20 ms·

EU copyright proposal could undermine the use of Creative Commons licenses

266 points by c3o 8y ago

klez 8y ago
Doesn't this provision basically contrast with copyright itself? Doesn't this erase the rights an author has on its work, including giving it away for free?
- tuukkah 8y ago
  You bet it's framed as protecting the right-holders from exploitation. Some media companies in Europe have been crying for help against Google News.
  - xenomachina 8y ago
    What does that mean? Amy sources you can link to do I can read up on this more?
  - xenomachina 8y ago
    To clarify, I'm asking about why "media companies in Europe have been crying for help against Google News".
    - tuukkah 8y ago
      They want to get monetary compensation from Google News for something that is free, namely aggregation of news. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-copyright-news/eu-explores-whether-google-yahoo-should-pay-for-showing-online-news-snippets-idUSKBN0TS2D920151209 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-copyright-news/eu-expl...
      - Certhas 8y ago
        Why should it be free?
        tuukkah 8y ago
        Because it's currently free and the proposed alternative would undermine CC licensing. EDIT: full picture here: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/ https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for...
        icebraining 8y ago
        It's not that it should be free; it's that this proposal prevents the author from choosing to give it away for free. Essentially, the media companies are trying to create a legally-enforced cartel, since the last time some defected.
        michaelmrose 8y ago
        Because traditionally the idea was that sharing the fact that Bob wrote a story entitled Hippos are horrible along with 17000 other hippo related news items wasn't a copyrightable thing. Copyright has traditionally ensured that authors and those they designate are the sole source of their content while allowing everyone to discuss, share, and talk about the content freely so long as we don't share the meat of the content itself. The fact that the article exists and it's title does not stand in for the articles content so we haven't deprived the author of any right to profit from such. If Bob wants to be paid he can run ads within the article or even charge money and put up a paywall. Making anyone who wants to talk about Bob's article and share a link pay for the privilege of promoting Bob's work is quite frankly stupid even if narrowly construed. A website discussing all the articles about Hippos is a different work than Bob's article and Bob doesn't need a cut further this could easily be misused to say shut down criticism by charging undue revenue for anyone who wants to talk about and link to your work if they have anything unflattering to say. Im already dubious about the current applications of copyright. Giving authors the right to own all discussion of their work seems monumentally stupid.
        njharman 8y ago
        In addition to all the other valid reasons. The agreegatr is doing the work of collecting, displaying, possibly curating, possibly organising, rankng, sorting, etc. If anyone should get paid t should be the agregator. If the original content publishers are unhappy that can stop publishing they can stop publishing their content for FREE. They want all the benefits of near zero cost distributing to acrue to them. On top they want those proving exposure and increasing the value of their product to pay them! And since that is uttely one sided, ridiculous deal no one has taken them up on it. So, they are trying to use the law to enforce it.
      - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
        So, if a EU based news organization publishes an RSS feed, and I have a web page that consumes that RSS feed and displays a link to the original page and the blurb/headline from the RSS feed (as RSS aggregators do), I would now have to pay them?
        Joeri 8y ago
        Yes. The claim is that you’re profiting from their publishing activity without compensating them. In essence, the feed is a data stream and you must obtain a license for it. I’m not saying I agree, but that’s how I understand the argument.
        JustSomeNobody 8y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. Wow, that just seems like co opting RSS and then rentseeking from it. It completely bypasses the spirit of RSS and what it means.
      - xenomachina 8y ago
        > in Germany, Axel Springer SE, the country’s top publisher, had to scrap a move to block Google from running snippets of articles from its newspapers because traffic to its sites plunged. I think that says it all. They are getting paid: in traffic. If they aren't okay with that there are already means at their disposal, like the robot exclusion protocol, or even putting their content behind a paywall where robots can't get at it.
- IAmEveryone 8y ago
  There are similar inalienable rights in copyright, collectively referred to as "moral rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe It's a bit murky, especially in an international context. But they generally aim to protect authors, specifically in the author<->publisher relationship. It may seem counter-intuitive that taking away "your right to relinquish your rights" may be protecting you. But the idea is the same as whatever law stops you from selling yourself into slavery.
  - Certhas 8y ago
    This is completely typical in consumer protection laws. You can't legally sign away your right to warranty for example, and I believe that in some jurisdictions you can't sign away your right to sue (like you would if you agree to binding arbitration). I'd really like to see a more thorough argument than the linked blog on whether or not the proposed section is really a huge problem, and/or does nothing to protect legitimate rights holders who are in an asymmetric relationship with google that is maybe not to dissimilar to the consumer situation.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      It's unalienable because a reasonable party would just refuse to pay for the privilege of linking to you and a reasonable content creator would realize that losing 50-80% of traffic coming from the people who you think ought to pay to promote you would be a bad bargain. Its inalienable to short circuit the normal results of negotiations between big companies because they don't like the end result.
  - sgc 8y ago
    Except the current proposal goes against a very widespread and desirable use of copyright, which is to share freely while retaining attribution and control over reuse. And there are no human rights violations involved. As a result, the proposal in hand seems draconian - and since it basically deals with money, not at all similar to moral rights.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
tuukkah 8y ago
> [T]he latest proposal from the head of the copyright committee would deny creators the right to refuse remuneration — the right to share a work without getting paid — which could undermine the use of CC licenses if approved. This threatens all Open Source too! EDIT: Ok, missing from the article, but this would only apply to "press publications" by "publishers of press publications and news agencies": https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf UPDATE: full picture here: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/ https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for...
- c3o 8y ago
  This particular new right would apply only to "publishers of press publications and news agencies" (to quote one of the recent drafts), which is why I added "in journalism" to the title to clarify [edit: but mods removed it]. Open source is unfortunately threatened by a different provision, which would force GitHub and other code hosts to implement "ContentID"-like filters trying to detect copyright infringement in commits: https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filters-code/ https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filter...
