Slashdot Mirror
Europe Passes Controversial Online Copyright Reforms (venturebeat.com)
EU lawmakers today endorsed an overhaul of the bloc's two-decade old copyright rules, which will force Google and Facebook to pay publishers for use of news snippets and make them filter out protected content. From a report: The set of copyright rules known as the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, but more succinctly as the EU Copyright Directive, has been debated and discussed for several years. While it is broadly uncontroversial in many regards, there are two facets to the directive that has caused the internet to freak out. Article 11, which has been dubbed the "link tax," stipulates that websites pay publishers a fee if they display excerpts of copyrighted content -- or even link to it. This obviously could have big ramifications for services such as Google News. Then there is Article 13, dubbed the "upload filter," which would effectively make digital platforms legally liable for any copyright infringements on their platform, which has stoked fears that it would stop people from sharing content -- such as GIF-infused memes -- on social networks. In a statement, EFF said, "In a stunning rejection of the will five million online petitioners, and over 100,000 protestors this weekend, the European Parliament has abandoned common-sense and the advice of academics, technologists, and UN human rights experts, and approved the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive in its entirety."
I told you this is what would happen if we let regular people use computers.
Laws not written by the people for the people, the EU showing it doesn't give a fuck about democracy.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Hope they pull facebook from europe good!
We all know how this will end. Google, Facebook et al are going to just drop all EU content and depending on how aggressive the individual laws are may even just block entire countries outright. They aren't going to give up their business model over this, it will be Spain all over again and soon Euro IP's will be blocked from /. Its been fun Euro users, may we meet again some day.
This means that I can't link to any legitimate news site. However, fake news sites are fair game ...
Digital storage has been sounding the death knell for artificial information scarcity for decades now. Industry backlash continues inevitably.
I wouldn't blame any company for completely blocking all uploads of anything including text / comments, this law simply isn't workable, it's complete censorship. Fucking idiot politicians and yes I contacted my meps about this more than once.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Why should the scholar get as weighty a voice as the fool?
Why should the results of your past votes not affect the weight of your present vote?
The problem is not a lack of democracy; the problem is authoritarianism; the problem is imposition.
Voluntary interaction, as defined by contracts, is the future. Law by contracts; not law by legislation. Capitalism.
I really wish American companies would juet abandon the EU and let them try to make their own tech. It's worked well for Russia and China. That's where the EU is headed, and I don't want them to drag the American web behind them with their giant market.
The internet was built around two basic principles: links are free and you can upload everything and sort out the mess later.
Now really, what's the rationale behind charging for a hyperlink, even if no content is displayed? Greed? Stupidity? Idiocy?
I suppose this is European content providers trying to build a wall around their "internet?"
Google, Facebook and other megacorps can afford to take measures which they can afford to defend in court afterwards, while the judicial system tries to make sense of bad legislation. Sites of the magnitude of Slashdot or smaller, however, probably will not be able to budget for that, and may just geo-block Europe. Not that geo-blocking is effective. Probably may cause a small up-tick in US VPN adoptions....
...which has stoked fears that it would stop people from sharing content -- such as GIF-infused memes -- on social networks.
You make that sound like a bad thing?
This is very easy to fix. All search engines and websites in general boycott publishers that backed this and that would demand payment for linking/snipping by simply removing all links to them, period. No search results. No links from other websites. Let's see how long publishers survive when nobody can find their shit.
The end result? The publishers will be begging the EU to reverse this.
Everybody (even politics) ever interviewed or quoted by a magazine should fill a request for payment.
* I never said that I should decide. In fact, I implied the market should decide; competence is found by the market—through the wisdom of the crowds in fact.
* This is very important: The Wisdom of the Crowds depends on there being no conflict of interest (e.g., collusion), and works best when each participant must put his own money where his mouth is, thereby weeding out the spam input. Democracy, in contrast, promotes conflicts of interest (e.g., welfare recipients voting to receive ever-greater benefits paid by someone else), and democracy also encourages spam input.
Collusion (and Tyranny in general) is prevented through a separation of powers. Governments pretend to have a separation of powers via co-equal branches of government, but it's smoke and mirrors; the most robust separation of powers is competition (hence U.S. vs Soviet Union), and the most humane form of such competition is voluntary trade in a market place, where "voluntary" is defined by contracts negotiated in advance of interaction.
