>> Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses in order to obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.
Which makes some sense. If you have a digital version that needs to still give you money but them:
>> In addition, the listing in a search engine should not be considered as fair and proportionate remuneration.
Says you will have to pay in a different from just driving traffic to those ppl.
Now if I’m a Creative Commons news outlet there is no way for me to waive that extra payment. The law states that just listing me somewhere is not enough and I need to be paid in a different way. I may not want that but the law INSISTS that I get paid in a different way.
Why is there no way to waive that right? It's not a criminal statute.
I'm not saying the recital 32 is great, and clear and amazing. It's not, but it doesn't mean much until it gets into a draft regulation/directive, gets challenged in court, etc.
>> Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses in order to obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.
Which makes some sense. If you have a digital version that needs to still give you money but them:
>> In addition, the listing in a search engine should not be considered as fair and proportionate remuneration.
Says you will have to pay in a different from just driving traffic to those ppl.
Now if I’m a Creative Commons news outlet there is no way for me to waive that extra payment. The law states that just listing me somewhere is not enough and I need to be paid in a different way. I may not want that but the law INSISTS that I get paid in a different way.
Does this make it more clear?