3 ms·

I hope this dies just like many laws the US tries to pass on regulating the Internet in a way that promotes special interests versus that of the public good. B

I hope this dies just like many laws the US tries to pass on regulating the Internet in a way that promotes special interests versus that of the public good. But as a thought experiment, if you were a lawyer tasked to argue this was publicly good, what could you even say? Content creators deserve money for creating content. Aggregators are stealing some of that value and that's inefficient but currently unenforceable? .... I just can't even think of another reason. Maybe this is protectionism (both nationally and of existing enterprises). French publications are upset they can't get more of the pie from Google who is US based. EU publications in general are upset that aggregation theory ( https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ ) has taken hold and distributors like publishers are getting wiped out. This will surely accelerate a trend that Google is already doing without monetary incentive: creating their own content and putting in on top.

kd5bjo 8y ago
> But as a thought experiment, if you were a lawyer tasked to argue this was publicly good, what could you even say? The primary economic value of many news articles is provided by timeliness and one or two key facts, even if they appear in a longer piece. By including a copy of those facts adjacent to the article link, the linking party is taking that value without actually doing the work of journalism. Copyright is a mechanism that is already in place to deal with undesirable distribution of an author's work, so the simple solution is to extend its protection to even tiny parts of journalistic writing.
merinowool 8y ago
> what could you even say? That it is just a fact of life. Every creation is based directly or indirectly on past creations, then how about looking after the rights of entities that contributed to the content created? Should content creators share their revenue? That places them in privileged position. What about profit content creators get from exposure given by aggregators? Should they share too? And so on. This is just terribly stupid.

kd5bjo 8y ago

> But as a thought experiment, if you were a lawyer tasked to argue this was publicly good, what could you even say? The primary economic value of many news articles is provided by timeliness and one or two key facts, even if they appear in a longer piece. By including a copy of those facts adjacent to the article link, the linking party is taking that value without actually doing the work of journalism. Copyright is a mechanism that is already in place to deal with undesirable distribution of an author's work, so the simple solution is to extend its protection to even tiny parts of journalistic writing.

merinowool 8y ago

> what could you even say? That it is just a fact of life. Every creation is based directly or indirectly on past creations, then how about looking after the rights of entities that contributed to the content created? Should content creators share their revenue? That places them in privileged position. What about profit content creators get from exposure given by aggregators? Should they share too? And so on. This is just terribly stupid.