  - _jal 8y ago
    Some quick googling didn't turn up an answer - do you know how "publishers of press publications and news agencies" are defined? Does my blog count?
    - DanBC 8y ago
      https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf > For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public according to the judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), notably hyperlinking to content which is available in the internet to the public with the consent of the rightholder, and hyperlinking to content which is available on another website without the consent of the rightholder for non commercial purposes by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website (CJEU Judgement of September 8, 2016 in Case C-160/15).
orcs 8y ago
Hacker news is buggered then.
ars 8y ago
I suspect they are doing this because otherwise no one would ever make use of this provision. (No one would be that stupid.) By forcing people to make use of this, their law actually gets used, which is important because otherwise they look like they don't know what they're doing. But the law of unintended consequences is going to cause serious problems if they actually pass this law.
- wohlergehen 8y ago
  Agreed. In the past, media companies that tried to enforce a "link tax" (IIRC in Spain and Germany) were just unlisted from the news feed---and lost a lot of traffic, rendering the whole endeavor moot. I guess they think that if everyone has to enforce the tax, they are protected from the threat of being unlisted.
- pmontra 8y ago
  Or, if the scenario they're thinking about is news aggregators: probably they don't want to see an aggregator (let's say Google News) to force deals for free licenses or the articles won't be included in its pages. Maybe they didn't even think about other scenarios or they accept them as collateral damage.
Someone1234 8y ago
While this isn't great, it is worth remembering that this is one individual's proposals that hasn't passed any committee, any vote, any vetting, any review period, and is a long way off becoming enacted. I'm all for voicing descent to this bad idea. I just want people to keep it in the context it belongs (a very big longshot for getting through as-is regardless).
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  I think the word you were looking for is "dissent". They sound exactly the same, so I understand your confusion!
- c3o 8y ago
  That's too optimistic. Let's dive into how EU law is made: First, the Commission (~government) proposes a law. They proposed this "extra copyright for news sites" that covers even tiniest snippets of news content and thus would put a price tag on links to news. In their version, publishers could opt out of it – but it would still cause major problems. Leading IP researchers said it will "deter communication of news", "negatively affect authors" and "hinder European innovation" http://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/eu-copyright-reform/ http://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/eu-copyright-reform... Next, the Parliament and the Council (member state governments) need to approve the plans or suggest changes. The Parliament nominates one MEP to shepherd this process. In this case that's Axel Voss (from Merkel's CDU). His job is to get together with the other parties and then make a proposal that in his assessment enjoys majority support in the Parliament. This is what this article is about. Not "one individual's proposal", but the lead negotiator's view of what a majority of the Parliament supports: Doubling down on an already bad idea by making the right inalienable. He may be wrong about that – we'll know when the Legal Affairs Committee votes on it on June 20/21. Other MEPs will file counter-proposals, but one of them winning out would be a rare, unexpected upset. Voss may also make changes to his proposal until then, but so far he's brushed off all opposing arguments. And yes, even if his plan is approved, there's a chance the "inalienable right" addition (the threat to Creative Commons) may not survive final negotiations with the Council and Commission. The thing is: This vote is the number one chance the public has to affect what will be in this law, and thus whether there'll be a "link tax" in Europe. We need to push our representatives to reject that idea in that vote, not double down on it.
Trisell 8y ago
It amazes me that the EU can be so forward thinking on Data Privacy. Yet so draconian when it comes to copyright laws.
- mkirklions 8y ago
  I dont know how to think of the EU. I think the US government is sick, but the EU is new and needs to be a benefit for it to survive. My assumption is that they are entirely incentivized by niche groups in each country that are pushing for reform to help their own goals. I dont see how many of their policies are beneficial to the masses.
  - jonballant 8y ago
    The biggest incentive for them to work together rather than pushing for reforms specific to an individual country is to match the power of the US government on the world stage. This was one of the main reasons for the creation of the EU to begin with, to compete with the US. As powerful as a strong economic country like Germany can become, they still pale in comparison in size to the US. Working together cohesively with other EU nations could create a superpower to rival China, USA, Japan, etc.
  - TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
    Why do you think the US government is sick? It's certainly not perfect, but would you really prefer any previous or existing government over what we have?
    - mkirklions 8y ago
      Every country over a long enough time-span becomes sick and corrupt IMO. I think when you are the world's only superpower, the worst of the world has gotten involved in the US's affairs. Prior to my birth, the president's role was limited and congress wasnt as paid for by lobbyists.
      - TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
zzzcpan 8y ago
Seems like the consequences could go way beyond licensing and into monopolization of news and press. They just can't help themselves but always push to centralize control over media.
DanBC 8y ago
It's useful to read the actual proposal, which doesn't seem to match the angle from creative commons: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf For example, compare this from the article: > 11. This is the provision that would introduce an additional right for press publishers to extract fees from news aggregators for incorporating short snippets of—or even linking to—their content. With this from the proposal: > 2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute acts of communication to the public. EDIT: the analyis from Julia Reda is pretty good too: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/ https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for...
- sgc 8y ago
  What text are you going to include in your hyperlink? Must every hyperlink title be paraphrased? It does seem to impact even the most basic hyperlinking as it has been used for the entire history of the internet.
- icebraining 8y ago
  The Link Tax part may not be, but the "obligatory remunerated" part is what's being discussed in this article.
amelius 8y ago
Why does it always seem as if such proposals are written by clueless people? Can't we, people of HN, draft proposals collaboratively, perhaps with some moderation system?
- trumpeta 8y ago
  Can we even agree on such a proposal among ourselves? I would like to see all copyright completely abolished, or at least reduced to max 2 years or so. I imagine a lot of people will disagree with me.
