It's not an extinction level event because, like the humans which create it, technology is extremely adaptable to changing circumstance. We'll probably see TOR / mesh network like solutions to tyranny .
> "the link tax" (users are banned from linking to news stories unless the site they're linking to has sold a "linking license" to the platform the users are on
What the actual f...? Is this real life or an Onion article? Does anyone have any sense of how likely it is that this would actually pass? Do EU lawmakers know what a hyperlink actually is?
To think, in my day the measure of success on the web was getting more people to link to your content...
The "link tax" appears to be a myth invented by the opposition to stoke the emotions of readers like you.
The actual proposal is copyright over the content of articles, so that search engines and blogs couldn't (without a license) post content snippets that circumvent the publisher's website and monetize their own sites in its place. There are valid criticisms (chilling effects around needing a license before repeating or summarizing content), but they aren't the ones boingboing and friends are crowing about.
If there were no snippet in Google search result page, then quickly it would become a feature of all web browser to display such snippet of each link on hover, though.
Yes, it is actually written into the Berne Convention as the right to quote [1]. And this is not going away at all. You will still be able to quote from articles in other articles, in blog posts, or in online discussions.
The problem is that the right to quote does not cover a mere mechanical aggregation of quotes; the resulting work must still be an original work. This affects primarily news aggregators and search engines (insofar as they quote from press publications).
That's completely unrelated to ancillary copyright (the Article 11 stuff), however. That's the DMCA. You still have the right to quote, but Youtube is not required to host your content for pretty much whatever reason they like, including just taking whatever causes the least trouble for them in case of a DMCA takedown notice.
Your right to quote exists vis-à-vis the copyright holder, not third parties. A frivolous DMCA notice may hypothetically get the copyright holder in hot water, but does not affect your contractual relationship with Youtube. And Youtube does not have to defend your rights for you, they just have to comply with the notification, takedown, and counter-notification requirements.
Well, currently it's related to DMCA, but that would become mandatory with Article 13 and for other categories of work (like text/images, etc) - if not explicitly mandatory, implicitly mandatory with the new amendments
Publishers can already prevent search engines from posting snippets of their websites; they can block search engines with robots.txt.
This is an attempt to "have your cake and eat it too" by forcing search engines to display content in a specific format that publishers prefer. Right now Google can say "if you want to be listed, you must allow us to show a snippet"; this law tries to change that. It's dumb.
I could forgive the headline if TFA explained why it was so bad, but even after following several internal links I have no idea. It's kind of impressive how many words they can write without actually saying anything of note.
I don't get the hate for this. It mostly seems to be saying that if you publish stuff on the internet it's your responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that it's not stolen and that you actually have the right to publish it.
Because there's no exception for parody and fair use.
Because there's no penalties for falsely taking down content (like Sony taking down an amateur recording of Beethoven/Bach)
It targets content sharing networks, it's not simply about "what you publish in your own website" and it makes the platforms liable, not who uploaded it.
25 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 60.2 ms ] threadWhat the actual f...? Is this real life or an Onion article? Does anyone have any sense of how likely it is that this would actually pass? Do EU lawmakers know what a hyperlink actually is?
To think, in my day the measure of success on the web was getting more people to link to your content...
I'll just get some popcorn.
The actual proposal is copyright over the content of articles, so that search engines and blogs couldn't (without a license) post content snippets that circumvent the publisher's website and monetize their own sites in its place. There are valid criticisms (chilling effects around needing a license before repeating or summarizing content), but they aren't the ones boingboing and friends are crowing about.
Lots of website have misleading title. Without a snippet in search result, I need to open each and every links on the search page.
It's hard to imagine a world in which you cannot quote short amounts of copyrighted material. For review, discussion, brief reference, etc.
The problem is that the right to quote does not cover a mere mechanical aggregation of quotes; the resulting work must still be an original work. This affects primarily news aggregators and search engines (insofar as they quote from press publications).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote
Your right to quote exists vis-à-vis the copyright holder, not third parties. A frivolous DMCA notice may hypothetically get the copyright holder in hot water, but does not affect your contractual relationship with Youtube. And Youtube does not have to defend your rights for you, they just have to comply with the notification, takedown, and counter-notification requirements.
Article 11 is the "link tax"
Publishers can already prevent search engines from posting snippets of their websites; they can block search engines with robots.txt.
This is an attempt to "have your cake and eat it too" by forcing search engines to display content in a specific format that publishers prefer. Right now Google can say "if you want to be listed, you must allow us to show a snippet"; this law tries to change that. It's dumb.
This seems entirely reasonable to me.
Because there's no penalties for falsely taking down content (like Sony taking down an amateur recording of Beethoven/Bach)
It targets content sharing networks, it's not simply about "what you publish in your own website" and it makes the platforms liable, not who uploaded it.