While this isn't great, it is worth remembering that this is one individual's proposals that hasn't passed any committee, any vote, any vetting, any review period, and is a long way off becoming enacted.
I'm all for voicing descent to this bad idea. I just want people to keep it in the context it belongs (a very big longshot for getting through as-is regardless).
That's too optimistic. Let's dive into how EU law is made:
First, the Commission (~government) proposes a law. They proposed this "extra copyright for news sites" that covers even tiniest snippets of news content and thus would put a price tag on links to news. In their version, publishers could opt out of it – but it would still cause major problems. Leading IP researchers said it will "deter communication of news", "negatively affect authors" and "hinder European innovation" http://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/eu-copyright-reform...
Next, the Parliament and the Council (member state governments) need to approve the plans or suggest changes. The Parliament nominates one MEP to shepherd this process. In this case that's Axel Voss (from Merkel's CDU). His job is to get together with the other parties and then make a proposal that in his assessment enjoys majority support in the Parliament.
This is what this article is about. Not "one individual's proposal", but the lead negotiator's view of what a majority of the Parliament supports: Doubling down on an already bad idea by making the right inalienable.
He may be wrong about that – we'll know when the Legal Affairs Committee votes on it on June 20/21. Other MEPs will file counter-proposals, but one of them winning out would be a rare, unexpected upset. Voss may also make changes to his proposal until then, but so far he's brushed off all opposing arguments. And yes, even if his plan is approved, there's a chance the "inalienable right" addition (the threat to Creative Commons) may not survive final negotiations with the Council and Commission.
The thing is: This vote is the number one chance the public has to affect what will be in this law, and thus whether there'll be a "link tax" in Europe. We need to push our representatives to reject that idea in that vote, not double down on it.
This isn't the first time Axel Voss has dumped out a proposal that would undermine how half the internet operates and make the other half open to a court case from the first half.
Voss is a tool, but it's true that right-wing parties are currently a majority in the EP, and they are flexing their muscles. However, there is barely a year left to this term - that's not much, to get this sort of thing through. Among other things, it needs a majority in the Council, which can be challenging depending on the political issue du-jour.
To me, to be honest, this looks like a classic overreach designed to cover a land grab: the "obligation" of remuneration will be inevitably shot down, but some other wording will be found that will enshrine the basic right of content producers to demand payment for links if they wish to do so.
I'm all for voicing descent to this bad idea. I just want people to keep it in the context it belongs (a very big longshot for getting through as-is regardless).