind of awesome. If Europe wants to live by the electronic sword, as it were, then let them die by the same sword.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: News?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I also wonder how many other sites that rides googles coattails would scream bloody murder at the same time.
Maybe the politicians will wake up then when they have an angry mob outside the EU parliament...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apple is successful as well, but with their own creations. Slight different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Funny...
If this is "a left-leaning publication," how do you explain the extreme-right conspiracy nuttery constantly being posted by Tim Cushing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the EU?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Article 15: all EU citizens granted an annual, Google-funded, two weeks paid holiday in Mountain View California.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: News?
Fixed that for you lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Explain how Google News is similar to, or exactly the same thing as, a radio station.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rules!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I dunno, I think the AC's got a pretty good analogy there: most of the radio stations I listen to play two-second samples of songs and then tell me where I can go to get a full-length, fully-licensed version.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eg the words would spell out.
this law is a tax on free speech we cannot explain it in detail
as we are only allowed to use one word from any newspaper
.
say a small website just has the words
the president signs new bill into law ,
Will it be liable to be sued by any news website
that uses the same words in an article .
Many websites use the same words to report on common .
There are some countrys that are not in the eu ,but located in europe
eg monaco .
Will news websites just move their servers there to get
around article 11.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the EU?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdSense
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Explain how Google News is similar to, or exactly the same thing as, a radio station.
Google News isn't - at all. But Article 11 is similar to a compulsory licensing scheme from the musical world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Especially don't feed them before they even show up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
License
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, I agree with the article as a whole, but not necessarily this bit:
Google may not be directly monetizing Google News, but come on now, it's not operating it out of the goodness of its heart. It's gathering data on its users' browsing habits; that's Google's business model, and that's the value it derives from operating Google News. Whether or not Google serves ads on Google News directly, it's using analytics from the site to help target ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Link Tax
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not enough
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Funny...
"Left" and "right" both suck and have no place in critical thinking on any topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the EU?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EU/UK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If Google stops driving traffic to their sites altogether they'll all die out rather quickly. Perhaps that will open their eyes. And yours, apparently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: EU/UK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Let's use Article 11 so we don't need to use Chapter 11"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: EU/UK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
...sdrawcaB
What they should "propose" is a few cents CHARGE for every link they put up to any EU news source instead.
They're sending people TO those links - just like clickbait.
Why shouldn't they be recompensed for this, just like any other redirection to an advertising site?
Of course, if a site doesn't WANT to pay, they're free to ask Google (or any search engine) to delist them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: News?
And what does this law say if I post a link to a news story on my Facebook? How many snippets have to be published on Facebook before it becomes a news aggregator? If my blog post goes viral, does that mean anyone who reposts it has to send me three cents?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ...sdrawcaB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is Google supposed to contact the relevant news agency every time they need to include a news link in their search results and negotiate a separate licensing fee?
Are they supposed to pay each news service a blanket licensing fee?
Is the service going to count how many words from their web sites that Google uses over the course of a month and send them a bill?
Who's supposed to be responsible for keeping track of how much tax Google owes and collect it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
if Google news is so bad for them, why have they not opted out via robots.txt.
They don't want Google to stop sending the viewers, they want Google to pay them and send them viewers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why did Google get rid of its cache?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ...sdrawcaB
France declares war on Sealand would only show NY Times, Sacramento Bee, etc links.
But for the purposes of "legal" arguments, I'd still go with Google, followed by every other search engine company, saying they're going to institute a charge of $xyz for each EU news site link they show.
Setting the $xyz to say, oh, five times the amount the other side is arguing is a fair "tax" would be a good starting point...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
C'mon...
They'll institute a special governmental department to handle it. Which will have salaries for the heads in the millions per year range.
Said department will "assess" an "estimated amount" of taxes owed.
Those taxes owed will be paid directly to that department, which will then pay the actors and musicians... er, I mean "news sites" a fraction... er... a percentage equal to costs incurred...
Sound familiar?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RTBF works
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Content aggregators siphon money from the creators: they create nothing and wind up with billions. The public has chosen to enable this by supplying the user-generated content.
A separate issue is the one facing all internet creators in that there are too many creators to sustain the old business model. Anyone can publish an e-book, and eve if there were no Pirate Bay, the market would still be flooded and have to thin out.
