While this isn't great, it is worth remembering that this is one individual's proposals that hasn't passed any committee, any vote, any vetting, any review period, and is a long way off becoming enacted.
I'm all for voicing descent to this bad idea. I just want people to keep it in the context it belongs (a very big longshot for getting through as-is regardless).
That's too optimistic. Let's dive into how EU law is made:
First, the Commission (~government) proposes a law. They proposed this "extra copyright for news sites" that covers even tiniest snippets of news content and thus would put a price tag on links to news. In their version, publishers could opt out of it – but it would still cause major problems. Leading IP researchers said it will "deter communication of news", "negatively affect authors" and "hinder European innovation" http://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/eu-copyright-reform...
Next, the Parliament and the Council (member state governments) need to approve the plans or suggest changes. The Parliament nominates one MEP to shepherd this process. In this case that's Axel Voss (from Merkel's CDU). His job is to get together with the other parties and then make a proposal that in his assessment enjoys majority support in the Parliament.
This is what this article is about. Not "one individual's proposal", but the lead negotiator's view of what a majority of the Parliament supports: Doubling down on an already bad idea by making the right inalienable.
He may be wrong about that – we'll know when the Legal Affairs Committee votes on it on June 20/21. Other MEPs will file counter-proposals, but one of them winning out would be a rare, unexpected upset. Voss may also make changes to his proposal until then, but so far he's brushed off all opposing arguments. And yes, even if his plan is approved, there's a chance the "inalienable right" addition (the threat to Creative Commons) may not survive final negotiations with the Council and Commission.
The thing is: This vote is the number one chance the public has to affect what will be in this law, and thus whether there'll be a "link tax" in Europe. We need to push our representatives to reject that idea in that vote, not double down on it.
> But Voss wants to amplify its worst features by asserting that press publishers will receive—whether they like it or not—an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.” This means that publishers will be required to demand payment from news aggregators.
Does "inalienable" mean something different in European law than it does in US law?
In the US, having an inalienable right doesn't mean that you are required to exercise that right. It just limits what others can do to stop you from exercising it. For example, we have an inalienable right to travel. That doesn't mean we have to travel. It just means that government is limited when it comes to things that impact our exercising that right.
I could contractually agree to limit my exercise of that right, and that would be fine. Such a contract could be enforceable.
> I could contractually agree to limit my exercise of that right, and that would be fine. Such a contract could be enforceable.
Wait a minute, isn't that the opposite of inalienability? That is, isn't an inalienable right one that cannot be given away (or whose exercise cannot be limited by, even consensual, contract)?
> [T]he latest proposal from the head of the copyright committee would deny creators the right to refuse remuneration — the right to share a work without getting paid — which could undermine the use of CC licenses if approved.
This particular new right would apply only to "publishers of press publications and news agencies" (to quote one of the recent drafts), which is why I added "in journalism" to the title to clarify [edit: but mods removed it].
Open source is unfortunately threatened by a different provision, which would force GitHub and other code hosts to implement "ContentID"-like filters trying to detect copyright infringement in commits: https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filter...
You mean FOSS presumably, rather than OSS, a requirement to pay producers wouldn't end OSS. Even FOSS could continue, with a company paying the creator(s) and the public receiving the OSS for free. It would hamstring it though.
Your quote does a similar thing in saying "refusing remuneration" is "sharing a work without getting paid" they are notably different. If no-one offered payment you wouldn't need to refuse; the scope is quite different.
I am a content creator that sometimes uses CC as a license. I am also American.
I know this is a bit of a nuclear option, but would (re-?)licensing my works as CC+"EU ban" actually help the use of my works in the EU? Essentially, I would ban the use of my works in any country that makes such laws (which would violate my rights as a copyright holder to license my work however I see fit), thus preventing the foreign nation from applying additional restrictions to my license because it is already banned in their country.
Obviously, I could not enforce such ban (nor would I; the entire point is to hamstring the government's actions, not the actions of the consumers of my content), but they couldn't modify my license without legitimizing my license.
