Slashdot Mirror
EU Copyright Reform Proposes Search Engines Pay For Snippets (thestack.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader reports that the European Commission "is planning reforms that would allow media outlets to request payment from search engines such as Google, for publishing snippets of their content in search results." The Stack reports:
The working paper recommends the introduction of an EU law that covers the rights to digital reproduction of news publications. This would essentially make news publishers a new category of rights holders under copyright law, thereby ensuring that "the creative and economic contribution of news publishers is recognized and incentivized in EU law, as it is today the case for other creative sectors."
"Well, we'd rather not have to pay, so... we'll just not index your content anymore. kthxbye"
(Meanwhile Microsoft probably had something to say too, but nobody asked.)
Alright, so... The document does not originate from an official EU website. It has no actual date, or more to the point, it has a conspicuously "redacted" date showing only the year. No known author either, not even an obscure reference to an author's initials. OK, 180+ pages is enormous for a hoax, but just because it does not have all obvious markings of a forgery does not make it genuine. And just because it is genuine does not make it something "the EU Commission is planning". So... I'll wait for a more official source for the moment.
"then Google is paying those news websites for the right to use the content so indexed."
No. The papers gave google a free licence to publish the snippets.
Even if it does pass, I really don't see this one being a problem for the search engines - just the opposite, in fact given the way Google responded to a similar legislative attempt in Spain. It's a "request for payment", at least in this version, so I would imagine it'll go down like this: Some media outlets "request" payment. The search engines cough up some cash for past transgressions and strip the snippets from future search results for those companies. Search engine users click on alternative links that still provide snippets. Media outlets that made the requests for payments have to go back to the search engines and beg for a new deal, which will obviously be loaded in favour of the search engines.
As a bonus, as search engine users and media consumers, we'll also get to sort out the dinosaurs in the media business (Hi, Rupert!) from those that are actually willing to try and embrace the new Internet order and make it work for them; I know which group I'd rather support...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Sounds like Spain tried to do this almost verbatim:
source: [thestack.com]
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
When you see something like this your first reaction is bound to be, "Well, stupid ignorant politicians proposing foolish laws that wouldn't work - yet again". And yet... politicians aren't always stupid and ignorant. Many of them have a certain low rat-like cunning, especially when it comes to getting and keeping office, and currying favour with the rich and powerful who can help them. So, just as a hypothesis, what more might be behind a proposal like this?
The obvious starting point is that, rather than pay a tax to content owners in return for doing the service of indexing and making known what they have to offer, search engine companies would simply stop indexing all such material. That would be really bad, huh? Or would it... from a certain point of view. Suppose you own the New York Times or The Guardian or some other boring obnoxious conventional media outlet. Your view of the Web is probably pretty jaundiced. It's full of people who find your stories through search engines and then read them for free - unless you put up a paywall, in which case they just stop coming altogether. Moreover, increasingly they don't even want your lousy stories because they can find so much better and more up-to-date material on the Web, from a thousand independent and dynamic sources. In fact, in the long run your company is probably facing bankruptcy sooner or later because it can't compete with what's available (mostly free) online. Not good. Wouldn't it be marvellous if someone could put a stop to all this "Web" nonsense and take us all back to the good ol' days when you just had to pay for your newspaper and your cable TV and take whatever they gave you? Wouldn't it?
The search engines could just stop indexing such sites, but over time - at least, so the politicians might think - that would shrink the search engines' usefulness so much that they might go right out of business. Oh boo-hoo, the conventional media owners would grin, rubbing their hands happily. What a terrible shame.
And we, who rely so much on the Web, would find it that much less rich and useful. We really should be thinking about how to react to politicians, responding to their rich buddies, who want to shut down the free Web and replace it with a monitored, controlled pay-per-view thing much along the lines of what Bill Gates had in mind before the Web came along and spoiled his day.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
This is a leaked draft impact assessment(PDF alert), you can read more about it here: European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers
This is what Julia Reda (MEP) says about it: Commissioner Oettinger is about to turn EU copyright reform into another ACTA:
If ALL publishers died, then Google would have nothing to index. They astounding thing to note is that the publishers got their "lex Google" in Germany, and they've already caved and given Google a free exemption, so this isn't going to hurt Google, just other search engines. Instead of limiting Google's power over their business, they have increased it. And they STILL keep pushing for this on a larger scale. I'm sincerely convinced that getting an MBA rots people's brains. There is no other reasonable explanation.
"You are not allowed to advertise our business without paying us for the privilege"
"Oh, and you are obliged to advertise our business"
Patently absurd when applied to any business, except publishing apparently. It's a brilliant plan, really. The EU values a healthy, independent press. Even though I use the term independent very lightly, it wouldn't be good if government were seen to subsidise the perss directly. So instead they give them the power to tax private parties with deep pockets.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
From American sources, you usually don't get that much European news.
