EU Politicians Try To Create A New 'Link Tax' To Protect Newspapers Who Don't Like Sites Linking For Free

from the don't-do-this dept

Bad ideas never die. Although there have been some recent minor steps in a positive direction concerning copyright in the EU, politicians have been trying to undermine them with really terrible ideas. We already covered the push to effectively outlaw outdoor photography, and now it appears that (despite already having this proposal voted down), some are pushing for a so-called "ancillary copyright" concept, better known as a snippet tax or a link tax.

The basic idea here is that newspapers that have failed to innovate want to blame third party aggregators (mainly Google News) for somehow "damaging" their business because they link to stories with snippets, and then send traffic to those newspaper websites. We've spent years talking about how it's weird to complain about a giant site sending you traffic, but some old school publishers can't seem to get past the fact that Google is big and successful while their own sites are not -- and assume that means that Google somehow "stole" their revenue. In response, they've pushed ridiculous proposals to require anyone who aggregates content with links back to the original to pay a weird fee, above and beyond the traffic that they're sending.

These plans have backfired pretty much everywhere they've been tried. Because it's nonsensical to charge someone to send you more traffic, aggregators have done things like removing those publishers or removing snippets only to see howls of protest from those same publishers who previously claimed that such things were "stealing." In the most extreme case, in Spain, where a law was written that made it mandatory for such a link tax, Google News shut down completely -- once again leading to howls of protest from the newspapers who previously had been arguing that Google was somehow stealing from them. It's an odd sort of "stealing" where you'd run complaining to the government when it goes away.

Either way, all this leads to a silly and nonsensical resolution from MEP Angelika Niebler, working with a number of German MEPs (Germany is where the strongest push for a link tax has come from), arguing for a special new copyright right, which it claims is about supporting journalism:
Calls on the Commission to evaluate and come forward with a proposal on how quality journalism can be preserved, even in the digital age, in order to guarantee media pluralism, in particular taking into account the important role journalists, authors and media providers such as press publishers play with regard thereto
While not directly calling for a link tax (which Niebler had pushed in an earlier amendment that had been rejected), it's a pretty obvious attempt to open the door for such a link tax to return in the near future. In the link above, MEP Julia Reda notes that Niebler's own party, the European People's Party (EPP) had already agreed that no more amendments would be added -- but Niebler went ahead and added it anyway.

The good folks at OpenMedia are vocally opposing this amendment and have set up a site at SaveTheLink.org with more information. The EU Parliament will vote on this proposal tomorrow. While it won't determine what the eventual law is, it may help guide dangerous future proposals that could have serious consequences for how the internet works (or doesn't) in Europe.

It's time for major publishers to get over the fact that they've failed to innovate and failed to keep up with the way the internet works, while others have stepped in and done a better job. Blaming others for your failures is one thing. Looking to the government to change the way the internet and free expression work, just to try to squeeze money out of the companies who did innovate, is a cynical and backwards looking move. EU citizens and their elected officials should not allow it to happen.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Mark Wing, 8 Jul 2015 @ 4:06pm

    If you send me traffic, then you're a fucking thief. If you don't send me traffic, then you're a fucking thief.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 4:28pm

      Re:

      Almost. They don't object to the increased traffic, far from it, what they are throwing a fit about is that they're not getting paid by the one sending them the traffic. As such the first part should read:

      "If you send me traffic without paying me for the privilege of doing so, then..."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 4:43pm

        Re: Re:

        Actually...

        "If you send me traffic without paying me for the content you use, then..."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Mark Wing, 8 Jul 2015 @ 4:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          And how much did you pay to use the content on this site? Climb on board, matey.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "And how much did you pay to use the content on this site? Climb on board, matey."

            I don't know, how much did TD make with my visit? I guess you know because otherwise you wouldn't ask, right?

            Besides I'm not linking that side to generate income for myself. But one might argue that by commenting here I generate income for TD so the theoretical correct question would be "How much did TD pay me for commenting here?"

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 1:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Besides I'm not linking that side to generate income for myself"

              Yes, google are making an income. But it is not from the news stories themselves but from a service they offer their customers. This service by the way which generates more traffic for the news outlets, it is a win win situation for both google and the newspapers.

              The only thing is google can survive without news aggregation the newspapers cannot.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                tqk (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 11:07am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                This service by the way which generates more traffic for the news outlets, it is a win win situation for both google and the newspapers.

                Theirs is a zero sum world. They can't envision "win win" outcomes. If somebody else's getting something, they assume they must be losing out in some way.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 5:24am

              ' "How much did TD pay me for commenting here?'