The big sites aren't going to drop a couple hundred millions of eyeballs. Just look at how hard some of them are bending over backwards to accomodate China, India, and so on.
It does mean the small ones outside the EU will probably just block EU traffic, like some are already doing over cookie laws. Instead of "asking for consent" or just, you know, not setting the damn third party cookies in the first place.
And small or would-be websites inside the EU are outright fucked. Which is of course exactly what the copyright mafiaa likes.
Also, possessives don't get apostrophes, but contractions do.
More people create rather than consume, more people seek information rather than wait for it to be fed to them...
No, its exactly the opposite, hence why the larger platform is more popular.
This is just another money grab. Ain't Greed Great!
Vote for Democrat candidate, and you'll get more Internet control and pandering to globalists vampires.
Much easier to restrict speech this way.
This is like a guy relocating his store to the middle of the ocean to reduce theft.
How does this even work?
If you set up servers outside EU, then you do not have to comply to their stupid articles.
I sell art online, and without search engines indexing my copyrighted material, would find it very difficult to make a living as an artist. A blanket prohibition on linking to copyrighted content would effectively "disappear" a lot of emerging and professional artists from the internet. The internet - and its ability to reach millions of people - has made it possible for countless artists to make a living who would otherwise be unknown. Without it, we'd go back to handing control over art back to the local, physical galleries and the "starving artist" model.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
You guys are all missing the important questions: How do I register all the things I don't like being said about me as protected content? How can I register my competitor's products as protected content so no one can find them?
Investigative history tells us this will be abused like crazy.
Finally the big US tech is going to pay *some* after decades of profitting from free content.
I hope that newspapers and other real MEDIA can start getting some money for their work.
FINALLY...!!!
Europe's policies have already largely turned Europe into a backwater as far as technological and business innovation. This is just more of the same protectionist, anti-innovation policy.
Once second to the US, now behind China, look for Europe to be economically overtaken by Latin America then India, an independent Eastern Europe, and then even the Middle East (if the EU hasn't disintegrated by then).
Your fair-use content is considered guilty until proven otherwise.
Also, you're not allowed to upload your proof.
The inventor of the World Wide Web, hypertext, and linking was European, and invented it all at CERN in Europe. And now Europe effectively destroys the entire thing by taxing the very item (hyperlink) that created it all...
Truly, it is just a matter of time before the EU taxes air and sunshine...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Let Google, Facebook block links to any of there sites in the EU for a weekend.
Just put up the message, "call your father and tell him no FB".
When the minsters get flooded by their teenage offspring, they may change their minds.
I mean, the point of links is to have more traffic go to your site. As a news site, wouldn't I *want* others to link my content? On the other side of the coin, why would I be willing to pay a tax for the privilege?
There are probably bigger things afoot... =) This has more to do with a Government saying, relax guys, it's fine... apparently climate change was a hoax. And then people being sued or thrown in jail for linking credible studies suggesting otherwise... It's got to be something like that..
Anyways, how would this affect a site like Slashdot? Most of the time, articles are shared on a pay walled source, surely those wouldn't be able to double collect, I guess they just wouldn't be sharing alternative sources?
It's crazy to me that anonymous usage of the net is called the dark web, and made to sound scary... because the things that are happening out in the open are pretty scary...
The EU does not have a parliament that is elected by the actual people.
It is hell-bent on making it look like it is, just like the USA with their electoral college... but it isn't.
Apparently it works. Since people eat such propaganda without checking, as you show.
If you look at the actual history of the EU, it is basically the precursor to TTIP/CETA/....
As in: A tool for corporations to overrule and ignore the laws of the people over their society/country/region/continent.
Originating in my home town in Luxemburg. The country that only exists for tax evasion reasons.
Aka: Mont Perelin Society 101.
(German TV show "Die Anstalt" has all the sources to back this up on their website.)
... journalists got paid for their work.
No one owes Google or Facebook a free ride. Those mega corporations are making money with the links.
