[clishem]

This is blatant fear mongering. Furthermore, calling these directives 'link tax laws' is simply a cheap frame. You can link to articles freely. Including a snippet that has 'no independent economic significance' is allowed. Agreed, that is not very precise. But is that really such a big deal?

Sure, you might get sued. That's life. You have to trust the reasonableness of the courts. And don't worry, they won't go after you. The publishers will go after some big fish such as Telegram (which blatantly copies entire articles and strips it of everything but the article). Case law / Jurisprudence / Jurisprudentie / Fallrecht will develop around this issue and everyone will be happy.

And for some, just including a minimal snippet may not be an option. They'll have to pay. That's also life. Journalists and publishers need to eat too. Their work is too important to be allowed to wither.

[mc32]

She's asking that people read, learn and get involved in the process early in order to have some influence, so as not to be caught off-guard once these laws are enacted because once enacted, it'd be hard to have change happen. She's talking to a particular audience and that may not mesh with what all publishers in general want.

[Bizarro]

Sure, you might get sued. That's life. You have to trust the reasonableness of the courts. And don't worry, they won't go after you.

That line of reasoning is wrong on so many levels it's comical. And unfortunately, we keep on seeing this on the GDPR debate too.

[clishem]

If you don't abide by the law, you may get sued. If you do abide by the law, you may still get sued. There's no reasoning in there, it's a simple fact.

'My startup may get sued' is not a good argument against a law.