3 ms·
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 b
by 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 agoBecause 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