              Well, if it's an issue for you, maybe you should just stop.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 5:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Kinda hard to send someone traffic if you don't mention them in some way. I mean, which do you think is going to lead to more click-throughs, a bare link to a website, or a link and a snippet of text so people have at least some idea of what the link leads to?

          However it's spun, the newspapers are demanding to be paid for the free traffic and advertising that search engines are providing them, at no cost to the newspapers.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "However it's spun, the newspapers are demanding to be paid for the free traffic and advertising that search engines are providing them, at no cost to the newspapers."

            Well, then according to you the newspapers must be right. The newspapers don't pay anything for the free traffic and advertising. So just to clear it up, you are for payment to the newspapers?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 1:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Do you struggle with reading comprehension?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 3:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ... I honestly can't tell if you intentionally misread what I wrote, or if you're just really bad at reading comprehension.

              My point, which you apparently missed, either intentionally or not, was that the newspapers are getting something for free that they would normally have to pay for, that being increased traffic towards their site, and free advertising.

              They know full well the value of what the search engines are giving them(for free in case you forgot), as evidenced by the screaming and begging the last few times they've tried this stunt and Google has called their bluff by pulling the excerpts.

              Both times they were practically begging Google to re-list them in a matter of days at most, as the traffic to their sites plummeted without those excerpts showing up, so the idea that Google should, in addition to sending them traffic, be paying for the 'privilege', is beyond absurd, and greed at it's finest.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 5:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So don't use their precious content, the bloody pirates should simply provide links to the pathetic rag(s) with no reference to what or where said link goes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 5:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's a symbiotic relationship. Search provides eyeballs for publishers (for 'free'), the publishers provide content for search (also for 'free') and both benefit from the associated ad revenues.

          It'd be interesting to see the publisher's reaction if search was to demand a fee in turn; the publishers clearly value what search provides.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well, we've already been witness to their whining resulting from removal of said offending links.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            wow, the first answer that gets it. Grats!

            It would really be an interesting moment when people ask to be paid for traffic. On one side for the reaction the publishers would have but on another side what would happen in general.

            F.e. TD links to a news story or background information on another site. This site might get traffic from the link but should you be able to force them to pay you?

            An extreme example might be a blog post consisting of links only. Each word had a link you can click on. How do you meassure that? What about ppl with ref blockers?

            So the best solution is the War Games one, don't start a war because noone is going to win.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 2:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The thing is, this is just another mechanism to set up more middlemen, which makes no economic sense - that actually means that the companies are getting less from paying more.

              More importantly, the newspapers obviously didnt' learn fromt he example of either Spain or France; when these kinds of laws were pushed through, advertising revenues plummeted and threatened those newspapers who had lobbied for those laws.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 7:48am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The thing is, this is just another mechanism to set up more middlemen, which makes no economic sense -

                It makes sense if you are a middleman.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 2:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It would really be an interesting moment when people ask to be paid for traffic.

              That is exactly what cable companies have to do to be able to carry advertising supported TV content. Not doing so, and not being allowed to do so is what killed Aereo.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 6:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "If you send me traffic without paying me for the content you use, then..."

          How do they "use" it if they're just directing others to it, girl?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bkb (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 2:15pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That's easily solved:

          News article

          No actual content used, so there's no need to pay. I'm sure the publishers will love the amount of traffic these links generate!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 4:36pm

    Overwhelming greed and short-term gains

    Never ceases to amaze the overwhelming sense of entitlement shown by people like this, who seem to honestly believe that anyone who is involved in any fashion with 'their' content, even those in a 'promoting it at no cost' way, owe them money for the privilege of being involved.

    Google and other search engines are sending them increased traffic, at no cost to them, and yet all they can think about is, 'How can we make them pay for the increased traffic they're sending our way?'

    Companies pay large sums in order to draw in more people to their sites, yet these parasites just can't get enough, and just can't stop themselves from attacking the very companies helping them for free. The sooner they crash and burn for good the better off everyone will be, and hopefully their replacements will be a little smarter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 4:58pm

      Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains

      Never ceases to amaze the overwhelming sense of entitlement shown by people
      This is the age of entitlement, so why should this amaze you. The fundamental characteristic of this age is that everyone is ENTITLED to their "whatever". The problem is that many in this mindset have forgotten that most if not all of these entitlements or rights come as a result of privilege and with that some modicum of responsibility.

      As someone else put it, the only real right you have is to choose (the one right that everyone else wants to take away from you, whether it be government, business, your neighbour, etc.) some course of action. But this right requires that you accept responsibility for your choice.

