Google Warns News Sites May Lose 45 Percent of Traffic If EU Passes Its Copyright Reform (thenextweb.com) 202
Google's SVP of Global Affairs, Kent Walker, laid out Google's opposition to the EU's highly contested copyright reform rules. "Google warns Article 11 and Article 13 could have catastrophic effects on the creative economy in Europe by hampering user uploads and news sharing," reports The Next Web. From the report: Article 11 in its current form will limit news aggregators' abilities to show snippets of articles. According to Google's own experiments, the impact of it only showing URLs, very short fragments of headlines, and no preview images would be a "substantial traffic loss to news publishers." "Even a moderate version of the experiment (where we showed the publication title, URL, and video thumbnails) led to a 45 percent reduction in traffic to news publishers," Walker explained. "Our experiment demonstrated that many users turned instead to non-news sites, social media platforms, and online video sites -- another unintended consequence of legislation that aims to support high-quality journalism." "Article 11, called the 'link tax' by opponents, requires anyone who copies a snippet of text from a publisher's articles to have a license to do so," reports ZDNet. "Article 13 demands that online platforms filter and block uploads of copyright-infringing material." The European Parliament approved Article 11 and Section 13 in September. The finalized version may be passed in March or April of this year.
Goolag Censorship (Score:1, Insightful)
Censorship is always funny until it happens to you.
After shadow banning comments, demonetizing and deleting channels for wrongthink on Youtube,
Goolag is finding out how unpleasant arbitrary censorship is, especially when masquerading
as good intentions.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You're confused on many levels. This law has nothing to do with censorship, it would only block content that has already been published. The problem with it is not censorship but that it is an ill-conceived attempt to protect copyright holders from web-scrapers and news aggregation sites. Now these sites do not contribute anything useful to society, in fact they are one of the major sources of reality distortion and misleading information but unfortunately this EU law proposal would likely have way worse co
Re: (Score:1)
I see, the Great Firewall of China is not censorship then since " it only blocks content that has already been published".
How can Google possibly be truthful? (Score:2, Insightful)
A publication can just register a waiver with Google. As I see it, it't simply the fact that the power is in the hands of the publisher.
I mean, regardless of whether you think the rules are correct or not, I think it is highly doubtful that publishers will willingly not give a waiver.
The real issue is that they now have collective bargaining power against Google. That's a completely different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Google respects robots.txt I thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Why would Google want to go through the effort of creating and maintaining a waiver system? Google doesn't care if they're serving up EU news sites or US news sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Google want to go through the effort of creating and maintaining a waiver system? Google doesn't care if they're serving up EU news sites or US news sites.
Oh they do care.. Google is all about context, they want to know where everything is from what it is about, what language it is in, who it might interest and what kind of ads they can slap on top of it. C
GDPR is the greatest of all time (Score:2, Insightful)
Google should be shut out of the EU completely and forever.
As for the GDPR, it's doing its job, and protecting you from shitty americunt websites that didn't respect your privacy, and were full of fungible bullshit anyway.
The internet was way better before it was commercialized, and we should do everything we can to restore it.
Re:GDPR is the greatest of all time (Score:5, Insightful)
Google should be shut out of the EU completely and forever.
No they shouldn't. They should be free to do business in the EU while at the same time complying with the laws of the country in which they do business or face fines as a result.
Google should stand up against retarded legislation (like this link tax). Google should be forced to follow non retarded legislation (like the GDPR). And above all, Google will not leave the EU (profit centre) and should not be forced to (because despite what angry nerd rage dictates they actually provide a large number of damn useful services).
Re: (Score:3)
Amen to that.
An easy technological solution (Score:2)
No they shouldn't. They should be free to do business in the EU while at the same time complying with the laws of the country in which they do business or face fines as a result.
There's an easy technological solution!
Background: News publishers already hold copyright in their works, i.e. they get to decide who can reproduce or make adaptions of them. Google already benefits from "fair use" which allows for extracts/snippets. The proposed EU copyright law says that other people can't reproduce "substantial" extracts but didn't make clear what that means. Google believes that news sources will die without being featured in Google News.