In essence, it's like how in the US, it is illegal to pay taxes on illegally gotten gains, because it puts the IRS in a weird spot and forces you to violate your own rights of self-incrimination while making the IRS implicit partners in your crime.
It is illegal in the US to NOT pay taxes on illegal profits. That's how Al Capone was taken down - it's infinitely easier for the government to prove that you had income that was not declared than it is to prove that the income came from specific illegal activities a, b and c.
> it's like how in the US, it is illegal to pay taxes on illegally gotten gains,
Actually, the rule in the US is:
it is illegal to /not/ pay taxes on illegally gotten gains
Failing to declare and pay income tax on income (no matter the source of the income) is what is illegal. And many a criminal (as another poster mentioned in regards to Al Capone) has been ensnared in a "failed to pay income tax" /gotcha/ even though they could not be convicted of the illegal activity itself.
Have the concerns raised by CC received attention from serious lawyers? I'm no lawyer, but I fail to see how this:
... an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.”
suggests that I must get paid whether I want it or not, as the CC post seems to rely on for stoking up concern.
Surely it's the same as an inalienable right to free speech - you're not obliged to actually go round speaking freely, it's inalienable in the sense that you can't get rid of that right, not that you must exercise it!
First, it's no secret that the intent is to prop up the business model of struggling publishers by getting internet platforms to pay them for spreading (links to/tiny snippets of) their content.
After a "link tax" law was introduced in Germany, some publishers decided to waive it. Google reacted by removing snippets from those who didn't in Google News, making their links less likely to be clicked on. Afraid of losing traffic, these publishers then granted Google a free license.
The government of Spain looked at this result and decided to implement the idea as an inalienable right, to make sure some publishers couldn't opt out, and Google would have to pay up. In response, Google shut down Google News altogether in Spain.
This is the version that the Parliament's chief negotiator now wants the EU to implement. He believes that Google (and Facebook and Twitter, which have been added as targets) wouldn't dare shut down a service across all of Europe.
> 11. This is the provision that would introduce an additional right for press publishers to extract fees from news aggregators for incorporating short snippets of—or even linking to—their content.
With this from the proposal:
> 2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute acts of communication to the public.
What text are you going to include in your hyperlink? Must every hyperlink title be paraphrased? It does seem to impact even the most basic hyperlinking as it has been used for the entire history of the internet.
Doesn't this provision basically contrast with copyright itself? Doesn't this erase the rights an author has on its work, including giving it away for free?
It's a bit murky, especially in an international context. But they generally aim to protect authors, specifically in the author<->publisher relationship.
It may seem counter-intuitive that taking away "your right to relinquish your rights" may be protecting you. But the idea is the same as whatever law stops you from selling yourself into slavery.
Before you call this legislation, and legislators everywhere "clueless", as some unfailingly will, take a moment to consider its motivation.
Because you can disagree with this proposal, and I do. But arguing against it should start with an attempt to understand its background.
Many European countries, as well as rural US states, have seen their local press landscapes dying. Where there used to be two or three quality local papers, there are now one or none. And those often no longer have the resources to devote to actual investigations of local issues.
The reason is obviously the internet, on two fronts: First, often overlooked yet more important, is the death of classifieds and ads. These used to provide about half of publishers' revenue. Craigslist and Google Ads have reduced these opportunities drastically (i. e. by about 80%).
On top of that comes the competition by publishers on the internet.
The issue now is that it simply doesn't pay to devote any resources to any serious investigation. The Wall Street Journal might pay a reporter for half a year of work to produce a story on corruption at the FAA. But ten minutes after that story is published, the AP and every news site on the web can quote the essential information.
Nw if you believe copyright and patents should be completely abolished, then it's completely fair to call this idea by the EU "clueless".
But if you think that (limited) intellectual property laws may, in principle, be acceptable and important to allow investments in such endeavours, then this idea doesn't seem as outlandish.