Let them pay for the links.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
In many parts of Europe, Copyright automatically exists without need for registration. This means anything beyond a few words is automagically under copyright. Forums where people meet and discuss their hobbies... all those posts are copyrighted. The assumption is of course that it was a public post and meant to be shared with everyone, but that doesn't mean a malicious actor can't use this new law to disappear him or herself from the internet under threat of incredibly excessive fines and even imprisonment.
This post is copyrighted under EU law, no need for registration. Quote me, and you are now violating the Copyright Directive. That's how stupid this 'law' really is. You don't even have to get to the bits about link tax and other stupid crap with upload filters and such because this law seems to have been made by people who don't even understand the basics of how their copyright system actually works.
Seriously? You still believe that Copyright "protects artists"?
We had such a law in Germany. The Urheberrecht! An author's privilege law! Implicit and non-transferable too!
Copyright is a *distributor's privilege*! To take power *away* from artists. By the same distributors that regularly try to *lower* the meaningless peanuts that artists get from the cake.
If you had ever been an artist, you'll know that they get their money from gigs and merchandising, and it has been shown time and time again, that if they just share all their works as a form of marketing, they make *more* money, than they ever did from copyright!
I've worked in the organized crime called "media industry" for two decades now. My mentor did since the 60s. We've personally seen it all. EMI bosses *requiring* hookers and blow to even consider negoating contracts. Band after band hooked on contracts, sucked dry, and thrown away. Designer after designer used, madr money from, and laughing in his face when he has to go buy his own work in the shop and license it, to be even able to play with it. Even parties that turned into "Wolf of Wall Street"-style "basically mass-rape" orgies.
And we both agree that the ENTIRE "media industry" thing is just cokehead paranoia and overconfidence turned into a "business", and is, will be, and has always been solely for the purpose of leeching on artists and their fans without doing any value-adding work whatsoever yourself.
So excuse me if I, in the name of all artists ever, give you a big fat FUCK YOU from the middle of my fingers.
Or did they think about this, or think anything through at all?
This is pretty shit but it's not worth burning everything to the ground over, and if you don't expect the uk gov to follow suit under the smallest amount if pressure then you're as deluded as farage et al.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
INB4 newspapers "waaaaaah no is visiting our site anymore"
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Go find me even a single corporation whose actions are not massively *opposing* a free market where any such contract could be fair and with both parties on the same level.
And I'll show you so many, who do, that your case becomes a statistical fluke.
Like libertrarianism, peace-and-love, democracy and communism, your state theory is wonderful, eleganty nice, idealistic, and *completely unrealistic and out of touch with actual human behavior*.
I'm sorry. I wish it wasn't.
(And even then, I'd prefer a nicer one than your psychopathic lizard brain dog-eat-dog world one.)
Google / FB just requires a new HTML header that explicitly gives them permission. If the header isnâ(TM)t there, Google just displays the link and no additional information. As soon as the media outlets watch their views plummet they will either add the header or demand the law be changed immediately.
I think they should just jail investors who invest in these companies.
You now cannot systemically take a link plus 100 words from news stories from the same news sources over and over to make a commercial profit.
That creation of a commercial business and profiting is what it is about. Not that I have a blog and link to 1 article a year from news source X.
The fair use of copyrighted material was when there is a much higher cost to gathering and reprinting the many quotes from copyrighted material in a printed form.
Predictions:
1. Deep pocket news aggregators will negotiate a link fee of some sort
2. Many click bait sites will shut down when Google drops its advertising pay rates again
3. Third party link indirection through an offshore server to handle the linking
4. Third party paraphrasing of news articles through an offshore server to handle the verbiage
5. News aggregator sites will just load a feed from the third party site and claim that they are a common carrier
One currently can use ~400 words from a copyrighted work as fair use. For most news articles, that is all or nearly all of the quotes, claims and facts in the article. For many news sources 400 words is the entire article when the warm fuzzy puppy vignette and off topic quotes/claims are excluded.
Take a NYT article of average length, do the following and you'll see how little content is in the article.
- remove the vingette ("As she sits in front of the computer drinking a near boiling cup of tea five times stronger than your morning coffeee..."),
- remove the feel good quotes
- remove overly descriptive phrases,
- remove the off topic parts (mentioning unrelated political events).
The EU passed it, expect Canada, NZ, Australia, Japan and eventually the USA to consider such legislation.
