You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This could prove interesting:
The second is Article 11 – it would create a so-called “neighbouring right” meaning that newspapers, magazines and news agencies including AFP would have to be paid when Google or other websites link to their stories.
http://ultrasurfing.com/business-and-tech/brussels-gripped-by-lobbying-war-over-copyright-law/
I can see the issue with sites like STW that post up a preview with the links, effectively they're displaying someone else's work with STW's entirely non obtrusive and definitely not slowing computers to a crawl advertising. Ditto yahoo, google etc homepages showing the headlines from news websites (and ST).
Charging for links seems a bit OTT, how are people supposed to find your stuff if the sites can't link to it?
Maybe the content creator has a business model doesn't generate enough revenue from hits? I don't know but it will be a bugger to police.
https://www.quora.com/Does-Google-violate-any-copyright-laws-using-other-websites-information
'The U.S. perspective is that indexing for the purposes of providing search results fits the copyright exception known as “fair use”. This mechanical process is allowed, provided that it abides by the restrictions set by website owners through robots.txt, because the point of the service is to direct people to that website for the full content.'
This response is interesting also:
https://www.quora.com/Does-Google-have-legal-copyright-over-the-Search-Results-it-produces
'They have copyright over the presentation, formatting, layout and other creative choices. The actual results are factual, however, and facts are not subject to copyright protections.'
So it seems like intent is important in establishing copywrite violation. I think they would have a hard time getting around the fair use distinction. Obviously that is US law above but I've ran out of bother to find the UK equivalent.
Charging for links seems a bit OTT
Well, that's fine, as hotlinking is not the issue. How much of the content from the destination of the link is scraped in and displayed as a snippet, or preview, is what the debate is around. A whole article, including images? Just the headline? Or somewhere in between? How do you define what is fair use, so as to protect the rights of whoever owns the content, yet not break the web as we currently use it? Tricky.
Oh blimey, does this mean there will be a load more technical goings on and the broke stuff will never get sorted?? Whaaaa! 😥
Doubt it.