  - exikyut 8y ago
    Okay; for the sake of argument, let's say I agree. The first problem that immediately arises is that of providing a 1984-proof who-made-what oracle. No, the blockchain won't work. :D (Alright, alright, in a perfect-to-the-nth-degree world the blockchain probably would work, but it's generally a good idea to try and invent one new thing at a time, not invent ten interdependent things that all require each other and which all independently have discrete adoption inertia.)
    - icebraining 8y ago
      I don't get it, if copyright's abolished, why do you need a proof?
  - majewsky 8y ago
    2 years may be a bit too drastic for many forms of content (e.g. books, music albums) where sales need longer to recuperate the expenses that went into making them. 10 years would seem okay IMO. I would like to have copyright end once your earnings from a certain work exceed some multiple of the expenses that went into making it by a certain factor, but I can see that this is not realistic for various reasons.
    - rlpb 8y ago
      > I would like to have copyright end once your earnings from a certain work exceed some multiple of the expenses that went into making it by a certain factor... One of the reasons is that it would have a chilling effect for speculative investment in creating works. What if I'm a movie producer getting an average of one hit for nine flops? I need the profit from the hit to subsidize the flops.
drivingmenuts 8y ago
IANAL, so can someone explain how we get from "inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses" to "required to charge a fee"? Can one just say the fee is zero?
- sgc 8y ago
  You could, but then you would be able to later sue and/or rescind the right to use if it became popular. It is a right to undermine contracts after the fact, which would be extremely stifling to publishing in general.
delecti 8y ago
I wonder if that link tax provision isn't a door-in-the-face technique? It just seems so blatantly ridiculous given how the internet works that I have trouble believing anyone genuinely thought it was a good idea. Links almost by definition aren't copyright worthy information, it makes no sense to charge for them.
IAmEveryone 8y ago
Before you call this legislation, and legislators everywhere "clueless", as some unfailingly will, take a moment to consider its motivation. Because you can disagree with this proposal, and I do. But arguing against it should start with an attempt to understand its background. Many European countries, as well as rural US states, have seen their local press landscapes dying. Where there used to be two or three quality local papers, there are now one or none. And those often no longer have the resources to devote to actual investigations of local issues. The reason is obviously the internet, on two fronts: First, often overlooked yet more important, is the death of classifieds and ads. These used to provide about half of publishers' revenue. Craigslist and Google Ads have reduced these opportunities drastically (i. e. by about 80%). On top of that comes the competition by publishers on the internet. The issue now is that it simply doesn't pay to devote any resources to any serious investigation. The Wall Street Journal might pay a reporter for half a year of work to produce a story on corruption at the FAA. But ten minutes after that story is published, the AP and every news site on the web can quote the essential information. Nw if you believe copyright and patents should be completely abolished, then it's completely fair to call this idea by the EU "clueless". But if you think that (limited) intellectual property laws may, in principle, be acceptable and important to allow investments in such endeavours, then this idea doesn't seem as outlandish. I still believe these ideas are misguided, and there might just not be a good way to create a workable system around such rights. But as a believer in the necessity for a vibrant media landscape to inform the public discourse, I don't enjoy watching the press' misery either.
- c3o 8y ago
  It's true: Publishers' business model is under threat, and some politicians pushing for this law are doing to so out of a genuine interest in fixing that. But actually, only a few very big publishers have lobbied for this, claiming that this would "save journalism in Europe" when they care mostly about their own bottom line. Limiting how news spreads on social networks and aggregators is not in the interest of and would actually harm smaller publishers, who benefit from competing with the big brands on such sites on an equal footing. Small, independent and innovative publishers had to get together to form their own lobby organisation to OPPOSE this law that politicians would claim is to their benefit: http://mediapublishers.eu/our-views/ http://mediapublishers.eu/our-views/
nmstoker 8y ago
Have the concerns raised by CC received attention from serious lawyers? I'm no lawyer, but I fail to see how this: ... an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.” suggests that I must get paid whether I want it or not, as the CC post seems to rely on for stoking up concern. Surely it's the same as an inalienable right to free speech - you're not obliged to actually go round speaking freely, it's inalienable in the sense that you can't get rid of that right, not that you must exercise it!
- icebraining 8y ago
  The proposal (linked PDF) says the payment is obligatory. At least in my European country, the likely result would be that the company will pay the Association of Authors (an organization which collects payment from all kinds of uses of works), which would retain it until the author collected it.
- lozenge 8y ago
  How can I use your CC licensed content commercially if you'll always have an inalienable right to collect license fees from me?
- mormegil 8y ago
  In this context, it means you cannot waive that right. I. e. there could not be a license saying "use this freely, I don't want to be paid". The "no payment" part would be null and void and anyone using CC content would be in danger of being contacted by the author requesting "fair" payment any time later. (But I would say this would not be a completely unprecedented case, CC licenses brush aside a few unalienable rights already.)
- c3o 8y ago
  The back story of the law may shed some light. First, it's no secret that the intent is to prop up the business model of struggling publishers by getting internet platforms to pay them for spreading (links to/tiny snippets of) their content. After a "link tax" law was introduced in Germany, some publishers decided to waive it. Google reacted by removing snippets from those who didn't in Google News, making their links less likely to be clicked on. Afraid of losing traffic, these publishers then granted Google a free license. The government of Spain looked at this result and decided to implement the idea as an inalienable right, to make sure some publishers couldn't opt out, and Google would have to pay up. In response, Google shut down Google News altogether in Spain. This is the version that the Parliament's chief negotiator now wants the EU to implement. He believes that Google (and Facebook and Twitter, which have been added as targets) wouldn't dare shut down a service across all of Europe.
dosycorp 8y ago
