4 ms·

> Concerns focus on a provision that would let publishers claim royalties for the use of snippets of information, such as tables or headlines. This was included

by elihu 8y ago

> Concerns focus on a provision that would let publishers claim royalties for the use of snippets of information, such as tables or headlines. This was included with the aim of enabling news publishers to secure revenue from social-media platforms such as Facebook and Google. But a proposal added by a European Parliament committee would mean that the provision also applies to academic publications. In other words, this proposed rule is to address the made-up problem that publishers aren't content that third-party news aggregators are doing them a favor by sending them readers; they want to milk them for additional revenue. The EU parliament committee seems to be acting consistent with the belief that fixing this perceived unfairness is more important than considering the unintentional negative side-effects.

Gys 8y ago
The questions asked by the parlement (and the US senate) to Mark Zuckerberg show very clearly how minimal knowledge politicians have of the reality as percieved by 'the rest of us'.
- mathinpens 8y ago
  did you actually read or watch the whole testimony (of either testimony) or you basing this on ~5 minutes of youtube click bait footage of older senators being confused... I watched the entire zuckerberg united states senate testimony and I found much of the questioning incisive and valuable
  - Gys 8y ago
    I admit I only read some articles on both encounters (in reputable newspapers). However, those are very much in line with my personal experiences from the years that was running a media company. Politicians are focussed on getting in office and staying there. Being friends with (listing to) the big guys (big names, important companies) is cool and good for status. Mingling with the little guys is only neccessary every so many years (because, what do they know anyway ?). Yes, it made me a little frustrated ;-)
    - lakechfoma 8y ago
      I watched a couple of hours of it myself and saw moments like the "senator, we run ads" moment happen. A lot of the things the media was running off about was taken well out of context. That moment, for example, was not nearly as "oh my god look at this old fart" as Twitter made it. They had already established the fact that FB makes money off ads and the senator was basically poking to see if there was any thought towards another way to make money. Honestly a fair number of quality questions were asked and deflected by Zuck, and he knew how to play some moments to make the senators look stupid for those social media soundbites. But to be fair, an alarming number of questions were also either very poorly formed (intention was there, a millennial proofread would have helped though) or were thinly veiled self indulgent political maneuvers. Zuck actually did a good job defending net neutrality at one point where the line of questioning was obviously a nod to the ISP cabal.
dangjc 8y ago
I don’t think content providers like newspapers feel exposing snippets that are so informative that readers stop engaging with the main site are being provided a valuable service. Google has long since moved away from simply providing ten blue links and now strives to keep people as long as possible on its own site. There’s a trade off between aggregators and the content providers they rely on, and this is a minor correction needed.

by elihu 8y ago

Gys 8y ago

The questions asked by the parlement (and the US senate) to Mark Zuckerberg show very clearly how minimal knowledge politicians have of the reality as percieved by 'the rest of us'.

mathinpens 8y ago
did you actually read or watch the whole testimony (of either testimony) or you basing this on ~5 minutes of youtube click bait footage of older senators being confused... I watched the entire zuckerberg united states senate testimony and I found much of the questioning incisive and valuable
- Gys 8y ago
  I admit I only read some articles on both encounters (in reputable newspapers). However, those are very much in line with my personal experiences from the years that was running a media company. Politicians are focussed on getting in office and staying there. Being friends with (listing to) the big guys (big names, important companies) is cool and good for status. Mingling with the little guys is only neccessary every so many years (because, what do they know anyway ?). Yes, it made me a little frustrated ;-)
  - lakechfoma 8y ago
    I watched a couple of hours of it myself and saw moments like the "senator, we run ads" moment happen. A lot of the things the media was running off about was taken well out of context. That moment, for example, was not nearly as "oh my god look at this old fart" as Twitter made it. They had already established the fact that FB makes money off ads and the senator was basically poking to see if there was any thought towards another way to make money. Honestly a fair number of quality questions were asked and deflected by Zuck, and he knew how to play some moments to make the senators look stupid for those social media soundbites. But to be fair, an alarming number of questions were also either very poorly formed (intention was there, a millennial proofread would have helped though) or were thinly veiled self indulgent political maneuvers. Zuck actually did a good job defending net neutrality at one point where the line of questioning was obviously a nod to the ISP cabal.

dangjc 8y ago

I don’t think content providers like newspapers feel exposing snippets that are so informative that readers stop engaging with the main site are being provided a valuable service. Google has long since moved away from simply providing ten blue links and now strives to keep people as long as possible on its own site. There’s a trade off between aggregators and the content providers they rely on, and this is a minor correction needed.