<meta name="licensed-summary" content="The cow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not technical, the problem is that the news agencies both want Google to link to their data so that they gets traffic from Google while at the same time getting paid from Google for them linking to their data.
That feels disingenuous. The news agencies see that Google has created an entire business where (1) it obtains content that it didn't create or pay for, (2) it uses that content to get ad impressions and revenue.
Google: "I have a great idea! Let's reproduce other people's copyrighted material to earn ourselves ad money!"
Google lawyer: "Hey, you can't do that. It breaks copyright law."
Google: "Okay, how about we claim fair use?"
Google lawyer: "Maybe. The trouble is that fair use is murky and it's not even cl
Re: (Score:2)
The news agencies see that Google has created an entire business where (1) it obtains content that it didn't create or pay for, (2) it uses that content to get ad impressions and revenue.
Wrong on both points.
1. No content is "obtained". Only headlines and snippets are shown -with hyperlinks to the original site for further reading. (see fair-use exceptions in the relevant copyright laws.)
2. Google news contains no advertisements. (at least, none from google... some of the news articles may be viewed as advertisements by some people.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<meta name="licensed-summary" content="The cow jumped over the moon">
That sounds suspiciously like asking for money for content that is available under fair use. There's no easy technical solution to this precisely because the media companies don't have the law on their side. Or at least they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Google should stand up against retarded legislation (like this link tax).
The word "link tax" for Article 11 is deliberately misleading to the point of falsehood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The version of the directive voted on by European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs contained explicit exemptions for the act of hyperlinking and "legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users"
The proposal attaches several new conditions to the right, including expiry after one year and exemptions for either copying an "insubstantial" part of a work or for copying it in the course of academic or scientific research...
So (1) it specifically and explicitly isn't a "link tax", and (2) it only prevents a News Aggregator from copying substantial parts of a work. Of course that's uselessly vague so it would have to go on to case law to determine what counts as substantial and what doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The version of the directive voted on by European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs contained explicit exemptions for the act of hyperlinking
I see you don't know how the modern internet works. No one is worried that this won't show up in a text based search result. Aggregation is very much a part of the modern internet including content previewing, and every result is typically expected to carry associated pictures and text from the articles.
and (2) it only prevents a News Aggregator from copying substantial parts of a work.
The most substantial part of any news work is a headline and the first sentence. That is kind of the problem.
You don't like the word "link text" because it's too generic, let's be more specific: "tax on Goog
Re: (Score:2)
it's a tax for stealing content
Stop masturbating, it's shrinking your brain's grey matter.
Re: (Score:2)
How'd you react if I take the ad for a new product you offer, rehost it on my channel and don't link back to your product, maybe while altering it so nobody knows what the ad is for?
Re: (Score:2)
"stealing" content that is publicly available, published by the content producers exactly to entice people to view their content (remember: we're talking about images and a summary here) and that actually links through when clicked to the publisher of the content, where they get ad revenue? That's a weird definition of stealing...
It is indeed wrong to use the word "stealing". More technically, it is reproducing without permission material that is copyrighted and publicly available. The fact that it's publicly available doesn't in any way lessen the rights of the copyright holders to control who gets to reproduce it.
Copyright law has exemptions for fair use, of course. The proposed EU Article 11 (so-called "link tax") also explicitly has exemptions to allow people like Google to reproduce non-substantial portions of the article, and
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides which legislation is 'retarded' and which is not?
Given that legislation is passed by elected officials who serve the democratic needs of the people, the court of public opinion decides.
P.S. Google doesn't need to leave the EU to oppose this legislation.
I know. Read the post I was replying to before you get worked up about something irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
With people like you, sounds like a pretty good plan.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean that this copyright act is a monumentally stupid idea. Brought to you by the people who came up with that other horrible mess: the cookie law.
Re:... and ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Depending, on your evaluation the choice is easily made: "lose a likely small non-target audience".