      This MEP and the businesses she supports want to remove choice from everyone but themselves and then place responsibility for their choices back onto those that they have removed choice from. How does the meerkat say it - Simple, ehh!!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 5:07pm

        Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains

        "This is the age of entitlement, so why should this amaze you. The fundamental characteristic of this age is that everyone is ENTITLED to their "whatever". "

        This "age" has been going on for some time, something on the order of 195,000 years.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 6:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains

          Nah, it has been going on for maybe 40 years. Started in the 60's and 70's and has been building ever since. Even in my youth, it was expected that you take responsibility for your choices and actions. Nowadays we see that it is someone else's fault for the bad decisions that are made.

          Mind you, it appears that the litigious nature of the USA has promulgated around the world. When we were young, we always thought you Yanks were real nutcases when you did something obviously stupid and brought out the legal guns to blame someone else for your own stoopidity.

          What we have observed since is that this same mindset has moved into other areas like a slow moving bacterial infection that cannot be stopped by the best anti-bacterial medicines available.

          It now infects every area of society in lots of nations around the world, from politics to education to business to social welfare to entertainment to etc.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains

            I disagree.
            You may not have been exposed to it in your youth, but it was there all along. Evidence is scattered throughout the history of the human race.

            Some refer to it as human nature, I think of it as animalistic fear. Do unto others before they do unto you.

            Hopefully, humans will some day see how this is detrimental to their well being and stop being such dicks.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 10:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains

              I agree with you that it is always in part of the population. However, the extent of this problem has gone far beyond just part of the population to now nearly encompassing all of the population.

              This has been one of the big shifts in social dynamics in the last lot of [decayeds].

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 5:15pm

      Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains

      "Never ceases to amaze the overwhelming sense of entitlement shown by people like this, who seem to honestly believe that anyone who is involved in any fashion with 'their' content, even those in a 'promoting it at no cost' way, owe them money for the privilege of being involved."

      ... and they believe that they are allowed to use, without attribution or compensation, any and all content they find anywhere. They just do it and when called out they feign ignorance and blame some lowly intern who they do not even pay. Or, they come up with a bizarre rational for why they are allowed to so and then claim they are being persecuted by relentless nobodies who feel entitled.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 8 Jul 2015 @ 5:59pm

        Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains

        "...and they believe that they are allowed to use, without attribution or compensation, any and all content they find anywhere."

        Firstly, providing a link to the content is even better than simple attribution, so you're wrong there. Second, you don't explain why they shouldn't be allowed to use, with attribution, any and all content they find freely distributed anywhere, particular when the linked publisher benefits directly from it at no cost to them.

        On that last bit, can you explain why publishers shouldn't have to compensate news aggregators for providing a service that collects attentive eyeballs and directs them their way? We know it's a valuable service because they complain when it's taken away.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: Overwhelming greed and short-term gains

          You got it backwards, perhaps I was not clear.

          I was ranting against those who claim their precious links are being pirated.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:32pm

    I seem to recall that Google got fed up with the complaints and demands and cut off search results for some papers in (I think) Spain. The ensuing screams were amazing. Maybe these guys need the same treatment. I don't see any law or rule that says Google or anyone else has to cite any given provider in it's results. Cut 'em off and watch the fun.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 8:48pm

      Re:

      Leave the links, just remove the snippets, headlines and all.
      That way they can not complain about the links being removed like they did last time, but the effect is very similar.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 2:43am

      Re:

      Both Spain AND Germany.

      Those who scream loudly "If you don't like our terms, then do without" need to follow their own advice.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2015 @ 9:22pm

    Be careful what you wish for...

    ...should become the order of the day. Anyone - Google included - should simply keep linking as usual. If a complaint or payment demand is made, honor it by removing the link, snippet and all. Make it a three strikes deal and, after the third request, add the requesting domain to a blacklist...remove all existing links and list no more, unless the domain wants to pay for ad placements. If Google - and the rest of us as owners of websites - publish that policy as part of our TOS and enforce it, this silliness will die.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sciamiko (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 12:35am

    Quality journalism


    Calls on the Commission to evaluate and come forward with a proposal on how quality journalism can be preserved ...

    Easy - you preserve quality journalism by preserving the quality of the journalism, and not just copy official statements.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 1:39am

    so, basically politicians want to ban the main component of the internet: the hyperlink!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 4:04am

    Ah hell, why not tax the air we breath while we're at it

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jameshogg (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 5:11am

    "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" says the paper boy. Before he was charged a link tax.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Teamchaos (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 7:22am

    How many snippets do you read?

    How many snippets of web site content do you read without actually clicking on the link to visit the web site?

