7 ms·

So Google gets licenses to link to new sites for free, but smaller companies and private people's website cannot link to news sites?

by sampo 8y ago

sebst 8y ago
Yes. Exactly.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  And the whole law was enacted because of Google.... Let's have regulation for regulation's sake!
- raverbashing 8y ago
  But it's just not link, it's show a snippet (and potentially a title) (or you can link and replace every snippet with 'censored by the EU' or something - might be a good strategy for raising awareness)
  - Filligree 8y ago
    Showing the snippet makes people more likely to click through, not less. If you aren't a copyright maximalist, how is that not good for both aggregator and news site? A better question is whether it's good for the user. Filter bubble, and all.
    - raverbashing 8y ago
      > Showing the snippet makes people more likely to click through, not less. If you aren't a copyright maximalist, how is that not good for both aggregator and news site? Exactly. But publishers still think they're in the 20th century
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      This isn't true if you realize what sort of "snippets" they are trying to deal with. Google has been scraping content for Knowledge Graph, and offering up "the answers" so that users don't click through any links. So Google rips off other companies' content, and has basically said "if you don't like it, feel free to block Google with robots.txt and get delisted from search". So Google has left the option that sites either give Google their content for free, and go out of business, or get delisted from search entirely, and go out of business. https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynetworth-com?zd=1&zi=dyskv4zt https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynet... is a pretty good example of why this is happening.
      - detaro 8y ago
        I've literally never seen one of those knowledge-graph snippets relating to current news? Google News now has stopped showing teaser texts for news for some publishers after a similar German law was passed, but "surprisingly" the majority of publishers preferred to allow Google to show teasers... (Which is why there's now talk of forbidding publishers to grant that permission for free)
tomp 8y ago
I thought the newest reincarnation prevents such licences (i.e. it makes it impossible to waive the right to linking fee)?
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  ...what stops Google from just buying a newspaper, then?
- mattnewton 8y ago
  For Spain that just got local news delisted with no legal recourse.
phicoh 8y ago
Note the text 'and an inalienable right to obtain an fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses' The idea is to make it impossible to give Google a free license. The best outcome would be if Google would refuse to link to any content of European publishers.
- jerf 8y ago
  "The best outcome would be if Google would refuse to link to any content of European publishers." Not so much sure that's the "best" outcome as the only possible one. As rich as Google looks, when you start dividing their income by multiple multiplicative factors it doesn't last long; the log of Google's income isn't all that large. On the other hand, Google definitely has a lot of cash to weather what to them will be at most a partial disruption of their money making system (as this is back in the linear domain rather than the log domain), whereas the online publications that get delisted from Google will be devastated. I would predict with some confidence that if this does pass all the way into law in the EU that it would be unlikely to last very long as law. But it can cause a lot of damage in the meantime.
  - phicoh 8y ago
    There are quite a few similar rights. One example is that radio stations don't have enter agreements with individual rights owners to license songs. There is blanket fee. Similar payments are for playing music in bars, restaurants and other public spaces, for copying machines, blank CDs (and video and cassette tape), etc. All of those fees are set to collect money, not to kill of that use. The difference this time, is that contracts with individual rights owners are specifically excluded. So the fee is likely going to be an amount that Google can afford. But for the good of the Internet, it would be best if Google refuses and shows EU citizens that copyright has gone way beyond reasonable.
    - Buge 8y ago
      >One example is that radio stations don't have enter agreements with individual rights owners to license songs. Isn't that because the music creator already entered an agreement with a rights organization? If the music creator didn't enter an agreement with a rights organization, the station would have to directly enter an agreement with the musician. The musician has the power to decide whether to sign with the organization or not.
oldcynic 8y ago
Simple really: "BigMedia" want me to pay to link to this, so here's the same topic on SmallMediaSite. or I wanted to link this, but "BigMedia" want me to pay, so now I'm not even mentioning their title of the topic.
- ajross 8y ago
  > Simple really: "BigMedia" want me to pay to link to this, so here's the same topic on SmallMediaSite. It's actually more damaging than that from the perspective of EU regulators: "I can't link to that Le Monde article, so here's a WaPo piece about the same subject". Internet content delivery spans borders, by design. All this does is disadvantage the local producers and force their customer's eyeballs offshore.
  - vageli 8y ago
    > Internet content delivery spans borders, by design. All this does is disadvantage the local producers and force their customer's eyeballs offshore. Coupled with GDPR and many websites around the world shutting down or closing their doors to European users, there won't be many places to go. The overarching trend of artificial borders on the internet is terrifying.
    - oldcynic 8y ago
      I don't understand trying to conflate GDPR and this copyright proposal. GDPR is a reasonably written attempt to preserve some measure of citizen privacy (i.e. you and me). It's an extension and continuation of Data Protection that's been there 20 years. Companies coped with no ill effect. The copyright proposal is entirely for the benefit of large media companies, and the smell of lobbyists is overpowering. (i.e. not you and me)
    - josteink 8y ago
      > Coupled with GDPR and many websites around the world shutting down or closing their doors to European users, That’s hyperbole. Most websites provenly don’t. The GDPR is reasonable. This is not. No need to conflate them.