I understand the rationale. I am not angry at them, it is a consequence of a business decision related to GDPR. I also know how to get around these blocks.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, if you have a website outside of the EU ... snip ... you are liable
I think you don't understand how laws work. No you are not liable.
you still have to do the work
You mean like customised code to identify Europeans and deliver them custom content like apology sites? How is that more difficult than just implementing off the shelf GDPR management code that 99% of sites out there did, or better still just disabling analytics while continue to serve adverts to european customers, or even easier: Just ignoring the law entirely since they wouldn't be liable anyway?
I understand the rationale. I am not angry at them
You should be angry at them. It's always wor
Re: (Score:2)
So how much does those off-the-shelf GDPR management code cost?
And why wouldn't they be liable? They're storing information on Europeans and they may travel to Europe while the site is up.
Re: (Score:2)
So how much does those off-the-shelf GDPR management code cost?
Given that every dodgy shitty site with few visitors uses it, very little.
And why wouldn't they be liable? They're storing information on Europeans
Maybe if you read the GDPR you wouldn't be asking such a silly question. Just storing information on Europeans does not make you liable. It especially doesn't make you liable if you're not in Europe and outside the reach of the law. It even more makes you not liable since personal and corporate ties don't exist like you think they do in Europe, and even if a site was falling afoul of the GDPR it's not possible to arrest some company e
Re: (Score:1)
You may not be liable to the letter of the law, but it is highly probable you will get GDPR related requests. As a company, you'll probably have to pay a lawyer to make a 100% sure you actually aren't liable and you haven't overseen a detail. This costs money. This is money you don't want to spend. Geoblocking is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not be liable to the letter of the law,
Actually you'd not be liable to the letter or jurisdiction.
but it is highly probable you will get GDPR related requests.
Just put "no junk mail" on your letter box.
As a company, you'll probably have to pay a lawyer
Companies outside the EU that actually paid lawyers didn't block people in the EU. Or rather they should maybe fire their lawyer and pay another one for a correct opinion.
This costs money.
This is a sunk cost.
Geoblocking is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap.
Indeed. So you geoblock you analytical system while continuing to make profit of clicks. You're all about the money and business decisions, but you seem to be advocating the wrong ones.
Re: (Score:1)
You only have to do some work if you collect all sorts of user data you don't need and sell it to advertisers. If you have a small company and run a normal site that doesn't collect metric shittons of data, then there is literally nothing you need to do to be GDPR compliant. Anything GDPR prescribes above that are measures any sane company should do anyway, e.g. ask the user for consent and store the data securely.
Re: (Score:1)
It may be easy, but this is clearly risk just assessment.
Well, you need to be pretty deep in the unethical end for GDPR to be a problem.
If you don't track your users and don't store more data than the minimum to provide a service to your customers you don't really need to care that much about GDPR.
When the user removes their account you remove the actual data instead of just flagging it as inaccessible.
You don't even have to go through and scrub backups, GDPR is lenient in that way.
GDPR is only a big problem if you track your users habits so that you can sell it
Re: (Score:1)
It does not have to be that you're unethical or anything, you just don't want to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen plenty of sites block EU visitors due to GDPR. None of them do it for any sensible reasons. In fact compliance with the GDPR probably would have been been just as easy (off the shelf management code for GDPR compliance) than flat out blocking.
Re: (Score:3)
because it's easier for them to block us than to comply with GDPR. Understandable business decision.
No it's not. It's 100% retarded kneejerkism. It would have taken more effort to code the blocking mechanisms than to simply comply with the GDPR requests. It certainly is one thing, but what it isn't is an understandable business decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Kneejerk? Sure, if you want... but it also removes *any* possible headache regarding to GDPR. Regardless whether your'e doing anything shady or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Effort? Geoblocking is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap.
So is simply not serving tracking scripts to people.
Kneejerk? Sure, if you want... but it also removes *any* possible headache regarding to GDPR.