I find it humorous that this is being done with good intentions, "to benefit creators". In one sense it appears tone deaf to how much CC-licensed sharing can be argued to enable an economy of content creators, by lowering certain transaction costs. But in light of recent revelations and the public mood, it seems more prescient: perhaps pointing the way to a future where everybody pays for every little bit of content they consume, rather than being the product themselves, in a "free" offering. That old idea of micropayments for content, here we come, eh? And the EU being the first (for once) to lawify it. Is it too early to pat them on the back? If you can encourage reuse, that's good. If you can encourage payment, that's good. Different strokes, for different folks, works. As I understand it, the proposal forces payment. That's not good. Creators choices should not be constrained in this way. Instead of constraining options, I feel EU legco, should see if there is an opportunity to legislate to ease the way for implementing and executing micropayments / content transactions ( a real problem ), if there is, do that. Law that engages with and enables technological realities, rather than trying to constrain something already useful, would seem to work better here.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DiabloD3 8y ago
I am a content creator that sometimes uses CC as a license. I am also American. I know this is a bit of a nuclear option, but would (re-?)licensing my works as CC+"EU ban" actually help the use of my works in the EU? Essentially, I would ban the use of my works in any country that makes such laws (which would violate my rights as a copyright holder to license my work however I see fit), thus preventing the foreign nation from applying additional restrictions to my license because it is already banned in their country. Obviously, I could not enforce such ban (nor would I; the entire point is to hamstring the government's actions, not the actions of the consumers of my content), but they couldn't modify my license without legitimizing my license. In essence, it's like how in the US, it is illegal to pay taxes on illegally gotten gains, because it puts the IRS in a weird spot and forces you to violate your own rights of self-incrimination while making the IRS implicit partners in your crime.
- Tyrek 8y ago
  It is illegal in the US to NOT pay taxes on illegal profits. That's how Al Capone was taken down - it's infinitely easier for the government to prove that you had income that was not declared than it is to prove that the income came from specific illegal activities a, b and c.
- pwg 8y ago
  > it's like how in the US, it is illegal to pay taxes on illegally gotten gains, Actually, the rule in the US is: it is illegal to /not/ pay taxes on illegally gotten gains Failing to declare and pay income tax on income (no matter the source of the income) is what is illegal. And many a criminal (as another poster mentioned in regards to Al Capone) has been ensnared in a "failed to pay income tax" /gotcha/ even though they could not be convicted of the illegal activity itself.
- icebraining 8y ago
  If you banned EU users from using it, they'd just be banned. I don't see how it would help them.
mark-r 8y ago
I don't understand how the proposed language leads to the conclusion. How does an "inalienable right" to compensation turn into compulsory compensation? Don't you have the ability to choose not to enforce the right?
- nmeofthestate 8y ago
  I think the problem is that you can't announce that you wont enforce your right for some given content - it is inalienable. (IANAL) So, you can say "don't worry I wont enforce this" but nothing is stopping you then enforcing it. So nobody can feel legally in the clear to link your stuff.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- a_humean 8y ago
  Not sure as maybe the term "inalienable right" has a different meaning, but I feel like the article is making too strong a claim. An "inalienable right" is usually something you cannot waive by contract, and so while you could promise never to enforce a right you cannot legally bind yourself or the state from enforcing it. Basically it makes CC licenses more risky for distributors of such content as there is always the risk that the previously waived right is now enforceable on a whim. However, maybe "inalienable right" in EU legal language means that you must enforce it, which seems like quite a legal burden on the license issuer.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    The linked PDF with the proposal makes it clear: "The digital use of press publications should be obligatory remunerated" So it's more than inalienable - the payment is obligatory.
tzs 8y ago
> But Voss wants to amplify its worst features by asserting that press publishers will receive—whether they like it or not—an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.” This means that publishers will be required to demand payment from news aggregators. Does "inalienable" mean something different in European law than it does in US law? In the US, having an inalienable right doesn't mean that you are required to exercise that right. It just limits what others can do to stop you from exercising it. For example, we have an inalienable right to travel. That doesn't mean we have to travel. It just means that government is limited when it comes to things that impact our exercising that right. I could contractually agree to limit my exercise of that right, and that would be fine. Such a contract could be enforceable.
- icebraining 8y ago
  From the uses I know in my European country, it usually means you're not required to exercise it, but you can't limit it by contract either. That said, in this particular case, the linked proposal specifies what it means: "The digital use of press publications should be obligatory remunerated"
  - toyg 8y ago
    Looks like a mistake there - obligatory is not an adverb, that's obligatorily. UK is not even out of the EU and the level of English is already going down! /s
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    What if I ask for 1/10000th of a Euro remuneration? This whole thing seems like a non-issue blown up over poor draft wording.
- ggambetta 8y ago
  > we have an inalienable right to travel. That doesn't mean we have to travel. But isn't that what "right" already means?
  - 8y ago
nerdponx 8y ago
press publishers will receive—whether they like it or not—an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.” This means that publishers will be required to demand payment from news aggregators. Is this even what Mr. Voss intended? Who benefits from this? Couldn't this be fixed by replacing "obtain" with "demand" or "choose to require" or something?
- quadrangle 8y ago
  I used to think nobody was that awful, e.g. nobody was anti-public-library, until I met people who were. It's totally understandable that the goal is to eliminate the public domain and all free/libre/open publications as a means to the end of funding proprietary stuff. Say you have a business mowing people's lawns. If you were anti-social, you might support outlawing friendly neighbors mowing others' lawns for free or even outlaw people mowing their own lawns. You might even deceive yourself with some pro-social ideas about how forcing all lawn-mowing to be paid-lawn-mowing will end up with a world of better lawns, better economy, and all the extended benefits of well-paid lawn-mowers besides yourself… Similarly, if you're a news outlet, you'd be happy to see a price forced on all your competitors. It's easier for you to charge your price if everyone else has to also. Ironically, this could be argued from a pro-social consideration of solidarity and funding journalism. Of course, deeper pro-social inspection of the situation reveals that sabotaging FLO works and public domain is an unacceptable tragedy that is not a respectable means to the end of funding journalism. But short-sighted folks will try anything since they are freaking out about the valid concern over journalism funding in general.
_jgvg 8y ago
We've seen it before: https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-reveals-the-winners-and-losers-from-a-link-tax/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-r... Everyone loses. And smaller, local, independent companies lose more.