So Google gets licenses to link to new sites for free, but smaller companies and private people's website cannot link to news sites?

by sampo 8y ago

So Google gets licenses to link to new sites for free, but smaller companies and private people's website cannot link to news sites?

sebst 8y ago

Yes. Exactly.

rdlecler1 8y ago
And the whole law was enacted because of Google.... Let's have regulation for regulation's sake!
raverbashing 8y ago
But it's just not link, it's show a snippet (and potentially a title) (or you can link and replace every snippet with 'censored by the EU' or something - might be a good strategy for raising awareness)
- Filligree 8y ago
  Showing the snippet makes people more likely to click through, not less. If you aren't a copyright maximalist, how is that not good for both aggregator and news site? A better question is whether it's good for the user. Filter bubble, and all.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    > Showing the snippet makes people more likely to click through, not less. If you aren't a copyright maximalist, how is that not good for both aggregator and news site? Exactly. But publishers still think they're in the 20th century
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    This isn't true if you realize what sort of "snippets" they are trying to deal with. Google has been scraping content for Knowledge Graph, and offering up "the answers" so that users don't click through any links. So Google rips off other companies' content, and has basically said "if you don't like it, feel free to block Google with robots.txt and get delisted from search". So Google has left the option that sites either give Google their content for free, and go out of business, or get delisted from search entirely, and go out of business. https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynetworth-com?zd=1&zi=dyskv4zt https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynet... is a pretty good example of why this is happening.
    - detaro 8y ago
      I've literally never seen one of those knowledge-graph snippets relating to current news? Google News now has stopped showing teaser texts for news for some publishers after a similar German law was passed, but "surprisingly" the majority of publishers preferred to allow Google to show teasers... (Which is why there's now talk of forbidding publishers to grant that permission for free)

tomp 8y ago

I thought the newest reincarnation prevents such licences (i.e. it makes it impossible to waive the right to linking fee)?

throwawayjava 8y ago
...what stops Google from just buying a newspaper, then?
mattnewton 8y ago
For Spain that just got local news delisted with no legal recourse.

phicoh 8y ago

Note the text 'and an inalienable right to obtain an fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses' The idea is to make it impossible to give Google a free license. The best outcome would be if Google would refuse to link to any content of European publishers.

jerf 8y ago
"The best outcome would be if Google would refuse to link to any content of European publishers." Not so much sure that's the "best" outcome as the only possible one. As rich as Google looks, when you start dividing their income by multiple multiplicative factors it doesn't last long; the log of Google's income isn't all that large. On the other hand, Google definitely has a lot of cash to weather what to them will be at most a partial disruption of their money making system (as this is back in the linear domain rather than the log domain), whereas the online publications that get delisted from Google will be devastated. I would predict with some confidence that if this does pass all the way into law in the EU that it would be unlikely to last very long as law. But it can cause a lot of damage in the meantime.
- phicoh 8y ago
  There are quite a few similar rights. One example is that radio stations don't have enter agreements with individual rights owners to license songs. There is blanket fee. Similar payments are for playing music in bars, restaurants and other public spaces, for copying machines, blank CDs (and video and cassette tape), etc. All of those fees are set to collect money, not to kill of that use. The difference this time, is that contracts with individual rights owners are specifically excluded. So the fee is likely going to be an amount that Google can afford. But for the good of the Internet, it would be best if Google refuses and shows EU citizens that copyright has gone way beyond reasonable.
  - Buge 8y ago
    >One example is that radio stations don't have enter agreements with individual rights owners to license songs. Isn't that because the music creator already entered an agreement with a rights organization? If the music creator didn't enter an agreement with a rights organization, the station would have to directly enter an agreement with the musician. The musician has the power to decide whether to sign with the organization or not.

oldcynic 8y ago

Simple really: "BigMedia" want me to pay to link to this, so here's the same topic on SmallMediaSite. or I wanted to link this, but "BigMedia" want me to pay, so now I'm not even mentioning their title of the topic.

ajross 8y ago
> Simple really: "BigMedia" want me to pay to link to this, so here's the same topic on SmallMediaSite. It's actually more damaging than that from the perspective of EU regulators: "I can't link to that Le Monde article, so here's a WaPo piece about the same subject". Internet content delivery spans borders, by design. All this does is disadvantage the local producers and force their customer's eyeballs offshore.
- vageli 8y ago
  > Internet content delivery spans borders, by design. All this does is disadvantage the local producers and force their customer's eyeballs offshore. Coupled with GDPR and many websites around the world shutting down or closing their doors to European users, there won't be many places to go. The overarching trend of artificial borders on the internet is terrifying.
  - oldcynic 8y ago
    I don't understand trying to conflate GDPR and this copyright proposal. GDPR is a reasonably written attempt to preserve some measure of citizen privacy (i.e. you and me). It's an extension and continuation of Data Protection that's been there 20 years. Companies coped with no ill effect. The copyright proposal is entirely for the benefit of large media companies, and the smell of lobbyists is overpowering. (i.e. not you and me)
  - josteink 8y ago
    > Coupled with GDPR and many websites around the world shutting down or closing their doors to European users, That’s hyperbole. Most websites provenly don’t. The GDPR is reasonable. This is not. No need to conflate them.