There is no headache for GDPR. Pretty close to 100% of sites blocking the EU due to GDPR complaints are outside of the EU jurisdiction and have zero headaches as a result. Regardless whether you're doing anything shady or not.
Re: (Score:1)
It's an obvious protectionist move (Score:2)
Brussels is hoping that people will be driven back to print media or their subscription sites for news. You know, to the days when everyone got their daily news from one, prefereably local source.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you.
should be optional, not enforced (Score:2)
this should be an optional thing, if a news site wants to be paid for links, fine, let them decide that on their own. they will probably come to the conclusion that it's not worth it and revert back to 'free' links because of the loss of visitors.
i'm sure there are more enough sites who don't agree with it being enforced.
this will only be valid for EU sites? that means we'll just get more links from sites outside of the EU.
it's all so stupid, because a lot of news sites just recycling news from other news s
It is already optional (Score:3)
The only reason this proposed law exists is because these news services want to force Google to index them, and also pay them.
Why the doom and gloom? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't differentiate the two in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not even a law, it is a EU directive.
It means that it needs to be adapted to every member state law before becoming effective.
So that's two levels of interpretation: first to turn the directive into a law, then to turn the law into judgment.
Re: (Score:1)
The U.S., UK, and Ireland use common law (aka case law) [wikipedia.org], meaning the law is subject to interpretation by judges. And the interpretation by other judges in previous cases can result in the meaning of the law changing.
Outside of the UK and Ireland, all of Europe uses civil law [wikipedia.org]. The law is as written and passed by the legislature, and not open to interpretation. It is in fact set it stone. If there is an ambiguity or contradiction with other laws, it needs to be fixed by the le
This should have been avoided (Score:2)
The had people in the EU come to a
Search the web from the USA and enjoy the full freedom to get the results found.
Dont become part of EU laws.
EU nations laws are about tax, censorship and who is allowed to publish.
Did a France, Germany, Spain give that ability to control the publication of links and news about history, art, faith. politics? No.
The EU laws, taxes on publication and gov control stayed and are now enforced for the world to enjoy
The news sites should then... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom line ... (Score:2)
... it would affect Google's bottom line.
Loss also for Google, that's why they care. (Score:2)
Google pain here is not that news sites lose viewers, but that in turn Google's user tracking and ad revenue (from those news sites) will go down.
Where's the list (Score:2)
But how will we get our fake news? (Score:1)
Because it's just teh G00g13 upset their cash cow is going bye bye
Re:Why should we believe Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
The "link tax" is bad for Google and other news aggregators, bad for consumers, and likely bad for news sites as well. It is an erosion of the public's right to fair use of information.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait a minute, how can it be bad news for news aggregators and, specially, for consumers? News sites have RSS subscriptions, which nicely show up notifications whenever the "content creator" puts content online. If the creator has a compelling summary in the RSS and, more importantly, I am interested in it... I will click and go to the "content creator"'s website. RSS feeds are not afected here.
Where is the negative impact there?
Now, if you go to website A (or use non-RSS iApp B) that shows _everything_ in
So you are the one still using RSS (Score:3, Funny)
So YOU are the person still pulling an RSS feed. I wondered who that was.
You can certainly make an argument why RSS is better than Google and Betamax Is better than VHS, but it's a bit too late for those arguments to matter.
Re: So you are the one still using RSS (Score:1)
Google killed RSS. Now they want to be the service we go to instead of the news sites directly. Had RSS died on it's own, I would agree that we should move on. But Google killed RSS intentionally and they benefit by being the curator (and manipulator) of many people's news feeds.
Re: (Score:2)
It also highlights an unreasonable dependence on Google - how is it than one provider making a small change can cause a 45% drop in traffic?
The 45% figure also presumably assumes that everything else stays the same. What if, for example, Bing (or whoever) decide they will license news content because it drives worthwhile ad revenue for them, and so can provide higher-quality search results for news than Google does?
