With "kinda works" I meant Google News. The front page technically is not shown, but you can click the "News" tab and it still shows the same results from the news pages.

I don't think more taxes (like the Google tax) is the solution. But in daily life Internet keeps running the same.

You give the governments an inch of power to ban *some speech* and you then discover that you've lost some miles. It becomes more apparent in countries with a mono-narrative.

But no one seems to be collecting the "tax" at all. How is that "kinda works"? Then add that views are down, thus ad revenue is likely less...seems to be the opposite of working. Google didn't block more content because publishers were smart not to try to push the issue.

Not to mention the core idea behind it, that somehow Google and Facebook are profiting off their created content by linking to their sites. If they cannot find a way to profit off more views, seems to be the publisher's fault. Remove snippets and headlines and why will anyone click a link to their site?

The related problem are groups like in the U.S. such as the Associated Press. The reason you can find 12 different articles saying the exact thing is that they are the same story. If you are a member of the Associate Press, it gives you the right to "re-work" an article by another AP member and publish it yourself. A legacy of back in the day, if say a newspaper in Detroit were writing about something that happened in New York, you didn't have to send your own reporter to investigate. But with the Internet, one sees all 12 articles about the same thing from every city. Some people even think that the fact its repeated 12 times, it's even more true, when 11 of the writers did nothing but copy and paste and change a few words. These "mass media" press organizations have these internal agreements allowing each other to copy each other's content.

Awhile back I found a story where someone tried to track down the origin of one of those Korean gaming cafe deaths. The story was published on the Internet everywhere but in tracking it down, it seemed to all come from one source and in trying to track it down, talking to police in Korea, there was no actual report of a person by that name even dying that day.

But some people call that 12 sources and "proof", even when all of them copy a story from just the one source...
If the newspapers have a problem with competition, it's all the local news sources. It's the fact that people can get their news from "everywhere" and don't need a full newspaper in every city.

deleted

Springer decided to cut ties with Google. 3 months later, they r back on. Reason: 80% loss in sales. Go figure.

It still works here.

have you tried switching it on and off again?

THIS is why the forum needs you. XD

afaik non-commercial / private use by individual users is explicitly excluded. it should also grant the same exception as the EU copyright directive, like exception for quotations, parody and stuff like that.
so discussions here in the forum will very likely not be impacted by this ;). This article 11 seems mostly targeted at commercial news aggregator services. Which is bad enough, especially since we have plenty of evidence that it just doesn't work in practice.
It's another worrying example how enough lobbying power can push through pretty much any legislation.

With regards to infringing a copyright and the new requirement for service providers to provide copyright content filtering...this is where 11 and 13 meet...

Here's a quote from the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation):

"Moreover, because these exceptions are not consistent across Europe, and because there is no broad fair use right as in the United States, many harmless uses of copyright works in memes, mashups, and remixes probably are technically infringing even if no reasonable copyright owner would object. If an automated system monitors and filters out these technical infringements, then the permissible scope of freedom of expression in Europe will be radically curtailed, even without the need for any substantive changes in copyright law."

The threat is that service providers now must block infringing content. Just like how some links on GoG fail because it contains certain digits in succession, it's likely a lot of content will be automatically removed through content filtering. Just think about all the false virus threats for programs. Now apply that to copyrighted phrases and images. How many things get wrongly blocked?

And in my read through, I see no clause authorizing non-commercial private use without a license. If you could find such a quote in the legislation, that would be nice. All I see are legislative articles talking about the right's of content creators to be paid for their work. Exceptions being amended seem to be for teachers, museums and the like, not the general public.

I just meant that the website still works, i.e. it is functional, with the exception of the front page (although it was announced that it wouldn't).

hmm, I admit it is not really clear to me how the (possible) overlap between article 11 and 13 would play out in practice. I assumed that the example that you mentioned, "linking, quoting and discussing a news article in a forum thread", would be solely addressed by article 11 ("digital uses of press publications").

And article 11 states (take from the PDF MarkoH01 linked above) Directive 2001/29/EC is the EU Copyright Directive

I don't really have anything more to say about article 13. I think it is as bad as everybody says it is ...

But because the burden to protect copyright is on the service providers, how do they deal with infringement? As pointed out by EFF and many others, the only semi-practical way of doing so is through the use of "content filtering". So even if those uses are allowed by law, the service providers will block them anyway by necessity. Then we get into the slippery slope of Blogs and YouTube subscriptions. Does it still qualify as "non-commercial use" if someone has a Patreon account or links to advertising?

Furthermore, when it comes to Directive 2001/29/EC, those exceptions are the only ones that member states may allow. That directive does not force any member state to provide exceptions in any of those cases. As EFF pointed out, every country is different and it would be be illegal in many of those countries. Sadly, Directive 2001/29/EC is "opt in" for member states and is not a mandated directive. In fact, it is a list of the only exceptions a country may allow (the exception being if a law was already in place before 2001). The only mandated exception is the "transient or incidental copying as part of a network transmission or legal use. Hence internet service providers are not liable for the data they transmit, even if it infringes copyright. The other limitations are optional, with Member States choosing which they give effect to in national laws." [According to Wikipedia]

The truth is that Directive 2001/29/EC was considered a success for copyright industries. So given that some states have no exceptions at all, a service provider is basically forced to restrict activities based on the least rights provided by any country. Which is that there are no real exceptions that apply across all of Europe.

Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5(3)(d) - the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review is completely optional and as such only applies in countries which explicitly granted such an exception.