Europe facing the danger of Internet censorship

Oct 2013
14,075
Europix
It's not a tax per se, it's just been called that by the media.

Extra copyright for news sites (“Link tax”)


(It it in fact a charge, people are using metaphorical language when they call it a tax. An idiotic measure for the resons well summarized on the linked page.)

Thank You both.


With all do respect, using the word "tax" : in any lambda's citizen mind, tax= state (taking our money).

With is a very disingenuous way to present the directive, as the directive talks about having the permission of the owner for using his work, about remunerating the owner for the use of it's work.

IDK about others, but if I need a car, I ask Naomasa. or Lins if I can have the car. And if we're not buddies enough to have it for free, I will pay for it. But I'm not going in their garage and take that car whenever I want, just like that!

As for Madame Julia Reda, I start to dislike her more and more. Not for what she stands, but for how she stands.

Julia Reda: (quote) ... "Likely to fail: This is an attempt to replicate at an EU level an idea that already failed badly in Germany and Spain ... " (end of quote)..[*]

In other words, as Google news refused to remunerate the creator's work (journalism in the case), we should renounce defending intellectual property.

Huh?

Not to say I don't exactly get how that stance is going with her vision on Europe: (and I quote) ...We can no longer allow companies to pit European countries against each other ... " (end of quote)..[*]

Huh?


Another one:

(I quote) ...Making it legally risky or expensive to link (with snippets) to news risks disincentivising the sharing of reputable news content. Since “fake news” and propaganda outlets are unlikely to charge for snippets, their content could as a result become more visible on social networks ... . " (end of quote).[*]

News needs investment: time, money, documentation. Fake news, (it would be better to call them by their real names: gossip, hearsay, propaganda) don't. They're either posted for free, or financed by organisms that have other interests.

So, paying the journalists for their work is supposed to kill journalism and promote fake ?

Logic ?!?


I don't continue, cause her site is plenty, but plenty.


Sorry, what I see is that in the name of a fundamental right - freedom - some consider that other fundamental rights. - property in this case - can be ignored.

Liberty isn't ignoring others.


______
[*] Julia Reda's quotes come from:
My Vision for Europe: Borderless
Extra copyright for news sites (“Link tax”)

________
[**] And by making clear what I quoted, giving the source, it is totally legal, and for historum.com, and for me.

It's and legal and fair, accordingly to the old customs, accordingly to academic customs, accordingly to old copyright legislations, accordingly to the new directive on copyright.

Mme. Reda should have had learned that very long ago.
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,145
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Thank You both.


With all do respect, using the word "tax" : in any lambda's citizen mind, tax= state (taking our money).

With is a very disingenuous way to present the directive, as the directive talks about having the permission of the owner for using his work, about remunerating the owner for the use of it's work.

IDK about others, but if I need a car, I ask Naomasa. or Lins if I can have the car. And if we're not buddies enough to have it for free, I will pay for it. But I'm not going in their garage and take that car whenever I want, just like that!

As for Madame Julia Reda, I start to dislike her more and more. Not for what she stands, but for how she stands.

Julia Reda: (quote) ... "Likely to fail: This is an attempt to replicate at an EU level an idea that already failed badly in Germany and Spain ... " (end of quote)..[*]

In other words, as Google news refused to remunerate the creator's work (journalism in the case), we should renounce defending intellectual property.

Huh?

Not to say I don't exactly get how that stance is going with her vision on Europe: (and I quote) ...We can no longer allow companies to pit European countries against each other ... " (end of quote)..[*]

Huh?


Another one:

(I quote) ...Making it legally risky or expensive to link (with snippets) to news risks disincentivising the sharing of reputable news content. Since “fake news” and propaganda outlets are unlikely to charge for snippets, their content could as a result become more visible on social networks ... . " (end of quote).[*]

News needs investment: time, money, documentation. Fake news, (it would be better to call them by their real names: gossip, hearsay, propaganda) don't. They're either posted for free, or financed by organisms that have other interests.

So, paying the journalists for their work is supposed to kill journalism and promote fake ?

Logic ?!?


I don't continue, cause her site is plenty, but plenty.


Sorry, what I see is that in the name of a fundamental right - freedom - some consider that other fundamental rights. - property in this case - can be ignored.

Liberty isn't ignoring others.


______
[*] Julia Reda's quotes come from:
My Vision for Europe: Borderless
Extra copyright for news sites (“Link tax”)

________
[**] And by making clear what I quoted, giving the source, it is totally legal, and for historum.com, and for me.

It's and legal and fair, accordingly to the old customs, accordingly to academic customs, accordingly to old copyright legislations, accordingly to the new directive on copyright.

Mme. Reda should have had learned that very long ago.
Stop making a big deal out of the semantics. Nobody cares about what it's called or the right word for it.
 
Aug 2010
16,055
Welsh Marches
You're being very unfair to Reda because you're not paying proper attention to the details of what she's saying. I would advise people to look at the linked pages rather than take this biased summary at face value!
 
Oct 2013
14,075
Europix
Stop making a big deal out of the semantics. Nobody cares about what it's called or the right word for it.
Not only nobody cares about it, but some don't bother to look if it's the right word.

So they remain in "link tax".

So they remain with some vague impression that state, or EU is just steal us is some more money.

So they will insurge of being robbed and censored.

Then some, or we, will wonder why there's not that much real journalism around.

Yap, no need to care about semantics ....
 
Oct 2013
14,075
Europix
You're being very unfair to Reda because you're not paying proper attention to the details of what she's saying. I would advise people to look at the linked pages rather than take this biased summary at face value!
Lins, I said: " I start to dislike her more and more. Not for what she stands, but for how she stands.

I did looked at the details, I've looked at a lot of pro and cons positions, and not only her's.

My problem, again, is that she have a speech that isn't that honest as it is pretending/suggesting to be.

You know, like in those Brexit discussions: I wasn't against Brexit, nor against Brexiters. But I am against twisted/missinformed/disingenuous allegations.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
14,075
Europix
Oh? How would you describe a charge levied through a directive then?

Net effect - you pay more due to the EU. Who cares if it's a tax?
Well, at least it's clear: I don't have to remunerate the journalist that is informing me.

Interestingly tho: I don't have to pay more because I need someone's work, and work deserve payment but ... because of the EU.

I hope it will be never the case, but tell me more about this when the market will be flooded by cheap copies of Your product that someone copied (= stoled) without paying You a dime.
 
Last edited:

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,034
Netherlands
Well, at least it's clear: I don't have to remunerate the journalist that is informing me.

Interestingly tho: I don't have to pay more because I need someone's work, and work deserve payment but ... because of the EU.

I hope it will be never the case, but tell me more about this when the market will be flooded by cheap copies of Your product that someone copied (= stoled) without paying You a dime.
It isn't happening now, what makes you think it will happen in 2 years?