|
|
|
|
|
|
by lawl
2391 days ago
|
|
|
> A sufficient strict IP might find text snipped a copyright violation too. It's a trick area. Personally, I'm at peace as we get the content of web pages, as everyone else. Interesting you bring this up. Wasn't the company funding cliqz in favor of text snippets being copyright violations when the big G does it? (German/EU Leistungsschutzrecht) [0] I mean, I think bootstrapping from google query logs is fine, but following the money it does seem like a double standard. Cliqz "stealing" from Google SERPs is fine, but Google news "stealing" text snippets isn't? [0]: https://leistungsschutzrecht.info/stimmen-zum-lsr/pressearti... (Relevant quote: Das Leistungsschutzrecht halte man nach wie vor nicht für falsch. Man setze sogar weiterhin auf ein euop. Leistungsschutzrecht, mit dessen Hilfe man sich erhofft, endlich Geld von Google zu erhalten. sloppy translation: We still consider the [we-want-money-for-google-news-snippets-law] to not be the wrong approach. We in fact contiue hoping it will work out on a european scale) |
|
|
As all German media? Yes, it seems that they were lobbying for it, not clear if they still are part of the consortium or not. Why? No idea, really. Perhaps they are diversifying, lobbying on one hand, trying to build a competitor with another. But to make an assessment of the "goodness" of their intentions I prefer to stick to the facts: besides complaining to regulators, or not, they do fund a potential alternative. That's very commendable, cannot name many companies that are crazy/adventurous enough to put a ton of money on something as risky as what Cliqz is trying to do. To sum up, if the lobbying is a minus, the building is a massive plus, a clear positive outcome IMHO.