I still believe these ideas are misguided, and there might just not be a good way to create a workable system around such rights. But as a believer in the necessity for a vibrant media landscape to inform the public discourse, I don't enjoy watching the press' misery either.
It's true: Publishers' business model is under threat, and some politicians pushing for this law are doing to so out of a genuine interest in fixing that.
But actually, only a few very big publishers have lobbied for this, claiming that this would "save journalism in Europe" when they care mostly about their own bottom line. Limiting how news spreads on social networks and aggregators is not in the interest of and would actually harm smaller publishers, who benefit from competing with the big brands on such sites on an equal footing.
Small, independent and innovative publishers had to get together to form their own lobby organisation to OPPOSE this law that politicians would claim is to their benefit: http://mediapublishers.eu/our-views/
I find it humorous that this is being done with good intentions, "to benefit creators".
In one sense it appears tone deaf to how much CC-licensed sharing can be argued to enable an economy of content creators, by lowering certain transaction costs.
But in light of recent revelations and the public mood, it seems more prescient: perhaps pointing the way to a future where everybody pays for every little bit of content they consume, rather than being the product themselves, in a "free" offering. That old idea of micropayments for content, here we come, eh? And the EU being the first (for once) to lawify it. Is it too early to pat them on the back?
If you can encourage reuse, that's good. If you can encourage payment, that's good. Different strokes, for different folks, works. As I understand it, the proposal forces payment. That's not good. Creators choices should not be constrained in this way.
Instead of constraining options, I feel EU legco, should see if there is an opportunity to legislate to ease the way for implementing and executing micropayments / content transactions ( a real problem ), if there is, do that. Law that engages with and enables technological realities, rather than trying to constrain something already useful, would seem to work better here.
press publishers will receive—whether they like it or not—an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.” This means that publishers will be required to demand payment from news aggregators.
Is this even what Mr. Voss intended? Who benefits from this? Couldn't this be fixed by replacing "obtain" with "demand" or "choose to require" or something?
I used to think nobody was that awful, e.g. nobody was anti-public-library, until I met people who were.
It's totally understandable that the goal is to eliminate the public domain and all free/libre/open publications as a means to the end of funding proprietary stuff.
Say you have a business mowing people's lawns. If you were anti-social, you might support outlawing friendly neighbors mowing others' lawns for free or even outlaw people mowing their own lawns. You might even deceive yourself with some pro-social ideas about how forcing all lawn-mowing to be paid-lawn-mowing will end up with a world of better lawns, better economy, and all the extended benefits of well-paid lawn-mowers besides yourself…
Similarly, if you're a news outlet, you'd be happy to see a price forced on all your competitors. It's easier for you to charge your price if everyone else has to also. Ironically, this could be argued from a pro-social consideration of solidarity and funding journalism.
Of course, deeper pro-social inspection of the situation reveals that sabotaging FLO works and public domain is an unacceptable tragedy that is not a respectable means to the end of funding journalism. But short-sighted folks will try anything since they are freaking out about the valid concern over journalism funding in general.
IANAL, so can someone explain how we get from "inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses" to "required to charge a fee"?
You could, but then you would be able to later sue and/or rescind the right to use if it became popular. It is a right to undermine contracts after the fact, which would be extremely stifling to publishing in general.
> Why does it always seem as if such proposals are written by clueless people?
Whenever you start to think that a complex thing was done by a clueless person, you should stop, and consider the possibility you might be lacking a clue yourself. That doesn't mean the other side wasn't missing a clue either, or isn't acting in bad faith, of course. But I find it rare that there's no actual good reason ideas happen.
In this case, it's definitely true that the "right" to refuse renumeration has been abused, on many levels — from free-of-charge press effectively displacing and forcing the rest to follow on the "big guy" scale, to unpaid internships on the "small guy" scale.
There are good reasons to reject the proposal — as outlined in the OP — but that doesn't mean the author was clueless. Whether incoherence comes from a difference in perspective or bad faith we don't know (though you can guess what I - a socialist - am guessing about the good faith of a CDU politician). But there _are_ reasons.