I expect the EU will take an approach that quality news is a public good and either arrange f
Re: (Score:2)
I expect the EU will take an approach that quality news is a public good and either arrange for providers to be compensated in some way (probably by something crappy like a broadband tax), or fund public media (BBC etc) directly. Or, the news business will adopt a model like the music business, where a single body collects royalties for use of content.
You should understand that it doesn't matter if "quality news" providers are funded by whatever means, if no one is accessing the content they're providing.
Fair Use (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is, this is an *EU* law and most of these jurisdictions have local laws that more or less grant authorization of some limited form of copies.
The "link tax" is bad for Google
Yes, for *google* because it might prevent them from slurping the *whole web* and republishing it.
(Though even then, some countries are extremely lax. Switzerland, though not exactly EU member, but merely partner state signing bilateral agreement, has the "technical ground" exemption. And Google could argue that indexing the web must include making local copies of everything on technical grounds).
and other news aggregators,
You'll have to check every country for the local details, but nearly all country would allow keeping and citing a small excerpt on the grounds of citation.
The only difference being what local laws consider a reasonable short excerpt. Germany has much stricter and precise definition, but republishing only the abstract/first paragraph is definitely within limits.
Any news aggregator physically based in EU would have no problems.
bad for consumers, and likely bad for news sites as well. It is an erosion of the public's right to fair use of information.
...except in countries where there are strong rules in place already to protect the fair use of information.
(which is the case of most european jurisdiction already).
So, although I tend to be against copyright laws, and would certainly have voted against this law if I had the opportunity (haha... direct democracy in EU. One can dream...), I have to admit that the complaints of Google are pretty much groundless on this one.
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, you are the kind of person that uses SJW unironically.
Why use news-aggregation at all? You can just go directly to Breitbart.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Why should we believe Google? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I just want stupid google to remove all political and SJW shit news. It is on by default, always at the top of news, and no way to turn it off.
There are those who echo your sentiments on other sites.
Sites you use. Sites with green stripes.
Re:Why should we believe Google? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why should we believe Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
AP and Reuters? (Score:1)
Let's say this will go nuclear and Google will be counting on wires services like the AP and Reuters. Many of the EU news media content are part of those wires services and can the EU go after those? EU can propose any news reporting on those wire services falls under this law because they have bureaus in the EU regardless if the reporter was working for NYT.
Re: (Score:1)
Licenced users are allowed to republish whatever they're licenced to. AP and Reuters wants their news published elsewhere, hence their customers are licenced to do so.
Even with this new law in place, you can still run an aggregator site. You just need to negotiate licences with those whose stories you link to (with a summary and all.) If they think you drive traffic to their site, you will get that licence easily. If they think you simply take their traffic (your summary has the whole story) then you don't
Re: (Score:2)
Licenced users are allowed to republish whatever they're licenced to. AP and Reuters wants their news published elsewhere, hence their customers are licenced to do so.
Even with this new law in place, you can still run an aggregator site. You just need to negotiate licences with those whose stories you link to (with a summary and all.) If they think you drive traffic to their site, you will get that licence easily. If they think you simply take their traffic (your summary has the whole story) then you don't get the licence. Simple.
And you will pay. The dying legacy media will demand extortionate prices for the licenses, they see it as a way to shore up their falling revenues. So, no, it's not simple at all.
If you're a news aggregator site, maybe they'll provide you a cheap or almost free license if the legacy news site has a paywall. It's free advertising that way. But how many news aggregator sites will actually have any visitors, anyway, if all your news comes from paywalled sites?
Re:Why should we believe Google? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google know full well how badly the news sites need them to drive traffic in their direction via search, so I fully expec them to just pull the plug as they did with Spain, wait for the publishers to start screaming and shouting about the lost traffic/revenue, and only then open negotiations on exemptions and workarounds. At that point they'll be doing so from a much stronger position and with an industry that's desperate for a quick solution, so a deal more favourable to Google is much more likely.
This seems an unwise strategy.
