So Google gets licenses to link to new sites for free, but smaller companies and private people's website cannot link to news sites?
The idea is to make it impossible to give Google a free license.
The best outcome would be if Google would refuse to link to any content of European publishers.
Not so much sure that's the "best" outcome as the only possible one. As rich as Google looks, when you start dividing their income by multiple multiplicative factors it doesn't last long; the log of Google's income isn't all that large.
On the other hand, Google definitely has a lot of cash to weather what to them will be at most a partial disruption of their money making system (as this is back in the linear domain rather than the log domain), whereas the online publications that get delisted from Google will be devastated.
I would predict with some confidence that if this does pass all the way into law in the EU that it would be unlikely to last very long as law. But it can cause a lot of damage in the meantime.
The difference this time, is that contracts with individual rights owners are specifically excluded.
So the fee is likely going to be an amount that Google can afford. But for the good of the Internet, it would be best if Google refuses and shows EU citizens that copyright has gone way beyond reasonable.
Isn't that because the music creator already entered an agreement with a rights organization? If the music creator didn't enter an agreement with a rights organization, the station would have to directly enter an agreement with the musician. The musician has the power to decide whether to sign with the organization or not.
Another thing rights organizations are notorious for are overbroad claims. They invert the burden of proof and require all performances to prove they are not playing licensed songs, and all music publishers to prove they are not publishing licensed songs. There is a lot of bureaucracy involved with this inverted burden of proof, which has no legal basis except that rights organizations can afford big legal bills and those on the other side mostly cannot.
I find this whole rights organization business to be nothing but a legalized racket.
or
I wanted to link this, but "BigMedia" want me to pay, so now I'm not even mentioning their title of the topic.
It's actually more damaging than that from the perspective of EU regulators: "I can't link to that Le Monde article, so here's a WaPo piece about the same subject".
Internet content delivery spans borders, by design. All this does is disadvantage the local producers and force their customer's eyeballs offshore.
Coupled with GDPR and many websites around the world shutting down or closing their doors to European users, there won't be many places to go.
The overarching trend of artificial borders on the internet is terrifying.
GDPR is a reasonably written attempt to preserve some measure of citizen privacy (i.e. you and me). It's an extension and continuation of Data Protection that's been there 20 years. Companies coped with no ill effect.
The copyright proposal is entirely for the benefit of large media companies, and the smell of lobbyists is overpowering. (i.e. not you and me)
That’s hyperbole. Most websites provenly don’t.
The GDPR is reasonable. This is not.
No need to conflate them.
(or you can link and replace every snippet with 'censored by the EU' or something - might be a good strategy for raising awareness)
A better question is whether it's good for the user. Filter bubble, and all.
Exactly. But publishers still think they're in the 20th century
So Google has left the option that sites either give Google their content for free, and go out of business, or get delisted from search entirely, and go out of business.
https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynet... is a pretty good example of why this is happening.