266 points by c3o 8y ago

klez 8y ago

Doesn't this provision basically contrast with copyright itself? Doesn't this erase the rights an author has on its work, including giving it away for free?

tuukkah 8y ago
You bet it's framed as protecting the right-holders from exploitation. Some media companies in Europe have been crying for help against Google News.
- xenomachina 8y ago
  What does that mean? Amy sources you can link to do I can read up on this more?
- xenomachina 8y ago
  To clarify, I'm asking about why "media companies in Europe have been crying for help against Google News".
  - tuukkah 8y ago
    They want to get monetary compensation from Google News for something that is free, namely aggregation of news. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-copyright-news/eu-explores-whether-google-yahoo-should-pay-for-showing-online-news-snippets-idUSKBN0TS2D920151209 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-copyright-news/eu-expl...
    - Certhas 8y ago
      Why should it be free?
      - tuukkah 8y ago
        Because it's currently free and the proposed alternative would undermine CC licensing. EDIT: full picture here: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/ https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for...
      - icebraining 8y ago
        It's not that it should be free; it's that this proposal prevents the author from choosing to give it away for free. Essentially, the media companies are trying to create a legally-enforced cartel, since the last time some defected.
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        Because traditionally the idea was that sharing the fact that Bob wrote a story entitled Hippos are horrible along with 17000 other hippo related news items wasn't a copyrightable thing. Copyright has traditionally ensured that authors and those they designate are the sole source of their content while allowing everyone to discuss, share, and talk about the content freely so long as we don't share the meat of the content itself. The fact that the article exists and it's title does not stand in for the articles content so we haven't deprived the author of any right to profit from such. If Bob wants to be paid he can run ads within the article or even charge money and put up a paywall. Making anyone who wants to talk about Bob's article and share a link pay for the privilege of promoting Bob's work is quite frankly stupid even if narrowly construed. A website discussing all the articles about Hippos is a different work than Bob's article and Bob doesn't need a cut further this could easily be misused to say shut down criticism by charging undue revenue for anyone who wants to talk about and link to your work if they have anything unflattering to say. Im already dubious about the current applications of copyright. Giving authors the right to own all discussion of their work seems monumentally stupid.
      - njharman 8y ago
        In addition to all the other valid reasons. The agreegatr is doing the work of collecting, displaying, possibly curating, possibly organising, rankng, sorting, etc. If anyone should get paid t should be the agregator. If the original content publishers are unhappy that can stop publishing they can stop publishing their content for FREE. They want all the benefits of near zero cost distributing to acrue to them. On top they want those proving exposure and increasing the value of their product to pay them! And since that is uttely one sided, ridiculous deal no one has taken them up on it. So, they are trying to use the law to enforce it.
    - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
      So, if a EU based news organization publishes an RSS feed, and I have a web page that consumes that RSS feed and displays a link to the original page and the blurb/headline from the RSS feed (as RSS aggregators do), I would now have to pay them?
      - Joeri 8y ago
        Yes. The claim is that you’re profiting from their publishing activity without compensating them. In essence, the feed is a data stream and you must obtain a license for it. I’m not saying I agree, but that’s how I understand the argument.
        JustSomeNobody 8y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. Wow, that just seems like co opting RSS and then rentseeking from it. It completely bypasses the spirit of RSS and what it means.
    - xenomachina 8y ago
      > in Germany, Axel Springer SE, the country’s top publisher, had to scrap a move to block Google from running snippets of articles from its newspapers because traffic to its sites plunged. I think that says it all. They are getting paid: in traffic. If they aren't okay with that there are already means at their disposal, like the robot exclusion protocol, or even putting their content behind a paywall where robots can't get at it.
IAmEveryone 8y ago
There are similar inalienable rights in copyright, collectively referred to as "moral rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe It's a bit murky, especially in an international context. But they generally aim to protect authors, specifically in the author<->publisher relationship. It may seem counter-intuitive that taking away "your right to relinquish your rights" may be protecting you. But the idea is the same as whatever law stops you from selling yourself into slavery.
- Certhas 8y ago
  This is completely typical in consumer protection laws. You can't legally sign away your right to warranty for example, and I believe that in some jurisdictions you can't sign away your right to sue (like you would if you agree to binding arbitration). I'd really like to see a more thorough argument than the linked blog on whether or not the proposed section is really a huge problem, and/or does nothing to protect legitimate rights holders who are in an asymmetric relationship with google that is maybe not to dissimilar to the consumer situation.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    It's unalienable because a reasonable party would just refuse to pay for the privilege of linking to you and a reasonable content creator would realize that losing 50-80% of traffic coming from the people who you think ought to pay to promote you would be a bad bargain. Its inalienable to short circuit the normal results of negotiations between big companies because they don't like the end result.
- sgc 8y ago
  Except the current proposal goes against a very widespread and desirable use of copyright, which is to share freely while retaining attribution and control over reuse. And there are no human rights violations involved. As a result, the proposal in hand seems draconian - and since it basically deals with money, not at all similar to moral rights.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago

tuukkah 8y ago

> [T]he latest proposal from the head of the copyright committee would deny creators the right to refuse remuneration — the right to share a work without getting paid — which could undermine the use of CC licenses if approved. This threatens all Open Source too! EDIT: Ok, missing from the article, but this would only apply to "press publications" by "publishers of press publications and news agencies": https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf UPDATE: full picture here: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/ https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for...

c3o 8y ago
This particular new right would apply only to "publishers of press publications and news agencies" (to quote one of the recent drafts), which is why I added "in journalism" to the title to clarify [edit: but mods removed it]. Open source is unfortunately threatened by a different provision, which would force GitHub and other code hosts to implement "ContentID"-like filters trying to detect copyright infringement in commits: https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filters-code/ https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filter...
- _jal 8y ago
  Some quick googling didn't turn up an answer - do you know how "publishers of press publications and news agencies" are defined? Does my blog count?
  - DanBC 8y ago
    https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf > For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public according to the judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), notably hyperlinking to content which is available in the internet to the public with the consent of the rightholder, and hyperlinking to content which is available on another website without the consent of the rightholder for non commercial purposes by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website (CJEU Judgement of September 8, 2016 in Case C-160/15).