> Can't we, people of HN, draft proposals collaboratively, perhaps with some moderation system?
There aren't "we, people of HN", but if you want to collaboratively draft proposals, join your nearest political entity. My own even has a Discourse forum where you can get all meta about the policy process.
I suspect they are doing this because otherwise no one would ever make use of this provision. (No one would be that stupid.)
By forcing people to make use of this, their law actually gets used, which is important because otherwise they look like they don't know what they're doing.
But the law of unintended consequences is going to cause serious problems if they actually pass this law.
Or, if the scenario they're thinking about is news aggregators: probably they don't want to see an aggregator (let's say Google News) to force deals for free licenses or the articles won't be included in its pages.
Maybe they didn't even think about other scenarios or they accept them as collateral damage.
Agreed. In the past, media companies that tried to enforce a "link tax" (IIRC in Spain and Germany) were just unlisted from the news feed---and lost a lot of traffic, rendering the whole endeavor moot.
I guess they think that if everyone has to enforce the tax, they are protected from the threat of being unlisted.
I wonder if that link tax provision isn't a door-in-the-face technique? It just seems so blatantly ridiculous given how the internet works that I have trouble believing anyone genuinely thought it was a good idea. Links almost by definition aren't copyright worthy information, it makes no sense to charge for them.
This is the latest outcrop of news publishers fighting Google News in Europe. Previous results have been for example the creation of additional rights for news outlets in Germany where quoting even headlines of news stories in links might now require a (paid) license from the publisher. Of course, that law has been boldly worked around by Google (they dropped news sites from the index that didn't offer free licenses) and is now entirely useless.
I think the US government is sick, but the EU is new and needs to be a benefit for it to survive.
My assumption is that they are entirely incentivized by niche groups in each country that are pushing for reform to help their own goals. I dont see how many of their policies are beneficial to the masses.
I don't understand how the proposed language leads to the conclusion. How does an "inalienable right" to compensation turn into compulsory compensation? Don't you have the ability to choose not to enforce the right?
I think the problem is that you can't announce that you wont enforce your right for some given content - it is inalienable. (IANAL) So, you can say "don't worry I wont enforce this" but nothing is stopping you then enforcing it. So nobody can feel legally in the clear to link your stuff.
Not sure as maybe the term "inalienable right" has a different meaning, but I feel like the article is making too strong a claim. An "inalienable right" is usually something you cannot waive by contract, and so while you could promise never to enforce a right you cannot legally bind yourself or the state from enforcing it.
Basically it makes CC licenses more risky for distributors of such content as there is always the risk that the previously waived right is now enforceable on a whim.
However, maybe "inalienable right" in EU legal language means that you must enforce it, which seems like quite a legal burden on the license issuer.
Seems like the consequences could go way beyond licensing and into monopolization of news and press. They just can't help themselves but always push to centralize control over media.
[+] [-] Someone1234|8 years ago|reply
I'm all for voicing descent to this bad idea. I just want people to keep it in the context it belongs (a very big longshot for getting through as-is regardless).
[+] [-] c3o|8 years ago|reply
First, the Commission (~government) proposes a law. They proposed this "extra copyright for news sites" that covers even tiniest snippets of news content and thus would put a price tag on links to news. In their version, publishers could opt out of it – but it would still cause major problems. Leading IP researchers said it will "deter communication of news", "negatively affect authors" and "hinder European innovation" http://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/eu-copyright-reform...
Next, the Parliament and the Council (member state governments) need to approve the plans or suggest changes. The Parliament nominates one MEP to shepherd this process. In this case that's Axel Voss (from Merkel's CDU). His job is to get together with the other parties and then make a proposal that in his assessment enjoys majority support in the Parliament.
This is what this article is about. Not "one individual's proposal", but the lead negotiator's view of what a majority of the Parliament supports: Doubling down on an already bad idea by making the right inalienable.