Solving the copyright problem won't solve the other problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyrighted work is still subject to Fair Use, something a snippet with a link clearly takes advantage of. Article 11 is effectively killing Fair Use of EU-generated content so in that respect copyright does indeed "opt out" that content from reproduction elsewhere.
But that's not what article 11 is trying to achieve. They still want Google to include the snippets but they also want Google to pay for the "privilege". They want their cake and to eat it, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ...sdrawcaB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not enough
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Content aggregators do the legwork of finding and bringing to one location (and perhaps tailoring to your interests) content instead of one having to open up multiple websites and scouring them to find the articles you might be interested in reading. That time saving convenience alone is valuable in its own right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Funny how independents are only useful so long as their perspectives align with your "Home Taking is Killing Music Narrative".
You wanted Google to opt out. They did. You bitched anyway. And then you wonder why nobody believes you.
Have an Article 11 vote. You wanted it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Do you seriously think people don't remember, John Smith?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Then let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Since when is it malicious compliance to decide not to lose millions or billions of Euros every year to provide a free service that only benefits the people attempting to pass legislation to bleed you dry? Google is a business, businesses are supposed to be making money. If they can't do that in a given market, they'll find a different market -- that's just good sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wrong
Reporting or commenting on news is a first amendment right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The rightsholders have not gotten on board with the model some would love to see imposed on them. The users who supply UGC have chosen to give away their content for the most part, resulting in tech behemoths who are little more than aggregators.
The slew of articles here relating to copyright attempt to lead the reader to conclude that copyright law should be changed or its teeth removed. Why not put pirates in prison since what they're doing is cyber-terrorism, given how much damage it causes?
Underneath all this editorializing there is no basis for swiping protected work from those who create it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Opt-in would solve this issue. Most news organizations opt-in with Twitter and Facebook accounts where they post their content royalty-free for social media to use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: License
I can all but guarantee, if they manage to get this train-wreck of short-sighed greed through a parasitic 'collections agency' will either be rolled out with it, another given the job, or one will be created shortly thereafter.
If sites are allowed to give a licence for dirt cheap that would allow them to completely undercut the greedy ones who will demand much more, hence you can be sure efforts will be taken to stop that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They are in a very real sense. They can easily prevent Google from listing them by making a quick and easy change in the robots.txt file, something you can be quite sure that they know by now. If memory serves it's even fine-tuned enough on Google's end that they can exclude a site from being listed in Google News without being removed from their general search as well.
They want Google to have them in it's listing, they just want to be paid for it too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It depends on just how much of a smartass you're being about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's US law. We're talking about the EU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You're giving far too much credit to American publishers.
They're taking notes and trying to figure out how they can implement this in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You're lying, ignorant, or both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The discussions here have been about altering copyright law or enforcement to the point of imposing a new business model rather than letting one develop naturally.
Has one, though? The RIAA took years before they could be convinced that iTunes without DRM was the way to go. Developing naturally doesn't happen when you actively fight it at every turn.
The rightsholders have not gotten on board with the model some would love to see imposed on them.
They were very much on board with Article 13 due to all the controls they could implement. Once they realized that provisions existed to compromise on these controls if they were misused, though, they started singing a different tune. Very quickly. Nothing is being imposed on them aside from some sanity and balance, and the fact that they're throwing such a tantrum as their first response is very telling.
The users who supply UGC have chosen to give away their content for the most part, resulting in tech behemoths who are little more than aggregators.
The middleman argument. Funny how an industry "devastated by piracy" can still afford to pay RIAA CEOs increasing amounts of bonus protection money year after year after year. While also claiming that piracy continues unchecked and unaffected. If piracy isn't being fought then why are you giving a guy who apparently failed his job a pay rise? How are you affording this pay rise if the lack of money was why you engaged him to begin with?
The slew of articles here relating to copyright attempt to lead the reader to conclude that copyright law should be changed or its teeth removed.
The teeth haven't been removed. The teeth were always there. Your indiscriminate biting of anyone and everyone you don't agree with in an attempt to harass settlement money is the reason why judges are scrutinizing your methods. That's your fault, not anybody else's. All because you can't be bothered to make sure your IP address matched.