orcs 8y ago

Hacker news is buggered then.

ars 8y ago

I suspect they are doing this because otherwise no one would ever make use of this provision. (No one would be that stupid.) By forcing people to make use of this, their law actually gets used, which is important because otherwise they look like they don't know what they're doing. But the law of unintended consequences is going to cause serious problems if they actually pass this law.

wohlergehen 8y ago
Agreed. In the past, media companies that tried to enforce a "link tax" (IIRC in Spain and Germany) were just unlisted from the news feed---and lost a lot of traffic, rendering the whole endeavor moot. I guess they think that if everyone has to enforce the tax, they are protected from the threat of being unlisted.
pmontra 8y ago
Or, if the scenario they're thinking about is news aggregators: probably they don't want to see an aggregator (let's say Google News) to force deals for free licenses or the articles won't be included in its pages. Maybe they didn't even think about other scenarios or they accept them as collateral damage.

Someone1234 8y ago

While this isn't great, it is worth remembering that this is one individual's proposals that hasn't passed any committee, any vote, any vetting, any review period, and is a long way off becoming enacted. I'm all for voicing descent to this bad idea. I just want people to keep it in the context it belongs (a very big longshot for getting through as-is regardless).

Cyph0n 8y ago
I think the word you were looking for is "dissent". They sound exactly the same, so I understand your confusion!
c3o 8y ago
That's too optimistic. Let's dive into how EU law is made: First, the Commission (~government) proposes a law. They proposed this "extra copyright for news sites" that covers even tiniest snippets of news content and thus would put a price tag on links to news. In their version, publishers could opt out of it – but it would still cause major problems. Leading IP researchers said it will "deter communication of news", "negatively affect authors" and "hinder European innovation" http://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/eu-copyright-reform/ http://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/eu-copyright-reform... Next, the Parliament and the Council (member state governments) need to approve the plans or suggest changes. The Parliament nominates one MEP to shepherd this process. In this case that's Axel Voss (from Merkel's CDU). His job is to get together with the other parties and then make a proposal that in his assessment enjoys majority support in the Parliament. This is what this article is about. Not "one individual's proposal", but the lead negotiator's view of what a majority of the Parliament supports: Doubling down on an already bad idea by making the right inalienable. He may be wrong about that – we'll know when the Legal Affairs Committee votes on it on June 20/21. Other MEPs will file counter-proposals, but one of them winning out would be a rare, unexpected upset. Voss may also make changes to his proposal until then, but so far he's brushed off all opposing arguments. And yes, even if his plan is approved, there's a chance the "inalienable right" addition (the threat to Creative Commons) may not survive final negotiations with the Council and Commission. The thing is: This vote is the number one chance the public has to affect what will be in this law, and thus whether there'll be a "link tax" in Europe. We need to push our representatives to reject that idea in that vote, not double down on it.

Trisell 8y ago

It amazes me that the EU can be so forward thinking on Data Privacy. Yet so draconian when it comes to copyright laws.

mkirklions 8y ago
I dont know how to think of the EU. I think the US government is sick, but the EU is new and needs to be a benefit for it to survive. My assumption is that they are entirely incentivized by niche groups in each country that are pushing for reform to help their own goals. I dont see how many of their policies are beneficial to the masses.
- jonballant 8y ago
  The biggest incentive for them to work together rather than pushing for reforms specific to an individual country is to match the power of the US government on the world stage. This was one of the main reasons for the creation of the EU to begin with, to compete with the US. As powerful as a strong economic country like Germany can become, they still pale in comparison in size to the US. Working together cohesively with other EU nations could create a superpower to rival China, USA, Japan, etc.
- TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
  Why do you think the US government is sick? It's certainly not perfect, but would you really prefer any previous or existing government over what we have?
  - mkirklions 8y ago
    Every country over a long enough time-span becomes sick and corrupt IMO. I think when you are the world's only superpower, the worst of the world has gotten involved in the US's affairs. Prior to my birth, the president's role was limited and congress wasnt as paid for by lobbyists.
    - TheAceOfHearts 8y ago

zzzcpan 8y ago

Seems like the consequences could go way beyond licensing and into monopolization of news and press. They just can't help themselves but always push to centralize control over media.

DanBC 8y ago

It's useful to read the actual proposal, which doesn't seem to match the angle from creative commons: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf For example, compare this from the article: > 11. This is the provision that would introduce an additional right for press publishers to extract fees from news aggregators for incorporating short snippets of—or even linking to—their content. With this from the proposal: > 2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute acts of communication to the public. EDIT: the analyis from Julia Reda is pretty good too: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for-news-sites/ https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for...

sgc 8y ago
What text are you going to include in your hyperlink? Must every hyperlink title be paraphrased? It does seem to impact even the most basic hyperlinking as it has been used for the entire history of the internet.
icebraining 8y ago
The Link Tax part may not be, but the "obligatory remunerated" part is what's being discussed in this article.

amelius 8y ago

Why does it always seem as if such proposals are written by clueless people? Can't we, people of HN, draft proposals collaboratively, perhaps with some moderation system?