He may be wrong about that – we'll know when the Legal Affairs Committee votes on it on June 20/21. Other MEPs will file counter-proposals, but one of them winning out would be a rare, unexpected upset. Voss may also make changes to his proposal until then, but so far he's brushed off all opposing arguments. And yes, even if his plan is approved, there's a chance the "inalienable right" addition (the threat to Creative Commons) may not survive final negotiations with the Council and Commission.
The thing is: This vote is the number one chance the public has to affect what will be in this law, and thus whether there'll be a "link tax" in Europe. We need to push our representatives to reject that idea in that vote, not double down on it.
[+] [-] Cyph0n|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisweekly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|8 years ago|reply
Does "inalienable" mean something different in European law than it does in US law?
In the US, having an inalienable right doesn't mean that you are required to exercise that right. It just limits what others can do to stop you from exercising it. For example, we have an inalienable right to travel. That doesn't mean we have to travel. It just means that government is limited when it comes to things that impact our exercising that right.
I could contractually agree to limit my exercise of that right, and that would be fine. Such a contract could be enforceable.
[+] [-] icebraining|8 years ago|reply
That said, in this particular case, the linked proposal specifies what it means:
"The digital use of press publications should be obligatory remunerated"
[+] [-] JadeNB|8 years ago|reply
Wait a minute, isn't that the opposite of inalienability? That is, isn't an inalienable right one that cannot be given away (or whose exercise cannot be limited by, even consensual, contract)?
[+] [-] ggambetta|8 years ago|reply
But isn't that what "right" already means?
[+] [-] tuukkah|8 years ago|reply
This threatens all Open Source too!
EDIT: Ok, missing from the article, but this would only apply to "press publications" by "publishers of press publications and news agencies": https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf
UPDATE: full picture here: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for...
[+] [-] c3o|8 years ago|reply
Open source is unfortunately threatened by a different provision, which would force GitHub and other code hosts to implement "ContentID"-like filters trying to detect copyright infringement in commits: https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filter...
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|8 years ago|reply
Your quote does a similar thing in saying "refusing remuneration" is "sharing a work without getting paid" they are notably different. If no-one offered payment you wouldn't need to refuse; the scope is quite different.
Legal discussion needs (frustratingly) exact language.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DiabloD3|8 years ago|reply
I know this is a bit of a nuclear option, but would (re-?)licensing my works as CC+"EU ban" actually help the use of my works in the EU? Essentially, I would ban the use of my works in any country that makes such laws (which would violate my rights as a copyright holder to license my work however I see fit), thus preventing the foreign nation from applying additional restrictions to my license because it is already banned in their country.
Obviously, I could not enforce such ban (nor would I; the entire point is to hamstring the government's actions, not the actions of the consumers of my content), but they couldn't modify my license without legitimizing my license.
In essence, it's like how in the US, it is illegal to pay taxes on illegally gotten gains, because it puts the IRS in a weird spot and forces you to violate your own rights of self-incrimination while making the IRS implicit partners in your crime.
[+] [-] Tyrek|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwg|8 years ago|reply
Actually, the rule in the US is:
it is illegal to /not/ pay taxes on illegally gotten gains
Failing to declare and pay income tax on income (no matter the source of the income) is what is illegal. And many a criminal (as another poster mentioned in regards to Al Capone) has been ensnared in a "failed to pay income tax" /gotcha/ even though they could not be convicted of the illegal activity itself.
[+] [-] icebraining|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nmstoker|8 years ago|reply
... an “inalienable right to obtain an [sic] fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.” suggests that I must get paid whether I want it or not, as the CC post seems to rely on for stoking up concern.
Surely it's the same as an inalienable right to free speech - you're not obliged to actually go round speaking freely, it's inalienable in the sense that you can't get rid of that right, not that you must exercise it!
[+] [-] c3o|8 years ago|reply
First, it's no secret that the intent is to prop up the business model of struggling publishers by getting internet platforms to pay them for spreading (links to/tiny snippets of) their content.