Why not put pirates in prison since what they're doing is cyber-terrorism, given how much damage it causes?
Firstly, because the amount of damage you regularly allege has never been proven. Your only justification for statutory damages is for deterrence, suggesting that damages rarely, if ever, reach the amounts you demand for. Seriously, the industry has been "damaged" for years and yet every year they keep boasting about how recession-proof they are. Which is it? Are you a golden industry immune to economic changes of the world or aren't you?
Secondly, your enforcement is terrible. You can't even exact a fine out of people because you insist on suing easy targets, not guilty parties. Any time a judge questions your standards of evidence you scream "DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE" and run like hell to lick your wounds. Malibu Media, who you often like to emulate, haven't seen a single lawsuit go all the way in 2018 despite filing papers to the point where porn suits dominated copyright enforcement.
Thirdly, the parallel of copyright infringement with terrorism is an escalation nobody with any rational mind will believe. No hacking is involved, no government is compromised. It's a sad attempt to parallel copyright infringement with things like rape or arson for the sake of eliciting sympathy, which you have rightly not gotten thanks to your refusal to punish copyright infringement like theft, based on actual damages and a higher standard of evidence.
Fourthly, jail means reduced or no fines included in the punishment. Which would remove the meal ticket for many of your compatriots so don't expect them to get behind this idea.
Underneath all this editorializing there is no basis for swiping protected work from those who create it.
You're fighting snippets. Short summaries. If the existence single short summary completely undermines your entire article you've got far bigger problems on your hands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the EU?
Unless the UK government votes to rescind their Article 50 declaration, it'll happen in March, deal or no deal and if this no-confidence vote doesn't go May's way, there may not be a government to make that decision in time for the deadline.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong
Anyone else here old enough to remember phone books? You had to PAY the phone company to get your business listed in them. If you weren't listed in the Yellow Pages, you didn't get much business.
Little difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If they are so "nothing" then nothing will happen if they disappear. If they are so "nothing" why then the publishers won't use the robots.txt?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'It's what you asked for, what's the problem?'
Forget a 'leaked beta test' with a handful of pictures, Google should do this for real for EU users for a few days to a week, explaining that they are testing out how best to comply with the proposed law and if people don't want to see the 'temporary test' become the real thing it might be a good time to start contacting their politicians/organizing mass-protests similar to the ones that cropped up in response to ACTA.
To be sure Google actually stands to benefit from the proposed changes to an extent(the requirements would be painful to it, but absolutely lethal to potential competition), but for even then it would still be a good idea for them to shoot this down now, as if it does pass it's a given that while they may benefit in the short term even more restrictive, 'You have money, give it to us!' laws will follow down the road.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still all that is written here is smoke and mirrors which fails to explain why copyright protection, rather than piracy, is the problem. Article 13 is the result of twenty years of pirates flouting the law.
At the end of the day, there is no inherent right to steal the work of others, and every right for those from whom it is stolen to put a stop to the theft.
Governments see the value in protecting creative works, while pirates, obviously, do not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If the model were so great most would just opt in. They don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong
Little difference."
No, it's completely different. This situation isn't what you describe - it's actually the equivalent of the phone company having to pay the companies in order to list them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So you're trying to say that Google didn't create its own search engine now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the EU?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I think I've spotted where the fundamental basis for your arguments is wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The short answer is - since you seem to have a case of tl;drism - copyright enforcement isn't the problem, the problem is you're terrible at it.
The longer answer is that you sue indiscriminately, judges find your standards of evidence laughable and/or non-existent, and when asked to prove your case you choose not to fight for your statutory ransom.
If piracy was as damaging as you claim it is, like the equivalent of nuclear winter or the Second Coming, you'd probably have no problem getting all the money you want.
Your problem is that judges, unlike you and most copyright fanatics, aren't as reckless or irresponsible. You call that "toothless". A rational person would call that "checks and balances". Or to use the term you lot are so allergic to, "due process". Again, if you're paying Mitch Bainwol millions of dollars every year to make piracy go away, and piracy hasn't gone away, maybe stop paying some CEO for doing a terrible job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which includes damages, the one thing you insist doesn't have to be proven. Several judges have even opined that copyright law is not a mechanism for "creators" to enrich themselves with settlement money.