So all you FB heaters on here from the EU better say goodbye while you can...
So the possible removal of all things aggregated or social from the EU could be a Great Thing for the rest of the Wild West Web.
Such companies Hosting in the EU would become a thing of the past, giving a small boost to business in other places.
The traffic would still flow, of course, but Doing Business in the EU would become problematic. Users there will just get their pages
served from elsewhere, at least until the EU enacts a Great Firewall of their own. Probably implemented by Huawei, of course.
Instead of making a career on youtube.
From a tech perspective, Shutting out ideas is never a good idea. From a Business perspective, more markets are better. Politically, that sh*t is how wars start.
There goes a huge part of the $35B SEO industry in Europe on the plus side, the VPN market will pick up.
Then there is Article 13, dubbed the "upload filter," which would effectively make digital platforms legally liable for any copyright infringements on their platform,
A requirement to implement something is not the same as carrying the full liability for the issue that the implementation is deemed to lessen. Even less so as now the supposed violators can point out how they implement all the required steps for protection against the problem.
Europe's strong privacy laws usually require servers in an EU country. That might have changed (based on this passing I think it's pretty obvious that American style political corruption has bled over to the EU, sorry guys), but if it hasn't Google et al will just leave.
That said, these are mostly American (i.e. foreign) countries. I don't think they care if they leave. I could see the EU wanting their own, home grown alternative services. The whole point of the EU was to make a large market to stand up to the US economically.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but the American House is the ultimate power here. Don't underestimate the power of holding the purse strings.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The nature of enforcement is necessarily specified in the contract.
Enforcement is a service; like any other service, it can be implemented by the market, where there can be competing service providers; indeed, the world already has competing service providers (e.g., the United States and the European Union, etc.), and it is this competition that keeps Tyranny in check even when none of the participants gives 2 shits about liberty.
Enforcement is an iterative process; it doesn't involve infinite recursion that can only be broken by One True Authority; there is no need to institute One World Government; there is no need for a violently imposed monopoly on contract enforcement.
If you whine about tech companies and whine about this you are a hypocrite.
We all know how this will end. Google, Facebook et al are going to just drop all EU content and depending on how aggressive the individual laws are may even just block entire countries outright.
Every major web property needs to do this right now especially if it's a search engine (Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo), a social network of any kind (Facebook, Twitter, private webforums, blogs) or a user hosted content provider (Wikipedia, YouTube, SoundCloud). Pull out of all EU countries and explicitly block access to them. I mean, how do you do business in these countries when they've effectively banned hyperlinking.
Frankly, when GDPR happened they should've pulled out right then and there, but they didn't because of "The potential market share". Well that potential market share is about to cost you billions in GDPR fines alone making any gains a loss sum game. Now imagine the billions lost from this law, and the next law, and the next law...
This will continue for as long as these sites put up with getting fined for doing their purpose. The only way stupid laws ever get repealed is when the law causes unnecessary harm and pisses off enough voters. Every major web property shutting down for the EU sounds like it would get the job done.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
The Internet was a great invention, but it was an American invention. It was only to be expected that nazi Europeans, who love censorship and despise freedom, would want to destroy it. It was a good run. Remember, if you see a European, call him a fascist to his face. Because that's what he is.
And under it I have typed in 'Microshaft Corporation.'
Hopefully someone will link this to that other guy with a similar name :)
* I never said any of those people are "scholars"; you did. That makes your rebuttal a straw man. Perhaps see here for the question of "Who is a scholar?"
* At the heart of your scenario is a lack of property rights, a lack of competition in enforcing property rights, and a dependence on a small, corruptible, centralized group of legislators to define the situation correctly for everyone. You are arguing my case for me; how can you not perceive this?
Those artists are going to have a hell of a time when nobody links to their work
Stop indexing links from companies that want money for them.
Problem solved.
You know, I would actually be fine with strengthening some aspects of copyright protection - if there were softening in other respects. Media producers want paid for snippets? Fine, absolutely fine. But their copyright expires in 12 months, after which the material enters the public domain.
What is actually likely to happen: Media companies will be shocked, shocked when companies like Google simply stop linking to them. Their business will collapse, until they see the solution: issuing a general public license allowing anyone to link to their content with no fees whatsoever. At which time, Google&Co. will start linking to them again. We've been here before, more or less. And we'll be here again in a few years, when the next generation of clueless MBAs decides to try to monetize links.