After a "link tax" law was introduced in Germany, some publishers decided to waive it. Google reacted by removing snippets from those who didn't in Google News, making their links less likely to be clicked on. Afraid of losing traffic, these publishers then granted Google a free license.
The government of Spain looked at this result and decided to implement the idea as an inalienable right, to make sure some publishers couldn't opt out, and Google would have to pay up. In response, Google shut down Google News altogether in Spain.
This is the version that the Parliament's chief negotiator now wants the EU to implement. He believes that Google (and Facebook and Twitter, which have been added as targets) wouldn't dare shut down a service across all of Europe.
[+] [-] DanBC|8 years ago|reply
For example, compare this from the article:
> 11. This is the provision that would introduce an additional right for press publishers to extract fees from news aggregators for incorporating short snippets of—or even linking to—their content.
With this from the proposal:
> 2a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute acts of communication to the public.
EDIT: the analyis from Julia Reda is pretty good too: https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/extra-copyright-for...
[+] [-] sgc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klez|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IAmEveryone|8 years ago|reply
It's a bit murky, especially in an international context. But they generally aim to protect authors, specifically in the author<->publisher relationship.
It may seem counter-intuitive that taking away "your right to relinquish your rights" may be protecting you. But the idea is the same as whatever law stops you from selling yourself into slavery.
[+] [-] tuukkah|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IAmEveryone|8 years ago|reply
Because you can disagree with this proposal, and I do. But arguing against it should start with an attempt to understand its background.
Many European countries, as well as rural US states, have seen their local press landscapes dying. Where there used to be two or three quality local papers, there are now one or none. And those often no longer have the resources to devote to actual investigations of local issues.
The reason is obviously the internet, on two fronts: First, often overlooked yet more important, is the death of classifieds and ads. These used to provide about half of publishers' revenue. Craigslist and Google Ads have reduced these opportunities drastically (i. e. by about 80%).
On top of that comes the competition by publishers on the internet.
The issue now is that it simply doesn't pay to devote any resources to any serious investigation. The Wall Street Journal might pay a reporter for half a year of work to produce a story on corruption at the FAA. But ten minutes after that story is published, the AP and every news site on the web can quote the essential information.
Nw if you believe copyright and patents should be completely abolished, then it's completely fair to call this idea by the EU "clueless".
But if you think that (limited) intellectual property laws may, in principle, be acceptable and important to allow investments in such endeavours, then this idea doesn't seem as outlandish.
I still believe these ideas are misguided, and there might just not be a good way to create a workable system around such rights. But as a believer in the necessity for a vibrant media landscape to inform the public discourse, I don't enjoy watching the press' misery either.
[+] [-] c3o|8 years ago|reply
But actually, only a few very big publishers have lobbied for this, claiming that this would "save journalism in Europe" when they care mostly about their own bottom line. Limiting how news spreads on social networks and aggregators is not in the interest of and would actually harm smaller publishers, who benefit from competing with the big brands on such sites on an equal footing.
Small, independent and innovative publishers had to get together to form their own lobby organisation to OPPOSE this law that politicians would claim is to their benefit: http://mediapublishers.eu/our-views/
[+] [-] dosycorp|8 years ago|reply
In one sense it appears tone deaf to how much CC-licensed sharing can be argued to enable an economy of content creators, by lowering certain transaction costs.
But in light of recent revelations and the public mood, it seems more prescient: perhaps pointing the way to a future where everybody pays for every little bit of content they consume, rather than being the product themselves, in a "free" offering. That old idea of micropayments for content, here we come, eh? And the EU being the first (for once) to lawify it. Is it too early to pat them on the back?
If you can encourage reuse, that's good. If you can encourage payment, that's good. Different strokes, for different folks, works. As I understand it, the proposal forces payment. That's not good. Creators choices should not be constrained in this way.
Instead of constraining options, I feel EU legco, should see if there is an opportunity to legislate to ease the way for implementing and executing micropayments / content transactions ( a real problem ), if there is, do that. Law that engages with and enables technological realities, rather than trying to constrain something already useful, would seem to work better here.