trumpeta 8y ago
Can we even agree on such a proposal among ourselves? I would like to see all copyright completely abolished, or at least reduced to max 2 years or so. I imagine a lot of people will disagree with me.
- exikyut 8y ago
  Okay; for the sake of argument, let's say I agree. The first problem that immediately arises is that of providing a 1984-proof who-made-what oracle. No, the blockchain won't work. :D (Alright, alright, in a perfect-to-the-nth-degree world the blockchain probably would work, but it's generally a good idea to try and invent one new thing at a time, not invent ten interdependent things that all require each other and which all independently have discrete adoption inertia.)
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I don't get it, if copyright's abolished, why do you need a proof?
- majewsky 8y ago
  2 years may be a bit too drastic for many forms of content (e.g. books, music albums) where sales need longer to recuperate the expenses that went into making them. 10 years would seem okay IMO. I would like to have copyright end once your earnings from a certain work exceed some multiple of the expenses that went into making it by a certain factor, but I can see that this is not realistic for various reasons.
  - rlpb 8y ago
    > I would like to have copyright end once your earnings from a certain work exceed some multiple of the expenses that went into making it by a certain factor... One of the reasons is that it would have a chilling effect for speculative investment in creating works. What if I'm a movie producer getting an average of one hit for nine flops? I need the profit from the hit to subsidize the flops.

drivingmenuts 8y ago

IANAL, so can someone explain how we get from "inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses" to "required to charge a fee"? Can one just say the fee is zero?

sgc 8y ago
You could, but then you would be able to later sue and/or rescind the right to use if it became popular. It is a right to undermine contracts after the fact, which would be extremely stifling to publishing in general.

delecti 8y ago

I wonder if that link tax provision isn't a door-in-the-face technique? It just seems so blatantly ridiculous given how the internet works that I have trouble believing anyone genuinely thought it was a good idea. Links almost by definition aren't copyright worthy information, it makes no sense to charge for them.

IAmEveryone 8y ago

Before you call this legislation, and legislators everywhere "clueless", as some unfailingly will, take a moment to consider its motivation. Because you can disagree with this proposal, and I do. But arguing against it should start with an attempt to understand its background. Many European countries, as well as rural US states, have seen their local press landscapes dying. Where there used to be two or three quality local papers, there are now one or none. And those often no longer have the resources to devote to actual investigations of local issues. The reason is obviously the internet, on two fronts: First, often overlooked yet more important, is the death of classifieds and ads. These used to provide about half of publishers' revenue. Craigslist and Google Ads have reduced these opportunities drastically (i. e. by about 80%). On top of that comes the competition by publishers on the internet. The issue now is that it simply doesn't pay to devote any resources to any serious investigation. The Wall Street Journal might pay a reporter for half a year of work to produce a story on corruption at the FAA. But ten minutes after that story is published, the AP and every news site on the web can quote the essential information. Nw if you believe copyright and patents should be completely abolished, then it's completely fair to call this idea by the EU "clueless". But if you think that (limited) intellectual property laws may, in principle, be acceptable and important to allow investments in such endeavours, then this idea doesn't seem as outlandish. I still believe these ideas are misguided, and there might just not be a good way to create a workable system around such rights. But as a believer in the necessity for a vibrant media landscape to inform the public discourse, I don't enjoy watching the press' misery either.

c3o 8y ago
It's true: Publishers' business model is under threat, and some politicians pushing for this law are doing to so out of a genuine interest in fixing that. But actually, only a few very big publishers have lobbied for this, claiming that this would "save journalism in Europe" when they care mostly about their own bottom line. Limiting how news spreads on social networks and aggregators is not in the interest of and would actually harm smaller publishers, who benefit from competing with the big brands on such sites on an equal footing. Small, independent and innovative publishers had to get together to form their own lobby organisation to OPPOSE this law that politicians would claim is to their benefit: http://mediapublishers.eu/our-views/ http://mediapublishers.eu/our-views/

nmstoker 8y ago

Have the concerns raised by CC received attention from serious lawyers? I'm no lawyer, but I fail to see how this: ... an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.” suggests that I must get paid whether I want it or not, as the CC post seems to rely on for stoking up concern. Surely it's the same as an inalienable right to free speech - you're not obliged to actually go round speaking freely, it's inalienable in the sense that you can't get rid of that right, not that you must exercise it!

icebraining 8y ago
The proposal (linked PDF) says the payment is obligatory. At least in my European country, the likely result would be that the company will pay the Association of Authors (an organization which collects payment from all kinds of uses of works), which would retain it until the author collected it.
lozenge 8y ago
How can I use your CC licensed content commercially if you'll always have an inalienable right to collect license fees from me?
mormegil 8y ago
In this context, it means you cannot waive that right. I. e. there could not be a license saying "use this freely, I don't want to be paid". The "no payment" part would be null and void and anyone using CC content would be in danger of being contacted by the author requesting "fair" payment any time later. (But I would say this would not be a completely unprecedented case, CC licenses brush aside a few unalienable rights already.)
c3o 8y ago
The back story of the law may shed some light. First, it's no secret that the intent is to prop up the business model of struggling publishers by getting internet platforms to pay them for spreading (links to/tiny snippets of) their content. After a "link tax" law was introduced in Germany, some publishers decided to waive it. Google reacted by removing snippets from those who didn't in Google News, making their links less likely to be clicked on. Afraid of losing traffic, these publishers then granted Google a free license. The government of Spain looked at this result and decided to implement the idea as an inalienable right, to make sure some publishers couldn't opt out, and Google would have to pay up. In response, Google shut down Google News altogether in Spain. This is the version that the Parliament's chief negotiator now wants the EU to implement. He believes that Google (and Facebook and Twitter, which have been added as targets) wouldn't dare shut down a service across all of Europe.

dosycorp 8y ago

I find it humorous that this is being done with good intentions, "to benefit creators". In one sense it appears tone deaf to how much CC-licensed sharing can be argued to enable an economy of content creators, by lowering certain transaction costs. But in light of recent revelations and the public mood, it seems more prescient: perhaps pointing the way to a future where everybody pays for every little bit of content they consume, rather than being the product themselves, in a "free" offering. That old idea of micropayments for content, here we come, eh? And the EU being the first (for once) to lawify it. Is it too early to pat them on the back? If you can encourage reuse, that's good. If you can encourage payment, that's good. Different strokes, for different folks, works. As I understand it, the proposal forces payment. That's not good. Creators choices should not be constrained in this way. Instead of constraining options, I feel EU legco, should see if there is an opportunity to legislate to ease the way for implementing and executing micropayments / content transactions ( a real problem ), if there is, do that. Law that engages with and enables technological realities, rather than trying to constrain something already useful, would seem to work better here.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