For comparison, it took the EU four years to do anything about the VAT mess on digital services. During that time some smaller businesses went under or stopped supplying the EU. That was a problem that was only recognised at a very late stage in the original legislative process, because by the admission of various senior officials involved, the EU basically didn't even realise that millions of very small businesses existed, so had made no effort to inform or consult with them earlier, when helpful changes might still have been possible. By the time the danger was starting to be understood, it was too late to stop the process or add extra safeguards. And being EU-based rules, the national governments who also recognised the danger too late couldn't then act at national level to mitigate the damage.
In this case, the potential damage has been clear from the start, and campaigners have been objecting to articles 11 and 13 throughout. If the EU passes them anyway, that's essentially game over. Adversely affected online businesses are going to be hurt, and there won't be much that either they or the sites that previously cited them can do about it.
This foolishness has to be stopped before it gets onto the EU statute books.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem here is that, just like it happened in Spain, the EU fully expects that Google will be the one "adversely affected", paying to the news cartels so they can get that juicy free money.
But, again like Spain, those cartels will be the ones actually "adversely affected", when Google will just cuts the cord and leaves them bumbmling "bu..but, where is our money now?"
Any other victims in the crossfire are just collateral damages and they never cared at all about them.
Re:Why should we believe Google? (Score:4, Interesting)
Definitely the preferred option. I've been following Julia Reda's site [juliareda.eu] for updates on this and writing to my MEP at key points like votes, etc., but it looks like the EU has finally decided that Brexit isn't worth any more of their time and is looking to its own business, including trying to get at least some bits of EU legislation through in the current session, this included. That they're trying again with Articles 11 and 13, despite heavy opposition to those specific clauses on previous attempts, indicates that this is probably one of those they really want to pass for some reason (e.g. someone has already been paid), so we can probably expect *something* to get through somehow.
Here's the thing though; the EU isn't listening here, and the implications of this for the average citizen are going to be even more visible than all those cookie consent popups. Having a good chunk of the web go dark because the EU wasn't prepared to listen (regardless of how the EU media spins the coverage so it's not the media's fault) might just make more people aware of the growing disconnect between the MEPs in the EU parliament and the voters and businesses that they're meant to be representing. That disconnect has already got them the train wreck of Brexit, several other EU countries in varying levels of turmoil, and a general rise in extremism and nationalism right across the union. They *need* a wake up call, and if a few media conglomerates have to go to the wall that might actually be a smaller price to pay than a few more xxExits, or a collective swing to the far right (by EU standards) rather than the current level of diversity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with the problem that the EU leadership just doesn't seem to get it when it comes to the tech and creative sectors.
Brexit is an interesting case. I have some businesses in those sectors that are based in the UK, and looking only from a professional standpoint and talking only about those specific businesses, Brexit is almost 100% win and the harder the better. The EU does almost nothing of direct value to any of those businesses, and many things such as these proposals that are/would be directly har
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem here isn't killing off old media with obsolete business models. The problem is killing off new media with innovative business models as collateral damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It is depressing how often European politicians comment, entirely unironically, about how the importance of boosting the tech sector here in Europe, in practically the next breath after introducing yet another measure that hammers all the small businesses. And then they wonder why the Googles and Facebooks and Apples of the world are all based somewhere else. As the saying goes, every successful large business was once a successful small business.
Re: (Score:1)
the EU basically didn't even realise that millions of very small businesses existed
This time the EU knows they exist and they EXCPLICITELY LOWERED the protections for small businesses in article 13 a couple of days ago.
I'm wondering why Google objects so much. If this shit passes they'll be handed a EU-wide monopoly because nobody else can possible afford to do business here.
Re: (Score:3)
(I assume you mean increased protections for small businesses rather than lowered them.)
This is a step in the right direction, but only if it makes it into the final version. This area is controversial, with a policy of having no exceptions still strongly backed by some of the parties, including big ones like France.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree the current proposals are still bad, particularly in that they will apply to small sites that have been going a while. Still, even those criteria are better than what was originally proposed, which had no such safeguards or exceptions at all.
