4 ms·

I mean they put up the definition from article 11 right there. Seems like a legit link tax to me.

pas 8y ago
I'm lost on their first excerpt (recital 32) and their interpretation about compulsory commercial license and how it kills Creative Commons. Maybe I'm slow but that quoted text implies no such things, so the EFF makes claims without backing them up (without properly doing the work of explain the steps of how they derived those consequences).
- martimarkov 8y ago
  Well this text states exactly that: >> Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses in order to obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses. Which makes some sense. If you have a digital version that needs to still give you money but them: >> In addition, the listing in a search engine should not be considered as fair and proportionate remuneration. Says you will have to pay in a different from just driving traffic to those ppl. Now if I’m a Creative Commons news outlet there is no way for me to waive that extra payment. The law states that just listing me somewhere is not enough and I need to be paid in a different way. I may not want that but the law INSISTS that I get paid in a different way. Does this make it more clear?
  - jimnotgym 8y ago
    And a fair and proportionate amount for Creative Commons article is presumably zero?
    - martimarkov 8y ago
      True but with an explicit arrangement.
  - pas 8y ago
    Why is there no way to waive that right? It's not a criminal statute. I'm not saying the recital 32 is great, and clear and amazing. It's not, but it doesn't mean much until it gets into a draft regulation/directive, gets challenged in court, etc.
stingraycharles 8y ago
It's too vague to say, but the quote "In addition, the listing in a search engine should not be considered as fair and proportionate remuneration." seems to be specifically targeted at search engines. I'm not sure how this is about a "link tax" more than it is about a "search engine tax". I'm fairly certain we will still be able to share our links on Facebook and Twitter, the embedded excerpts might be in jeopardy though.
- martimarkov 8y ago
  Because it’s also stated in the article that: >> The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline). So it is based on the link and also the main point is to force news outlets to get more money for nothing more than a link which drives traffic to them anyways... Okay maybe the most correct definition should be: “search engine link tax” from this specific excerpt but it is also left very vague. What’s is a search engine. Is github a search engine? Are links to news articles on GitHub issues the same fate as on google? So then you go back and think of the potential “search engines” out there and it does start to feel more like a “link tax” because most things can be considered a search engine. //OFFTOPIC: I mean is anything built with full text search a where clause not close to a search engine (in theory)? Lol

pas 8y ago

I'm lost on their first excerpt (recital 32) and their interpretation about compulsory commercial license and how it kills Creative Commons. Maybe I'm slow but that quoted text implies no such things, so the EFF makes claims without backing them up (without properly doing the work of explain the steps of how they derived those consequences).

martimarkov 8y ago
Well this text states exactly that: >> Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses in order to obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses. Which makes some sense. If you have a digital version that needs to still give you money but them: >> In addition, the listing in a search engine should not be considered as fair and proportionate remuneration. Says you will have to pay in a different from just driving traffic to those ppl. Now if I’m a Creative Commons news outlet there is no way for me to waive that extra payment. The law states that just listing me somewhere is not enough and I need to be paid in a different way. I may not want that but the law INSISTS that I get paid in a different way. Does this make it more clear?
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  And a fair and proportionate amount for Creative Commons article is presumably zero?
  - martimarkov 8y ago
    True but with an explicit arrangement.
- pas 8y ago
  Why is there no way to waive that right? It's not a criminal statute. I'm not saying the recital 32 is great, and clear and amazing. It's not, but it doesn't mean much until it gets into a draft regulation/directive, gets challenged in court, etc.

stingraycharles 8y ago

It's too vague to say, but the quote "In addition, the listing in a search engine should not be considered as fair and proportionate remuneration." seems to be specifically targeted at search engines. I'm not sure how this is about a "link tax" more than it is about a "search engine tax". I'm fairly certain we will still be able to share our links on Facebook and Twitter, the embedded excerpts might be in jeopardy though.

martimarkov 8y ago
Because it’s also stated in the article that: >> The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline). So it is based on the link and also the main point is to force news outlets to get more money for nothing more than a link which drives traffic to them anyways... Okay maybe the most correct definition should be: “search engine link tax” from this specific excerpt but it is also left very vague. What’s is a search engine. Is github a search engine? Are links to news articles on GitHub issues the same fate as on google? So then you go back and think of the potential “search engines” out there and it does start to feel more like a “link tax” because most things can be considered a search engine. //OFFTOPIC: I mean is anything built with full text search a where clause not close to a search engine (in theory)? Lol