If the code automatically shows the article or summarizes it without clicking on the link, then yeah, that’s infringement. It should only show the title and the link imo.
More like: They want to sell the cake and be paid when you recommend it to others.
Mind that news media don’t pay when they link to social media, quote people, or even report what other media has reported. The real question is, if this law has any beneficial effect for society. I don’t see how.
If the code automatically shows the article or summarizes it without clicking on the link, then yeah, that’s infringement. It should only show the title and the link imo.
Except the summary is almost always literally the content the sites ask the sites linking them to show.
They have “please show this preview instead of a boring plain link” code.
This. They even provide the cover image to use. If they don’t want embedding they could just block the request.
But they don’t want to. They want to sell the cake and eat it too.
Or they want to sell the cake and get paid for it.
More like: They want to sell the cake and be paid when you recommend it to others.
Mind that news media don’t pay when they link to social media, quote people, or even report what other media has reported. The real question is, if this law has any beneficial effect for society. I don’t see how.
That’s exactly what (maybe) violates the law.
You think people should pay X to link to tweets? Or generally for quotes?
No, I’m not saying anything about ‘should’.
It’s about a lawsuit here, and I have told that this may be what has violated the law.
The court will tell you for sure, in the end.
Misunderstanding. The news media is suing X. I pointed out what news media does without paying.
That’s infringement in Europe, which makes it effectively a link tax.