Re: (Score:1)
> And being EU-based rules, the national governments who also recognised the danger too late couldn't then act at national level to mitigate the damage
Which is why Brexit is the best thing that the UK has done for a long time !
Re: (Score:2)
For comparison, it took the EU four years to do anything about the VAT mess on digital services. During that time some smaller businesses went under
Good. So let some media companies go under and serve as a lesson to stupid people who think they can get away with rentseeking by screwing around with the legal system.
This foolishness has to be stopped before it gets onto the EU statute books.
This foolishness didn't come from some bored EU bureaucrat, it came from the very people you are defending. Just because Europeans don't list "lobbying" as a line item under OpEx on their quarterly financial reports doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I suspect you've completely misunderstood my previous comment. In particular, I wasn't defending anyone, and we should be worried about smaller businesses across the EU with this one as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see too many smaller businesses being affected by this. Especially given this move is mostly major media outlets battling it out for Google dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you're considering the whole set of proposed reforms here? Any business that hosts a blog with visitor comments or a discussion forum and that has been online for more than three years would apparently be required to implement filtering technology that may or may not actually exist under the current proposals. These reforms aren't just about news sites extracting royalties from aggregators for reposting snippets (though any fledgling site with the popular news aggregator plus discussion format
Re: (Score:2)
Any business that hosts a blog with visitor comments
You're implying that businesses now need to be completely responsible for content produced by others? Is that expressly laid out in the legislation?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is essentially the concern here. The proposed way to avoid that responsibility in safe-harbour fashion is to implement various precautionary measures, which may or may not rely on technologies that do or do not exist and that may or may not be readily available to small organisations at viable cost or otherwise if they do. This, presumably, is what the politicians mean when they say they have been clear about things.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but what about the rest of the Internet? The proposals in question won't just affect Google. They also affect Slashdot, Reddit, and who knows how many other sites that follow a similar format of linking to some primary source with some sort of headline/caption/summary and then providing a forum for related discussion. And for the filtering part, they'll potentially affect any site with user-supplied content, whether or not based on any other primary source. At least there are now some moves to try to li
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how lame the those two parts of the laws are, I would strongly consider blocking EU or putting up a one page site explaining why Europe is blocked. I'm really glad I'm not going to be put into such a crazy situation and I feel for the businesses this will hurt or destroy.
The other part of me just wants to laugh because this will really hurt those news sites. I love these news aggregates and use them often. I generally do click through to the site to read the entire article on the site, then retu
Re: (Score:3)
That is also where most the investigative journalism, where you can find original information, has moved to. Of course besides of being available in print. There's also some freemium articles on newspapers like Zeit.de, where free users can read a certain number in a given time interval, but would have to sign up to ge
Re: (Score:2)
Does the German Google News still show snippets (e.g. first paragraphs) for non-paywalled articles? Since about a year ago, I see only headlines on Google News, which was a response to pressure from publishers to remove the snippets. That caused me to stop using Google News, and switch to Bing News. Now Bing News has gone the same way.
And yes, Google News includes paywalled articles, and no longer provides notice that they can't be seen without a subscription.
So both Google and Microsoft have already c
Re: (Score:2)
There when I swipe right on the home screen I have not seen snippets for a while whether or not the source is from the EU.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In other news, Eastern European drug lords warn that drug dealers may loose 45 percent of revenue if EU passes anti-drug legislation. This could have could have catastrophic effects on the drug economy in Europe by hampering user access to cocaine and heroin.
Wording straight from Google, just applied to a slightly different product.
Re: (Score:3)
Have we reached the point where what's bad for Google should be viewed as good for the rest of the universe?
If you like the way the Internet currently is, then you should side with Google. Their motivation is to maintain the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be, but crazy copyright legislation is the opposite of progress.
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible to want to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
What are they saving themselves from? You're talking about the country that had to offer promises that it wouldn't screw it's own people over by removing protections afforded to them under EU laws.
If Britain ran out of the EU you can bet your testicles that the'd keep a retarded law like this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Brexit for cats [broadsheet.ie].