12 ms·

The analysis of Article 11 is misleading. The actually relevant part is in Article 11 (3), which incorporates (by reference) the usual limitations and exception

The analysis of Article 11 is misleading. The actually relevant part is in Article 11 (3), which incorporates (by reference) the usual limitations and exceptions to copyright [1], including the right to quote. This is necessary, anyway, because the Berne convention mandates that right [2]. Article 11 targets news aggregators and search engines. Unlike blog posts or newspaper articles, they generally cannot benefit from the right to quote [3]. Article 11 has two goals. One, it aims at protecting pieces of a work that are generally too short to enjoy regular copyright protection; second, unlike the usual practice in continental European copyright law, it grants ancillary copyright to publishers, not authors, for easier enforcement of these rights. Note that this does not mean that I endorse Article 11 (I do not and actually consider it harmful and the result of misguided lobbying), but we should be clear what we are actually talking about. [1] Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote [3] As the Wikipedia article above summarizes it, "the resulting new work is not just a collection of quotations, but constitutes a fully original work in itself".

stakhanov 8y ago
...what Article 11 is really about is that the European contentmafia wants to collect taxes from Google. We've already seen how that played out when Spain introduced something like this on the level of national law. IIRC, Google retaliated by taking Spanish media companies' content out of the index which is something that advertising clients of those media companies were less than pleased about, and a deal was quickly reached between Google and them, saying that Google didn't have to pay. So, what it will really do will be to create a monopoly enshrined in law, that news aggregation and search is a business you can only be in, if you already wield Google-esque influence over the world of media. Which is wrong. It's just wrong, on so many levels.
- Angostura 8y ago
  To raise a counterpoint, the point where I though Google as a Search engine started being "a bit evil" was the point where it stopped redirecting users to search result websites, and instead started displaying content on its own pages, in the form of snippets, thus reducing traffic to those cites. I don't deny the util of being able to see movie times without having to click through, or a businesses contact details, but the effective redirection of traffic with reduction in site's ad revenue of whatever feels 'wrong'.
  - jbob2000 8y ago
    What’s wrong is that entire kingdoms were built around “snippets”; low value content that is simple and short and doesn’t really need anything more than a table (movie times) or a few short sentences (recap of events aka “news”).
    - jonathanstrange 8y ago
      Somebody still has to write them. (Although AI is catching up.)
  - greggman 8y ago
    from a user perspective that seems like a complete win. I'm not quite convinced the marginal value of offering that data is worth any kind of compensation. Movie times seems like something movie theaters would want to give out for free and that ideally there would be a standard feed format for that data. News blurb also seems rational to me. If I only need the headline I shouldn't have a go to the site. The headlines will be all over twitter and Facebook as people share with their friends so it's hard to see how Google is doing any harm here. If I want to read the details then I'd click through to the site. Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil?
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      > Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil? No, because copying titles is a very normal way to refer to something. Heck, even quoting is, as long as its done in proportion. But caching entire websites (such as Google Cache)? Copyright infringement. If it weren't for the fact that it is caching and therefore OK. Usenet providers attempted to argue usenet servers are also just caches, but I'm not sure if/how far that one has flied.
      - fjsolwmv 8y ago
shmerl 8y ago
> it aims at protecting pieces of a work that are generally too short to enjoy regular copyright protection; second, unlike the usual practice in continental European copyright law, it grants ancillary copyright to publishers, not authors, for easier enforcement of these rights. So it wants to expand copyright coverage and give it not to creators but to those who profit on them. Why should anyone accept that? Copyright is already crazy overreaching, it should be reduced, not expanded. This corrupt control grabbing should be completely repealed.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  I sell my stuff via Walmart. I have no problem if Walmart is given the legal right to prosecute shoplifters, since (likr a publisher) they already paid me for my work.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Not a good comparison, since expansion of copyright is always going to be about censorship, violation of free speech and so on. That's the nature of copyright itself. Giving publishers more censorship power? No, thanks!

stakhanov 8y ago

...what Article 11 is really about is that the European contentmafia wants to collect taxes from Google. We've already seen how that played out when Spain introduced something like this on the level of national law. IIRC, Google retaliated by taking Spanish media companies' content out of the index which is something that advertising clients of those media companies were less than pleased about, and a deal was quickly reached between Google and them, saying that Google didn't have to pay. So, what it will really do will be to create a monopoly enshrined in law, that news aggregation and search is a business you can only be in, if you already wield Google-esque influence over the world of media. Which is wrong. It's just wrong, on so many levels.

Angostura 8y ago
To raise a counterpoint, the point where I though Google as a Search engine started being "a bit evil" was the point where it stopped redirecting users to search result websites, and instead started displaying content on its own pages, in the form of snippets, thus reducing traffic to those cites. I don't deny the util of being able to see movie times without having to click through, or a businesses contact details, but the effective redirection of traffic with reduction in site's ad revenue of whatever feels 'wrong'.
- jbob2000 8y ago
  What’s wrong is that entire kingdoms were built around “snippets”; low value content that is simple and short and doesn’t really need anything more than a table (movie times) or a few short sentences (recap of events aka “news”).
  - jonathanstrange 8y ago
    Somebody still has to write them. (Although AI is catching up.)
- greggman 8y ago
  from a user perspective that seems like a complete win. I'm not quite convinced the marginal value of offering that data is worth any kind of compensation. Movie times seems like something movie theaters would want to give out for free and that ideally there would be a standard feed format for that data. News blurb also seems rational to me. If I only need the headline I shouldn't have a go to the site. The headlines will be all over twitter and Facebook as people share with their friends so it's hard to see how Google is doing any harm here. If I want to read the details then I'd click through to the site. Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil?
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    > Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil? No, because copying titles is a very normal way to refer to something. Heck, even quoting is, as long as its done in proportion. But caching entire websites (such as Google Cache)? Copyright infringement. If it weren't for the fact that it is caching and therefore OK. Usenet providers attempted to argue usenet servers are also just caches, but I'm not sure if/how far that one has flied.
    - fjsolwmv 8y ago

shmerl 8y ago

> it aims at protecting pieces of a work that are generally too short to enjoy regular copyright protection; second, unlike the usual practice in continental European copyright law, it grants ancillary copyright to publishers, not authors, for easier enforcement of these rights. So it wants to expand copyright coverage and give it not to creators but to those who profit on them. Why should anyone accept that? Copyright is already crazy overreaching, it should be reduced, not expanded. This corrupt control grabbing should be completely repealed.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
I sell my stuff via Walmart. I have no problem if Walmart is given the legal right to prosecute shoplifters, since (likr a publisher) they already paid me for my work.
- shmerl 8y ago
  Not a good comparison, since expansion of copyright is always going to be about censorship, violation of free speech and so on. That's the nature of copyright itself. Giving publishers more censorship power? No, thanks!