[+] [-] nerdponx|8 years ago|reply
Is this even what Mr. Voss intended? Who benefits from this? Couldn't this be fixed by replacing "obtain" with "demand" or "choose to require" or something?
[+] [-] quadrangle|8 years ago|reply
It's totally understandable that the goal is to eliminate the public domain and all free/libre/open publications as a means to the end of funding proprietary stuff.
Say you have a business mowing people's lawns. If you were anti-social, you might support outlawing friendly neighbors mowing others' lawns for free or even outlaw people mowing their own lawns. You might even deceive yourself with some pro-social ideas about how forcing all lawn-mowing to be paid-lawn-mowing will end up with a world of better lawns, better economy, and all the extended benefits of well-paid lawn-mowers besides yourself…
Similarly, if you're a news outlet, you'd be happy to see a price forced on all your competitors. It's easier for you to charge your price if everyone else has to also. Ironically, this could be argued from a pro-social consideration of solidarity and funding journalism.
Of course, deeper pro-social inspection of the situation reveals that sabotaging FLO works and public domain is an unacceptable tragedy that is not a respectable means to the end of funding journalism. But short-sighted folks will try anything since they are freaking out about the valid concern over journalism funding in general.
[+] [-] drivingmenuts|8 years ago|reply
Can one just say the fee is zero?
[+] [-] sgc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|8 years ago|reply
Can't we, people of HN, draft proposals collaboratively, perhaps with some moderation system?
[+] [-] trumpeta|8 years ago|reply
I would like to see all copyright completely abolished, or at least reduced to max 2 years or so. I imagine a lot of people will disagree with me.
[+] [-] LaGrange|8 years ago|reply
Whenever you start to think that a complex thing was done by a clueless person, you should stop, and consider the possibility you might be lacking a clue yourself. That doesn't mean the other side wasn't missing a clue either, or isn't acting in bad faith, of course. But I find it rare that there's no actual good reason ideas happen.
In this case, it's definitely true that the "right" to refuse renumeration has been abused, on many levels — from free-of-charge press effectively displacing and forcing the rest to follow on the "big guy" scale, to unpaid internships on the "small guy" scale.
There are good reasons to reject the proposal — as outlined in the OP — but that doesn't mean the author was clueless. Whether incoherence comes from a difference in perspective or bad faith we don't know (though you can guess what I - a socialist - am guessing about the good faith of a CDU politician). But there _are_ reasons.
> Can't we, people of HN, draft proposals collaboratively, perhaps with some moderation system?
There aren't "we, people of HN", but if you want to collaboratively draft proposals, join your nearest political entity. My own even has a Discourse forum where you can get all meta about the policy process.
[+] [-] ars|8 years ago|reply
By forcing people to make use of this, their law actually gets used, which is important because otherwise they look like they don't know what they're doing.
But the law of unintended consequences is going to cause serious problems if they actually pass this law.
[+] [-] pmontra|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wohlergehen|8 years ago|reply
I guess they think that if everyone has to enforce the tax, they are protected from the threat of being unlisted.
[+] [-] delecti|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Trisell|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gmueckl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkirklions|8 years ago|reply
I think the US government is sick, but the EU is new and needs to be a benefit for it to survive.
My assumption is that they are entirely incentivized by niche groups in each country that are pushing for reform to help their own goals. I dont see how many of their policies are beneficial to the masses.
[+] [-] dranov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark-r|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nmeofthestate|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a_humean|8 years ago|reply
Basically it makes CC licenses more risky for distributors of such content as there is always the risk that the previously waived right is now enforceable on a whim.
However, maybe "inalienable right" in EU legal language means that you must enforce it, which seems like quite a legal burden on the license issuer.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] orcs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _jgvg|8 years ago|reply
https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-r...
Everyone loses. And smaller, local, independent companies lose more.
[+] [-] zzzcpan|8 years ago|reply