3 ms·
From the associated article about this supposed "link tax". > Anyone using snippets of journalistic online content must first get a license from the publisher.
by pdkl95 8y ago
From the associated article about this supposed "link tax".
> Anyone using snippets of journalistic online content must first get a license from the publisher.
Re-publishing a portion of a published work is not a "link". A link is only a reference (address) where something (e.g. a published work) may be found, which not part of the work itself. Displaying a portion of work might be an allowed "fair use"? (I only know US copyright law; the EU may have very different laws about when it is "fair" to bypass copyr8ight and use part of a work)
However, it is important to remember that (at least in US-like jurisdiction) that the amount of work included in a snippet is one of several features used when judging if a use is "fair". Another important question is if the use affects the market for the original work. An academic paper that quotes snippets from an article is probably fair (nobody would read the paper as a substitute for reading the original article), while an aggregator using the same snippets may not be a fair use if people are reading the aggregator to read the article instead of continuing to the original publisher. In general, each case probably requires judge to rule if a specific use is "fair".
> Because readers need to know what a link leads to before clicking, sites almost always include a snippet of the linked-to content as part of a link.
This is deliberately attempting to conflate re-publication with a hyperlink. Link previews are not needed, are not used for the vast majority of links on the web. Claiming that previews are "almost always" included is patently a lie.
Should it be necessary, this kind of feature is better implemented in the user agent. I'm fairly certain I saw link prefetch+preview extensions for Firefox ~10 years ago.
> Small publishers disadvantaged: Aggregators create a level playing field for independent publishers with less brand recognition to reach audiences.
Did Google or FB write this doublespeak? Allowing aggregators to republish copyright protected works benefits the big players by allowing them to steal existing markets.
- nitwit005 8y agoYou're treating this as a conventional copyright issue, but I'm not sure that's correct. To quote the EFF's summary: > This isn't a copyright, because the link tax is paid to the publisher rather than the author, and because it is payable even if the portion of the news article taken isn't copyright-protected, falls within a copyright exception, or is freely licensed. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/how-have-europes-upload-filtering-and-link-tax-plans-changed https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/how-have-europes-uploa...
- jpetso 8y ago> Should it be necessary, this kind of feature is better implemented in the user agent. I'm fairly certain I saw link prefetch+preview extensions for Firefox ~10 years ago. I'd rather avoid that; sending fingerprintable information to random websites linked from e.g. a search result page or an article seems like a great way to unnecessarily expose myself to being tracked and abused in all kinds of ways.
- kuschku 8y agoProviding a <a href="..." prefetch> wouldn't give any tracking capability that <iframe ...> doesn't already give.
- charleslmunger 8y agoThat's true, but I don't know of anyone who does link previews via iframe.
- salvar 8y ago> This is deliberately attempting to conflate re-publication with a hyperlink. Link previews are not needed, are not used for the vast majority of links on the web. Claiming that previews are "almost always" included is patently a lie. To be fair, most social networks include some kind of link previews. Are you saying this is not a big deal because this will only affect links shared on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Slack, Discord and all other major social networks?
- c3o 8y agoThere is no such thing as "fair use" (or the "three-step-test" which you refer to) in EU copyright law. There is a defined list of exceptions (almost all of which are optional for member states to implement), and "link snippets" are not one of them. Every act of copying/making available not covered under those is forbidden. Plus, as another commenter said, this is not a copyright, but a related right – certain aspects of copyright like the requirement for the work to reflect some amount of original human creativity to enjoy protection do not apply. You claim most links do not include snippets, but given the popularity of Facebook, Twitter & Co for sharing links, I'm not sure that's still true. Even then: Even the title of a page alone is a snippet (not specifically excluded from this planned regulation), and I bet the majority of hyperlinks on the web do include the title of the linked-to page. As for the argument that only FB or Google would argue that small publishers will be disadvantaged by this, I refer to this lobbying organisation by independent publishers: http://mediapublishers.eu http://mediapublishers.eu