Meanwhile, every content creator - porn or otherwise - has been forced to play defensive and insist that their suspiciously non-specific IP harvesting methods are "not Prenda". Despite relying on the same chucklenut German "experts" like Guardaley or MarkMonitor. In addition, thanks to Malibu Media filing their suits willy nilly, the German courts ruled Malibu Media content to be undeserving of copyright protection.
So in John Smith's attempt to make copyright enforcement less "toothless", he invited the attention of some people who are looking at giving his "toothful" system a thoroughly excruciating dental extraction.
Nice job breaking it, hero!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
In which case I don't see anything here I'd refer to as 'malicious', as that is the sort of result likely to happen should the train wreck of a law pass. No snippets, no details, merely a single link(until they try to demand payment for that as well anyway) per site with no context to go along with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you rejected it anyway. There's no satisfying you fuckers, is there? All because the thought of not being allowed to sue children makes you piss in your pants. Excuse me if I'm not feeling particularly empathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I didn't expect anything else from a zealot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, no proposed solution would be applicable to the real world if that level of ignorance is behind the thought process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'It's what you asked for, what's the problem?'
For a time, but so long as Google makes a profit the legacy publishers will increase their demands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Blessing in Disguise...
Article 11 and 13 provide an opportunity to reinvigorate the decentralized nature of the Internet that has been lost with the raise of the internet giants as Google and Facebook, and my message to traditional publishers in this regard will be "be careful what you wish for"
Article 11 will be relatively easy to work around. Publishing parties that wish to have their snippets displayed with search results simply set up a "snippet server"; the search engine will only return pointers to those snippets, and the end-user's browser will retrieve them, directly from the server under control of the publisher. A few safeguards may be needed to stop rogue publishers from gaming the system, by using cryptographic hashes of the content, but after that, those publisher who want snippets in search results can have them, pulled directly from own their service. Search engines only need to provide the address of the server and the hash, the browser will retrieve the rest, and compose a view indistinguishable from the current search results. Search engines can provide a further service of summarizing articles and uploading snippets to those servers, and even provide completely configured servers as docker images or something similar. Publishers who do not want this can simply not participate and become irrelevant.
Working around article 13 may take a little more time. Here the idea is that we do not need the giants to build a social network. Already we see a rapidly growing market for NAS devices. Such devices are actually much more than just a NAS. They can also run web services. It is fairly easy to envision running software on these that provide functionality the likes of LinkedIn or Facebook provide today, but then without much of the privacy concerns or advertising overload. I envision within a few years, small NAS devices will emerge with a "Facebook-in-a-box" application configured ready-to-go. Key features will be privacy and ease-of-use. Owners can add friends and control their access, software can pull together "walls" from the servers of all friends they have access to, and friend-of-friend items can be copied (if so configured) to create the same experience without a central server. Legally, owners of such NAS boxes/servers will of course remain fully liable for copyright infringement (as they are today when they post on social networks), but since there is no intermediary (except of course the ISP's, who cannot see the data, as everything will be end-to-end encrypted), intermediary liability is not an issue. Sharing memes, holiday pictures and funny cat movies will remain possible without any filter, and a thing going viral will now not just involve sharing a link, but the physical copying of files between connected people. As NAS with several terabytes can be had for a couple of hundred dollars or euros, and such as NAS boxes have many great features beyond sharing holiday pictures, I give them a great future.
Of course, such a fully decentralized social network will quickly be found to be perfectly tailored to also share copyrighted materials between friends. Given six degrees of separation, popular stuff will continue to spread fairly rapidly and many authors will be happy with it. but the stream of revenue publishers now get from Facebook and YouTube will dry up.
So maybe we should thank the EP for this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(oh shit, ducks for cover as troll war starts).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not so smart
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Before the damage vs After
History strongly suggests that they'll end up doing it anyway, so if they're going to do so it would be more effective to do something like remove snippets when there's a better chance for it to actually accomplish something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shown surrounded by random words covered with black box,s ,under each website name .
like in those cia redacted documents where 90 per cent of the page is blacked out.