    That's probably the issue here. If I read a snippet and decide not to click the link, I've read content from the site without actually viewing the site and benefiting the site owner.

    It benefits the site with the snippets, because I go there to decide which sites to visit - but the producer of the content receives no benefit unless I click to visit the site.

    On the other hand, I wouldn't even know the site had the content available unless I saw the snippet. I'd never know to visit the site unless I was made aware of the content that it offered. So, aggregators provide free advertising for the sites with content.

    I propose that all news aggregators charge an advertising fee to any site they advertise content for by posting snippets equal to any link tax imposed by the new law.

    You don't want to provide me content (snippets) for free, I won't advertise your content for free.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 8:11am

    "How many snippets of web site content do you read without actually clicking on the link to visit the web site?"

    How many magazine headlines do you read while waiting in line at the grocery store and then not purchase even one of those rags?


    "It benefits the site with the snippets, because I go there to decide which sites to visit "

    Just like I go to the grocery store to decide which pathetic magazine to buy.


    "I propose that all news aggregators charge an advertising fee to any site they advertise content for by posting snippets equal to any link tax imposed by the new law. "

    That proposal seems a bit petty

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Teamchaos (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 11:41am

      Re:

      "That proposal seems a bit petty"

      The entire argument that news aggregators should pay a link tax is petty. I was just taking things to their absurd but logical conclusion.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    limbodog (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 9:09am

    I don't understand

    Is there any reason at all to think this will work out differently this time?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 9:32am

    So...do they complain about RSS feeds?

    ...newspapers...want to blame third party aggregators...because they link to stories with snippets, and then send traffic to those newspaper websites...

    Do those same newspapers have RSS feeds? Several that do send their links straight to a paywall! NYT, WSJ, Aviation Week to name a few. What's the difference between an RSS feed and a third party aggregator? BOTH send readers to their stories.

    Now getting their story read might be another issue. If there's a paywall...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tqk (profile), 9 Jul 2015 @ 11:15am

    Today's Internet suffers from an implementation problem.

    This's what you get when you hand something fantastically technical to marketing and sales before it's got its bugs worked out. Part of those "bugs" is education and knowledge transfer to help M&S first understand what it is they're being given. That never happened. At this rate, I doubt it ever will.

    "You're smart, Geordie. Just make it work."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2015 @ 11:58am

    Google should just make it opt in, and charge for inclusion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GEMont, 9 Jul 2015 @ 2:32pm

    Round and round we go...

    "EU citizens and their elected officials should not allow it to happen."

    But probably will let it happen - at least long enough to realize their mistake the hard way, as usual.

    (Not that I actually think that the EU citizens have any more control over their government's activities than Americans have over their own government's activities, of course.)

    ---

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2015 @ 4:04am

    Einstein sez (sorta)

    repeating the same steps multiple times and expecting different results each time is the height of insanity. That's about right!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    WisTex (profile), 27 Jul 2015 @ 7:11pm

    URL are like an Address of a Building

    They tried something like that in the USA. In a court case between Microsoft & Ticketmaster, the court concluded that URLs themselves were not copyrightable, writing: "A URL is simply an address, open to the public, like the street address of a building, which, if known, can enable the user to reach the building. There is nothing sufficiently original to make the URL a copyrightable item, especially the way it is used. There appear to be no cases holding the URLs to be subject to copyright. On principle, they should not be."

    As far as snippets, they are covered by the Fair Use provisions of the U.S. copyright law. Unfortunately not all countries have similar laws.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Liz Ryan, 11 Aug 2016 @ 12:37am

    Traffic Not The Same As Profitability

    Hi All

    A lot of abuse against 'greedy publishers' is being thrown around in this debate. But people are making a basic mis-assumption -- that 'traffic' to a site is the same as profitability.

    In fact, clickbait culture means the old economic models that supported quality journalism are broken. The seriousness of this cannot be overstated -- it has contributed to the rise of a 'post-truth society that allows things like Trump and Brexit.

    Google makes money out of content it does not create. The creators of that content have no easy means, nowadays, of making money from it, no matter how high this 'traffic' they should apparently be so grateful for.

    Perhaps this link tax is a clumsy solution but I don't see much awareness in the above debate that there's a real problem out there that the publishers are trying to solve.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kris, 20 Sep 2016 @ 10:50am

    > But people are making a basic mis-assumption -- that 'traffic' to a site is the same as profitability.

    Not really. It maybe true that traffic itself isn't a guarantee for profit. Bu the traffic at least is an opportunity to make profit. If a newsmaker gets lots of traffic and then fails to exploit this opportunity to somehow turn a profit, this isn't really the agregator's fault (or problem).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.