DiabloD3 8y ago

I am a content creator that sometimes uses CC as a license. I am also American. I know this is a bit of a nuclear option, but would (re-?)licensing my works as CC+"EU ban" actually help the use of my works in the EU? Essentially, I would ban the use of my works in any country that makes such laws (which would violate my rights as a copyright holder to license my work however I see fit), thus preventing the foreign nation from applying additional restrictions to my license because it is already banned in their country. Obviously, I could not enforce such ban (nor would I; the entire point is to hamstring the government's actions, not the actions of the consumers of my content), but they couldn't modify my license without legitimizing my license. In essence, it's like how in the US, it is illegal to pay taxes on illegally gotten gains, because it puts the IRS in a weird spot and forces you to violate your own rights of self-incrimination while making the IRS implicit partners in your crime.

Tyrek 8y ago
It is illegal in the US to NOT pay taxes on illegal profits. That's how Al Capone was taken down - it's infinitely easier for the government to prove that you had income that was not declared than it is to prove that the income came from specific illegal activities a, b and c.
pwg 8y ago
> it's like how in the US, it is illegal to pay taxes on illegally gotten gains, Actually, the rule in the US is: it is illegal to /not/ pay taxes on illegally gotten gains Failing to declare and pay income tax on income (no matter the source of the income) is what is illegal. And many a criminal (as another poster mentioned in regards to Al Capone) has been ensnared in a "failed to pay income tax" /gotcha/ even though they could not be convicted of the illegal activity itself.
icebraining 8y ago
If you banned EU users from using it, they'd just be banned. I don't see how it would help them.

mark-r 8y ago

I don't understand how the proposed language leads to the conclusion. How does an "inalienable right" to compensation turn into compulsory compensation? Don't you have the ability to choose not to enforce the right?

nmeofthestate 8y ago
I think the problem is that you can't announce that you wont enforce your right for some given content - it is inalienable. (IANAL) So, you can say "don't worry I wont enforce this" but nothing is stopping you then enforcing it. So nobody can feel legally in the clear to link your stuff.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
a_humean 8y ago
Not sure as maybe the term "inalienable right" has a different meaning, but I feel like the article is making too strong a claim. An "inalienable right" is usually something you cannot waive by contract, and so while you could promise never to enforce a right you cannot legally bind yourself or the state from enforcing it. Basically it makes CC licenses more risky for distributors of such content as there is always the risk that the previously waived right is now enforceable on a whim. However, maybe "inalienable right" in EU legal language means that you must enforce it, which seems like quite a legal burden on the license issuer.
- icebraining 8y ago
  The linked PDF with the proposal makes it clear: "The digital use of press publications should be obligatory remunerated" So it's more than inalienable - the payment is obligatory.

tzs 8y ago

> But Voss wants to amplify its worst features by asserting that press publishers will receive—whether they like it or not—an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.” This means that publishers will be required to demand payment from news aggregators. Does "inalienable" mean something different in European law than it does in US law? In the US, having an inalienable right doesn't mean that you are required to exercise that right. It just limits what others can do to stop you from exercising it. For example, we have an inalienable right to travel. That doesn't mean we have to travel. It just means that government is limited when it comes to things that impact our exercising that right. I could contractually agree to limit my exercise of that right, and that would be fine. Such a contract could be enforceable.

icebraining 8y ago
From the uses I know in my European country, it usually means you're not required to exercise it, but you can't limit it by contract either. That said, in this particular case, the linked proposal specifies what it means: "The digital use of press publications should be obligatory remunerated"
- toyg 8y ago
  Looks like a mistake there - obligatory is not an adverb, that's obligatorily. UK is not even out of the EU and the level of English is already going down! /s
- nerdponx 8y ago
  What if I ask for 1/10000th of a Euro remuneration? This whole thing seems like a non-issue blown up over poor draft wording.
ggambetta 8y ago
> we have an inalienable right to travel. That doesn't mean we have to travel. But isn't that what "right" already means?
- 8y ago

nerdponx 8y ago

press publishers will receive—whether they like it or not—an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.” This means that publishers will be required to demand payment from news aggregators. Is this even what Mr. Voss intended? Who benefits from this? Couldn't this be fixed by replacing "obtain" with "demand" or "choose to require" or something?

quadrangle 8y ago
I used to think nobody was that awful, e.g. nobody was anti-public-library, until I met people who were. It's totally understandable that the goal is to eliminate the public domain and all free/libre/open publications as a means to the end of funding proprietary stuff. Say you have a business mowing people's lawns. If you were anti-social, you might support outlawing friendly neighbors mowing others' lawns for free or even outlaw people mowing their own lawns. You might even deceive yourself with some pro-social ideas about how forcing all lawn-mowing to be paid-lawn-mowing will end up with a world of better lawns, better economy, and all the extended benefits of well-paid lawn-mowers besides yourself… Similarly, if you're a news outlet, you'd be happy to see a price forced on all your competitors. It's easier for you to charge your price if everyone else has to also. Ironically, this could be argued from a pro-social consideration of solidarity and funding journalism. Of course, deeper pro-social inspection of the situation reveals that sabotaging FLO works and public domain is an unacceptable tragedy that is not a respectable means to the end of funding journalism. But short-sighted folks will try anything since they are freaking out about the valid concern over journalism funding in general.

_jgvg 8y ago

We've seen it before: https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-reveals-the-winners-and-losers-from-a-link-tax/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-r... Everyone loses. And smaller, local, independent companies lose more.