The liability of platforms for copyright infringement by their users? I'm not seeing a great solution to that one. Stupid politicians, this is why we can't have nice things...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
just upload an image of the letter "E" in lots of diffident fonts and see how fast sites get taken down.
fuck you greedy n i g g e rs, especially the rothschilds
George Orwell was right. He was just 35 years ahead in thinking about the title. Note that the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was published 70 years ago. He was off by half. Nice job EU, nice job.
Seriously? You still believe that Copyright "protects artists"?
Absolutely. Not even a debate. That doesn't mean it also isn't being abused widely as well. Those are not orthogonal concepts. Same thing for patents. Yes they protect inventors. Yes they are also being abused by large corporations and patent trolls.
Copyright is a *distributor's privilege*! To take power *away* from artists. By the same distributors that regularly try to *lower* the meaningless peanuts that artists get from the cake.
That is only true if the creator of the copyrighted work grants a distributor such rights. Don't sign a bad contract with a distributor an it isn't a problem.
If you had ever been an artist, you'll know that they get their money from gigs and merchandising, and it has been shown time and time again, that if they just share all their works as a form of marketing, they make *more* money, than they ever did from copyright!
Umm, you do realize not every "artist" is a musician right? What you are describing has nothing to do with most forms of copyrighted works. Sure the music industry is pretty fucked up in a lot of ways but you can't take that industry and generalize it to all uses of copyright. And even as screwed up as the music industry is, copyright still does protect artists from rampant plagiarism of their work. The fact that musicians tend to fritter away the benefit they get from copyright by signing one sided deals with scummy media companies is a separate issue.
Time to rid ourselves of this farce called democracy
Your government doesn't want you to know what this is about.
Granted I know it's that they want it paid for, but this would be easier AND pettier! More fun. (I seem to recall some South Park game had to remove a scene in one country and they just put up that country's national flag and text about the government saying no while the scene's audio continued to play)
I'm going to go through my web sites now and remove all links to web sites in Europe. Buh Bye. Auf Wiedersehen.
Brexit is looking pretty good now!
In the recent past the DNC already had a fitness test to determine if you should vote. Real simple...
Are you black? No vote for you.
They currently support a KKK member as Gov of VA to this day.
Anything that discourages GIF infused Meme's should be celebrated.
Separation of Powers is important.
Co-equal branches in a government is a separation of powers, but a very weak one.
The most robust form of a separation of powers is competition.
The most humane form of competition is voluntary interaction as determined by a system of contract negotiation/enforcement; such a system must itself be subjected to this idea, leading to an iterative, evolutionary design.
I hope that clears things up.
Unlike competing philosophies, capitalism (i.e., libertarianism) assumes that man is not comprised of angels; capitalism is built to withstand malevolence and even exploit selfishness for the benefit of everyone else.
The Tyranny that you point out is kept in check by competition (e.g., the United States Government vs the Soviet Union); even when neither party cares about liberty, the competition results in a better situation for liberty to exist.
The corporations of today are a creature of the governments of today, and governments of today are designed to be total, violently imposed monopolies within some jurisdiction. So, what you're angry about is not this selfish nature of man but rather the lack of competition in a particular jurisdiction. The problem you are describing is a lack of capitalism; the problem is the very authoritarianism that is in question.
Corporations buy influence over the local violently imposed monopoly, government. The problem is government; the problem is imposition; the problem is a lack of competition.
It's irrational to suggest that a violently imposed monopoly be used to save society from a voluntarily grown monopoly. That makes no sense; it is contradictory to the degree of being absurd.
"If you have a system to enforce contracts when the injured party is not able to do it themselves you have a government"
That sentence comes out of nowhere. Not only is it almost unintelligible, but you've just made it up; it doesn't seem to be derived from anything. It appears to be an axiom in your world view.
If the major players such as Facebook, Google and AP put a block into place with a message saying it was because of the new law. I bet they would quickly get it overturned.
This gives more power to the one publishing content. Looks like big bro G and friends have lit a fire under most of the cattle. Probably bad for Slashdot as well.. But If you want others to be able to use your content just give your terms/rights away with some meta tag to indicate such at least you have the power to do so.
