11–20 of 503 posts
Just need the US and EU to follow suit now and the giants can get back to paying for what they use!
But fair is fair. If publishers want to force social media to pay for news content. Social Media has every right to refuse to pay and refuse to redistribute.
Ultimately, this is the wrong approach. The internet should be "open," and people or companies should be free to link to whatever they want without penalty.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/saving-news-big-tech
News outlets usually provide RSS feeds. Don't they allow to show the contents of those feeds on websites? And isn't showing the content of the RSS feed "fair use" anyhow? When I look at the content of the Toronto Star for example: https://www.thestar.com/content/thestar/feed.RSSManagerServl... My gut feeling is that showing those short snippets with a link to the articles should be fair use. Am I wrong?
Fair use and copyright are 'artificial' legal constructs, so if they were defined in an 'arbitrary' way to begin with, they can be redefined to add or remove provisions. These online publishing laws could tweak those provisions.
Also: when an RSS/Atom feed is published, it is still copyrighted, and the terms and conditions would/could perhaps be defined what "fair use" is by copyright holder (maybe?).
Going a step further, I think google should stop crawling websites that are paywalled. When I search for something, I want to see results that I can click on. Not some snippets from NYT, WSJ, Bloomberg and others which are heavily paywalled.
Going a step further, I think google should stop crawling websites that are paywalled. When I search for something, I want to see results that I can click on. Not some snippets from NYT, WSJ, Bloomberg and others which are heavily paywalled.
Brazil is currently considering a similar law that would require social networks to compensate content creators for each republication [1]. However, unlike the situation in Canada, the Brazilian lawmakers have taken into account this scenario. The law mandates that social networks cannot cease publishing the content and must negotiate compensation in "fair terms." Personally, I find this approach to be quite perplexi…
So if I understand correctly, those companies are now going to be forced into paying for products that they cannot just stop using?
Brazil is currently considering a similar law that would require social networks to compensate content creators for each republication [1]. However, unlike the situation in Canada, the Brazilian lawmakers have taken into account this scenario. The law mandates that social networks cannot cease publishing the content and must negotiate compensation in "fair terms." Personally, I find this approach to be quite perplexi…
So if I understand correctly, those companies are now going to be forced into paying for products that they cannot just stop using?
News outlets usually provide RSS feeds. Don't they allow to show the contents of those feeds on websites? And isn't showing the content of the RSS feed "fair use" anyhow? When I look at the content of the Toronto Star for example: https://www.thestar.com/content/thestar/feed.RSSManagerServl... My gut feeling is that showing those short snippets with a link to the articles should be fair use. Am I wrong?
If Google and Meta just generate free traffic for the news site, then I'm not really sure why they're complaining. If their write is straight up reproduced without permission then I understand.