My Opinion

Here gets shown how inflexible and hostile to innovation the big magazine publishers of the European Union are. Instead of watching the signs of the time and adapting their own business model the German publishers are trying to continue their ride on a dead horse.

These stupid magazine publishers are thinking that they are mighty enough and can force others to pay for linking to their content by using short text snippets from their content. That shows only that these magazine publishers are so dumb and resident against learning that they don’t understand the functions of the header tags <title> and <description>. As soon as you are looking at one of these German site from these magazine publishers you'll find out the reason why they are acting this way. Their full content of their journalistic work fits normally already into description. The text length of the description tag is not limited, but Google takes normally a maximum of around 150 characters for describing your link in their search results. As they journalists from the German magazines are lazy, their content is nothing else than a pic with 2 or 3 sentences under it. How can get made a short description for such a poor content? Their print media is not better, it contains big page filling pictures with not more than 2 - 3 sentences description. As I have seen it the first time, I have been thinking that the German people, who are buying such a newspaper can only be illiterates. If you are searching for real journalistic content then you have to visit the free websites from the big TV stations like ARD and ZDF.

Instead of searching the failures for their losses got these morons of magazine and news publishers the idea that search engines and the social networks have to pay for listing their sites together with the short text snippets. With other words of being happy about a free of charge promotion others shall even pay for making promotion for them. I think these cretins are overestimating themselves.

These self-proclaimed opinion found support for EU Commissioner Günther Oettinger. And now the copyright law shall get renewed and should become EU law. Actually, only Internet companies like Google should be asked to pay, but also private individuals would be currently affected.

The European Commission has published the official proposal for the planned reform of the copyright law on Wednesday (1-2016-593-EN-F1-1.PDF (359.78 kb)). The contents of the 33 pages of long document is somewhat similar to a working paper gel files in the run-up to proposals. Striking: While specific rules on controversial topics such as Geoblocking, or freedom of panorama, it focuses in particular on an extension of the controversial Intellectual property right of the European Union. This law stipulates that Internet companies such as Google and Facebook would have to pay for a link preview, for example, in a Facebook posting or for an excerpt in Google News.

Such laws already exist in Germany and Spain, but these did not bring the hoped-for effect so far. The media companies argue U.S. platforms such as Google or Facebook would benefit from the link previews, so called "snippets". They especially complain Google and co. would earn money with third party content, not cut them but on the advertising revenue. In the future, for a period of at least 20 years on news articles shall apply. Google, Facebook or an other Internet group linked in this period on the item and displays a preview (for example, with title, image and teaser), would have to pay for it.

The media giants hope so that the losses from traditional ad business can get replaced. The EU Commission expects a ten per cent increase for the Media Industry. This is a calculation that seems very doubtful in view of the negative example of Germany. The collecting organization called VG Media could collect since her introduction € 714.540 of the performance rights in Germany, but not a single euro of which was distributed to media companies. Instead, the revenue were used for legal proceedings, carried out violations of the copyright. As costs with 3.3 million euro increase over the revenue, publishers had to even step in and pay – the copyright became thus a negative business.

The proposal is attacked from multiple sides. The governing body of the Austrian Internet providers (ISPA) called the law: "Start to throwback". ISPA Secretary-General Maximilian Schubert, who is also Vice President of EuroISPA, shows angry on copyright infringement in particular about the copyright, the missing unification of the freedom of panorama, as well as the now mandatory review by the hosting provider.

Julia Reda, MEP of the Pirate Party, described the design already in advance as "beyond of good and evil" and called #SaveTheLink under the Hashtag for the resistance. The criticism joined several EU members, including Marietje Schaake, Brando Benifei, and Daniel Dalton. The President of the EU Commission Jean-Claude Juncker stressed in his speech that journalists must get paid, "regardless of where they work and whether it offline, from the copier or linked". Thus copying of printed works he equates the linking of articles, be compensated for the authors and publishers about collecting societies.

"There is a danger that search engines remove journalistic texts from their search completely. The Web would poorer," warns the managing director of IT industry association Bitkom, Bernhard Rohleder. Among especially smaller publishers would suffer because their offers are not to be found and the user instead accessed only on the news pages of the well-known publishers.

Digital Commissioner Günther Oettinger (CDU) don't want that search engines or other Web pages to display even shortest article extracts in the form of "Snippets", when they refer to journalistic texts. Also, even the copy could fall under the new rights. This would be the case when search engines are indexing articles. That case shows that Günther Oettinger does even not know the function of robots.txt. Such a guy likes to be the Digital Commisioner?

Feiler, expects the European Parliament several amendments with clearer definitions, but even sharp criticism on the intellectual property right. "The Intellectual property protection right has already shown what's it can - not very much", said Feiler. "This is a classic case of 'policy laundering': something that did not work at a national level, will be tried on another level again." Feiler compares the approach of the media conglomerates that the music and film industry, who defended in the past decade yet fierce DRM measures. "The reaction is understandable, but thanks to the digitization, it needs new business models."

The initiative, European digital rights (EDRi) complained that the proposal "not worse might have". It was "Poison" for the freedom of expression and creativity. The Commission had ignored all the facts and wants to avoid a genuine reform at any cost.