EG We can only show one word from this news article ,welcome to the future under article 11 brought to you by the EU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Funny...
Cushing hates dirty cops, praises decent ones. Can't be dealing with asset forfeiture sans due process. Can't be dealing with the whole "sans due process" thing. That makes him some flavour of public-minded libertarian.
Right-wingers tend to be authoritarian, worship the rich, hate public services, and hate it when workers organise or when we plebs want privacy rights and stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the EU?
I'm not a mad Corbyn fan but I get that it's pointless meeting up with an authoritarian whose idea of discussion is to browbeat others into accepting her authority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the EU?
The best he can hope for is to be so visibly against the current move that it's hard to spin him as the cause of it when the gutter press try to blame the Tories' destruction of the country on Labour.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: EU/UK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Won't Brexit take Great Britain out of the E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Ordinary compliance is obeying the law in letter and spirit. Malicious compliance is strictly obeying the letter of the law in an attempt to subvert the spirit of the law.
As I said, that's not necessarily a bad thing, particularly when the spirit of the law in question is itself malicious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I'd rather let grownups drive the conversation than allow trolls to do it, especially when they're not even here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's both. You don't remember the RIAA suing individual infringers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Funny...
Yes, and most normal people recognize libertarianism for what it is: an extreme-right viewpoint that worships the rich, hates public services, hates it when workers organize, and, for all their fancy words about liberty, doesn't actually believe in any freedom you can't afford, meaning the "utopia" they dream of is a horror that sane people would consider an authoritarian nightmare in which they are the abusive overlords being the master over the undeserving plebs who are obviously unworthy by virtue of having less money than themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny...
FTR, I generally disagree with radical libertarians, but the point stands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny...
- Benito Mussolini
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What's your source for the idea that excerpting a single word wouldn't trigger the link tax?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: News?
The politicians and the companies supporting them fully expect Google and Microsoft (Bing has news right?) to buckle under the first. After all, they are American companies and all they think about is collecting the next penny of profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
--
Why use Google at all, when all of the "news" sites pull the same "news" from the same wire sources anyway? It's all McNews; one source is equivalent to any other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Link Tax
Let them die faster. Their continued stupidity is on them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But what they really want is things to continue as they are, but for Google to also pay them to send people their direction. That's just laughable. So instead Google will as they have in other countries that have tried this, just remove all the snips and the only thing left is links to those sites.
I don't know about you, but I generally just don't go to a site because I thought of their name and decided to check out what news they have. I see an interesting Snip and click on that, going to the site to read it. When I then may click on other things to read.
Without the Snips, I don't go there in the first place. Yet they want Google to pay for those snips which are really fair use. They just see a pile of money Google has and think some of it should be for them also. it's beyond laughable. Google will cut all the snips and traffic to their sites will disappear, even for those that aren't going after Google's money. That like what Google is doing. If effects them also as Google will cut everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
They didn't. Where do you get your information from that they had?
FYI - Copyrighting is not "Opting out". Again where do you get your information?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So we turn off Google in the EU for a week, and then see how much corruption and scandal breaks out due to lack of google services (ie. which government organizations are too heavily reliant on google).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: ...sdrawcaB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
By this 'definition' you are 'learning' from reading this comment, and are not providing fair recompense for the information provided.
I hearby demand a "Techdirt Comment Tax" be implemented that forces all users to provide remuneration to the authors of all comments they read on Techdirt. Implementation of "eyeball scanning cameras to detect exactly what is being viewed/read" is not "Required", but we expect all websites to provide detailed information of not just which pages are being viewed by users, but exactly what those users are reading on those pages, along with the authors of the information being read.
The Agency tasked with this project will be the TCRAA, or the Techdirt Comment Reader Accountability Association, which will be vested with all the lobbying and powers of the other **AA agencies that are destroying our digital world...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The large American companies have the money to put up with all these laws. Really, they are protected and locked into place now because of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 'It's what you asked for, what's the problem?'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
With Snips gone, I just don't go there. These places will once again see that all the traffic they had dry up.
If you don't like what Google is doing, ok. You think it's somehow unfair? That's fine!!! There's a simple way to fix that. A simple robot.txt file will stop Google from having anything to do with your web site. No snipping, no indexing. Google is no longer in your life.