What's more sad: There were some local news aggregators in Germany, which couldn't afford the license fees and thus closed shop when the law went into effect. And now we are left with even less news aggregators which have even more market power.
Why does "copyright reform" always mean increasing copyright, either what it protects or overall term. never a reduced term or increased "fair use".
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
"is planning reforms that would allow media outlets to request payment from search engines such as Google, for publishing snippets of their content in search results"
IMO they got that backwards. It's not the outlets that drive traffic to search engines, it's the search engines that help that traffic to reach the outlets.
If I were a search engine provider/developer, I just might happen to come up with the idea to require outlets to pay me for indexing their content in the first place.
There's nothing forcing search engines to index the idiots' contents. They should actually be either thankful that they can be found, or create a better search engine that they can control - and which noone will use.
Lots of content providers would never be found without the search engines. They should be a bit more humble and re-evaluate who's who in this relationship.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Because you don't pay enough to buy the laws you want.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Journalism is almost entirely taking "snippets" from other people in the form of quotes and information and compiling them into a story, so I must assume the newspapers will also be paying out royalties on their articles to anyone they interview, mention, or quote (including when they search for comments on twitter and facebook as they like to do now).
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
There is not much difference between the European angle and the American angle.
You're only thinking about European-English news now. There's plenty of difference in the general European and American angle. I read Swedish, Finnish, German and British news quite often and the contrast with American news is yuuge.
The news sites you mentioned give other angles, yes, but the OP mentioned not getting European news from American sources, hence the vice versa reference.
-SR
Let me spell it out for you:
1. Google created and maintains at its own expense a mechanism for redirecting users to your site and Google doesn't charge you anything for it.
2. Now you're demanding that Google pay you for what you're already receiving at no charge to you.
If, given (1), it sounds like (2) is pretty fucked up, that's because it is.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
News publishers are struggling to make money on the internet, but they still have political influence. So the idea was to force Google to share some of its profits by forcing it to pay license fees for the snippets on news.google.com. Lobbyists claimed that this would only be used to target Google and smaller services needn't worry.
What happened of course, was that that Google discontinued the service in the relevant countries and the number of news readers plummeted. The publishers gave Google an exception to get their visitors back. Now the only result is that anyone from bloggers to other news aggregators is facing legal problems. They can contact the publishers, but are usually ignored.
As a result, the legislation only cemented Googles dominance.
Like it or not: the money that does buy laws that the recording industry wants, ultimately comes from us, consumers. So perhaps we shouldn't be buying DVD's etc, but use that money to buy politicians ourselves? Anyone for some crowdfunding actions? ;-)
And that is the point. It is "content", not news anymore. Hardly anyone is "reporting" on anything. Look at nearly every single tech site. They only just regurgitate press releases from this or that manufacture or "report" on what was written on some other site.
Everything they post is skin deep drivel.
Most of the "so called" news sites are nothing more than click bait at best and attempts to brainwash the masses into adopting the political message of whoever owns the site.
There are a couple of sites which I do carry a subscription to, but those are the few who really take the time to research their articles.
Google would be doing us a favor to just delist nearly all sites.
Why does "copyright reform" always mean increasing copyright
It doesn't. Around two years ago, the UK government passed a law that created a private copying exception, thus finally legalising things like format shifting or using cloud services as long as someone had a legitimate personal copy and it was not being shared around.
Of course, less than a year later, that law was struck down after a judicial review, because EU.
And that wasn't an isolated incident, as we see here. The EU is fast turning into global enemy #1 for progressive copyright reform. It's a huge supporter of big rightsholders at the expense of everyone else.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
because EU.
No, not "because EU". Only one of the claimants' several arguments concerned EU law. What the judge called "Issue VI" -- which was "Does the introduction of Section 28B constitute unlawful State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU which was not notified to the Commission under Article 108(3) TFEU and so is unlawful?".
And that argument failed. Paragraph 302, onwards: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/w...
Yes, because EU. The entire basis for this disagreement was whether or not the UK government was allowed to introduce a private copying exception of the form that it did given the EU rules. If the government were not constrained by the EU Directive, all the questions about whether any harm was de minimis and pricing-in and so on would be moot.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's a complicated relationship, with pros and cons. Certainly a lot of things get blamed on the EU without any rational justification. On the other hand, plenty of things also get blamed on the EU with some rational justification. There is one particularly evil political technique where something that would never get passed back home gets punted to the EU where it's relatively out of sight, and then comes back usually via a Directive a couple of years later, at which time the government can not only claim they have no choice about implementing it but also say they have no way to influence the details... even while their own representatives and allies within the EU were the ones pushing for the new measures in the first place.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.