The new rules could lead to a deal between Google and the corporate media as politico notes. So Google in the United States have presented already 2014 a micropayment system with "Contributor", which could serve as an additional source of income in Europe. The user paid while a self-selected monthly amount between 1.99 and $ 14.99 on Google. If the user visited Web sites that participate in the "contributor" program, all advertising is hidden. At the end of the month, the subscription fee is divided among the visited Web sites. The system is similar to that of Peter Sunde of developed system called Flattr and is currently being tested, among other things by the satirical Web site "The Onion" and the tech blog "Mashable".

How intelligent the EU comedians (politicians) are, gets shown in the draft from the intellectual property right. Give them a lesson and remove all links from your sites and watch them crying until they are coming up with an paid offer (per click) for linking to their sites.

Everybody knows that politicians are useless for everything. They know everything from nothing. They can speak hours without saying something. Politicians are only actors which can get replaced at any time. The real content of the politics gets done in the background. Politicians, who are useless and dangerous at the national level, are getting sent to the European Union.

Please accept before reading this article that I'm neither for nor against the European Union. This article shall only show how politicians are scamming their voters. These stupid idiots have even no plan for the case they are in need fulfill their own election promises. The only idea they have is to revoke their own promises and let everything like it is. Who is able to trust such liars? Who needs such losers and liars?

The incompetence from politicians gets already shown in the contracts from the European Union. The European Union has to wait now until the United Kingdom invokes the article 50 from the Lisbon contract. From the site of the European Union can get done nothing to kick out a single member country, where some politicians like to make some local political capital by acting against the union. That means one single member country can take all the other members from the union into their hostage for playing their own populist gimmicks. Which idiots have made such contracts that can get canceled only from one site? Are all these contracts made from decrepit old people suffering on dementia or the politicians have not yet outgrown from their kindergarten age and sandbox shenanigans? Where get some common sense found in such a case?

The central slogan of the "BREXIT" campaign has been "getting back the control over our country". But for all those who believed to the UKIP boss Nigel Farage and Tory Boris Johnson the jubilation is short. The leaders of the EU exit movement lost after the announcement of the voting results no time, to distance themselves from their own promises.

The end result was not yet four hours old, since the head of the right-wing populist UK Independence Party relativized (UKIP) Nigel Farage on Friday already one of the key promises of "Leave" campaign: In the ITV program "Good Morning Britain" said the UKIP -politician that he could not guarantee that, as announced by the "BREXIT"-supporters 350 million pounds per week instead of the EU now went to the Health Service.

"That was one of the mistakes the, 'Leave' campaign has made," the EU-parliamentarian said on Friday. He had thus not advertised. "You have to understand that I was excluded from the campaign and I have, as always, done my own thing." Certainly Farage had heard during the election campaign that the "Leave" camp campaigned so - and before the vote never said a word about lost that this promise might be untenable.

On Saturday rowed the conservative outlet advocates, the British EU-parliamentarian Daniel Hannan, the most important - and most crucial - topic, immigration, return. Opposite the BBC Hannan literally said: "Frankly, if people who voted, believing that there will now be no more immigration from the EU, they will be disappointed."

Yet on June 1, Johnson said that the "is automatic right for all EU citizens in the UK to live and work end for a vote for the exit." The "Leave" campaign had instead promised a tough Australian immigration model for EU citizens.

The reactions in the social networks on Hannans statements of disappointed "Remain"-supporters were not long in coming:

@ianpatterson99

Daniel Hannan has the most bare faced cheek I've seen in a politician: he knew before Thursday how his imigration promise was being heard

2016-06-25T08:01:13+0000

Another one summed up:

@HaveIGotNewsForYou

With Nigel Farage dismissing Leave's NHS pledge and Dan Hannan saying immigration won't fall, Britain realises it's voted for bendy bananas.

2016-06-24T19:39:54+0000

Among the hashtags "#Bregret" and "#WhatHaveWeDone" the result was debated on Twitter over the weekend. There were, however, more EU supporters who expressed their incomprehension and anger at the "Leave voters, not actually repentant". Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union voters.

The London ex-mayor Boris Johnson, who is now considered a leading candidate to succeed David Cameron as leader of the conservative Tories and as premier, for his part stressed in his first speech Friday morning that there was no need to rush the withdrawal from the EU. He also saw no need to make use of Article 50 of the Lisbon contract, so Johnson, one of the leaders of the "BREXIT" campaign. This would require the completion of exit negotiations within two years.

Matthew Elliott, chief of the "BREXIT" campaign, expressed himself similar. He wants to allow unofficial negotiations with the EU, such as on access to the single market or the EU passport for financial institutions, the freedom of access to EU capital markets, before submitting an official letter. "It would be the best if the dust can place down over the summer and using the time for informal negotiations with other countries. We don’t believe that is the best to invoke Article 50 quickly."

During the election campaign had Johnson and Co. of course in all their performances gives the impression that each additional day in the EU is a lost day for the United Kingdom. It turns out: After the vote is not before the vote - at least in terms of the promise of the "BREXIT" - supporters.

My opinion is, if the people would deport all the politicians to isolated islands without any return possibility, the politicians will not get missed from someone. The world would even be a better place if such scammers are getting removed from their sham jobs. As long as politicians can not be held responsible for their doings nothing will change. Changes are only possible if the politicians can be held liable with their private assets and their campaign promises are enforceable. Each business and each private person has a higher liability risk than any politician.