But No, they want Google to do this as it brings them traffic. But they also see that Google has lots of money and they want some of it also, just for the honor of sending people their way. Well F that. See what happens once the law goes into effect. Google doesn't need them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Funny...
Said only by leftists.
A more accurate way of saying that is, "As leftists keep telling us, reality has a leftist bias."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Funny...
I'm gonna go ahead and assume that was sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek or some other thing that means you weren't being serious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Fine but only if we can also vote assholes off the island. After all, our usual trolls don't deserve to get paid for their drivel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...sdrawcaB
More likely they'll get their news from just one or two sources as it won't be possible to just search for related articles. Instead, they'll pick one or two to get all of their news and Europe will become even more of an echo chamber than it already is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Their claim is that since Google provides snippets with their links that users don't need to even click the link; Everything they need to know is already in the Google search results list. This implies a few things:
The news articles are of such poor quality that you get everything you need out of them by reading 2 or 3 sentences.
People aren't clicking those links as often as they once did. Rather than being satisfied with the content of the snippet my money is on those users going elsewhere to read the whole article. There are countless news sources on the net these days so there is naturally some dilution.
The reduced traffic is blamed on Google despite the opposite being true; Without Google they would see far less traffic. Still, if Google is to blame then surely getting them to pay to list news content is the proper solution (chortle).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think they have a problem,,
Its no international news that is Problematical..
Its local.
IF' they pass this fairly, and EVERYONE that links has to pay.. Bing, excite, yahoo, and every other search engine..
Dont forget, that MOST news paper ARE AGGREGATORS..they didnt go out and get/make the news, they only gather it from the major corps, and display it on the site..
If this is done fairly, all those smaller news site will have to pay ALSO..
Local news will suffer, because it wont be sent out to all that need to know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'It's what you asked for, what's the problem?'
(Note for those concerned: This quote is from a poem believed to be in the Public Domain in the US and/or UK, and if not, is believed to be covered by Fair Use.)
(Also Note: This quote used in its historical context. No offense is intended to any Danes, living or deceased, who were not part of any raids on other countries and peoples, or to any peoples, living or deceased, who have been or are being raided by Nordic peoples, also living or deceased.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 'It's what you asked for, what's the problem?'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Children and grandmothers and veterans were the obvious targets since they had very limited means of fighting back. Up to the point where people realized that going after those with very limited means of fighting back was morally reprehensible and the RIAA very reluctantly stopped. So they turned to any means of vilifying anyone related to tech - not too difficult given that some notables in Silicon Valley are arguably douchebags themselves. The problem there is they then have to contend with "Big Tech"'s war chest. (And they don't seem to have realized that any ability to stand up to "silly valley" would mean that the money they claimed was stolen by pirates had never left the building.)
It's likely that the RIAA and MPAA were closely following Prenda and Malibu Media given their prevalence in copyright cases filed across the country and shook their fists in self-righteous fury once the Prenda scheme collapse. Rightscorp's basket appears to be where they're now putting all their eggs in, having lucked out with Liam O'Grady.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Link Tax
They're banking really hard that while Google was willing to remove snippets from individual countries, it won't be willing to do the same for the entire EU.
If anyone in charge at Google has anything even remotely resembling a brain though they'll respond to the EU's demand to be paid for the traffic they send the same way that they've responded to it in the past, 'No, we'll just remove the snippets instead'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: EU/UK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny...
Let's all agree that extremism of any kind is very bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: News?
1. The EU may be too big to lose the business IF they were actually making money. Since they are not then why do they care if they shut it down?
2.
A. Great it forces Google out. However, it also carpet bombs every other aggregater who can't afford the fees.
B. Great Google is now paying. However, smaller competitors may not be able to pay and go out of business giving Google even more power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"He's apparently dumb enough to believe that piracy has only been happening for 20 years and/or that it didn't happen before the internet came along."
Worse. Looking at the years john smith/bobmail/blue has been trolling the boards here and on torrentfreak I'd say that he's "trumping". As that man describes the "art of the deal".
In other words, he has never reflected on factual reality since he believes that if he keeps presenting his narrative eventually a law, a deal and/or money will be provided him just to get him to shut up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]