If history has taught us anything, it's that appeasing authoritarians just leads to more authoritarianism.
My takeaway from this is: great news for the big boys in the game, primarily Google.
Link Tax: Most news sites need Google more than Google needs them. They will waive the charges for Google or see traffic plummet. Google's less-well-known competitors, though... perhaps not. You wanna launch an aggregator as a competitor to Google News, expect to have to pay a lot more for content than Google does.
Meme Ban: Google has the economies of scale that will allow it to afford the investment that complying with the regulations requires without simply blanket-banning anything containing any copyrighted content. Google's competitors... not so much.
-- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
Google and media companies will sort this out. First, the automated censorship for Article 13 virtually put Google and Failbook in charge as the overlord masters of the entire Internet or maybe a few handful others as well that might pull this off (Amazon? Oracle?) /. or individuals.
Even Article 11 is something that giants can deal with, not so much small ones like
Huge media blocks can navigate this. There will be dozens of high paid lawyers on both sides lawyering stuff.
Who loses? Every one else.
Independent news sites and independent journalists are obvious targets of this directive for one thing. e.g. content that criticizes war can easily suppressed through several means. Copyright infringement, linking to the New York Times, terrorism, fake news, and an amplification of this if there's comment box on the page.
What if the US or one of its numerous allies bombs a wedding? They will suppress this and are establishing an expectation this should be done within minutes.
Anyone else find it curious how those who support brexit are "extremists"? I certainly would not want to be in the EU.
Different AC here: Yesterday's accusation was the wrong one. I've been reading your bullshit for years on here. You're no SJW. You're no bleeding heart liberal. You're one rally away from being a full blown Nazi and always have been. Dumbshits just don't pay attention anymore. Your AC rant above though, is pretty spot on at least for the American music industry, but if you're gonna goosestep with the big boys, at least own that shit.
several major companies said they will restrict their websites from viewers in the EU, wonder how many will now follow through or if they were just empty words
Up next...
Frexit
Grexit
Spexit
you get the idea
I told you, the EU is the enemy of the people.
Unironically!
Imagine before the internet if businesses charged the phone book people to list their phone number. They'd be wondering why the phone doesn't ring.
Google will do a deal with the content providers to pay them a very small fee to link to them. Content providers that do not agree will simply not be linked to.
Some of the big ones may drop off, and this might be an opportunity for little ones to gain traction. No big issue for Google, one site is much the same as another.
Google might also offer a paid service which lets users see links to more expensive sites.
Wikipedia, OTOH, will be in trouble. They will just not be able to include links to other sites at all. Nobody can negotiate for each and every link.
All EU citizens should put stickers on the posters of EU-candidates. A green one "pro free Net" and a red one "against free Net".
Then let them get the result of ignoring people!
Whatever one thinks of the law, it is good to understand how the European Parliament is promoting it, as at that link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...
This is not in any way to defend that law, just to say it is useful to try to understand the mindset and world view behind it -- and how it was spun and sold.
While I agree a tax to link to something risks breaking the web (or at least the European part), here are some positive spins from the article about other aspects of copyright reform in the EU probably used to help sell the rest of the restrictions that otherwise seem to favor big publishers: "Uploading protected works for quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche has been protected even more than it was before... It also stipulates that copyright restrictions will not apply to content used for teaching or illustration. Finally, the directive also allows copyrighted material to be used free-of-charge to preserve cultural heritage. Out-of-commerce works can be used where no collective management organisation exists that can issue a license."
Of course, what those sentences really mean in practice however they may seem to sound, I don't know.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Thanks to accomadations to GDPR, many webpages now have an extra click-through before you can access the content. I hope that Google/Youtube/etc don't kowtow to the EU, and castrate their services globally. Geoblock search and Youtube to the EU. I hope they're happy with that.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
So if you use a DNS server, and the link goes to copyrighted material, is that a problem? Maybe all commercial web properties should be removed from DNS just in case?
Wikipedia falls under an exception.
Google will drop off, delink, and deplatform everyone, and then Google will ask content providers to pay Google for the right to link to those content providers. If content providers don't want to pay, the will stay delinked. That's more profit to Google.