Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

European Commission Hides Copyright Evidence Again

posted by janrinok on Thursday January 18 2018, @06:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the can't-we-handle-the-truth? dept.

canopic jug writes:

Those who start to scratch the surface, such as Julia Reda – German Member of the European Parliament for the Greens/EFA Group – and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), are uncovering how the EC carefully cherry-picked the evidence that supports their ideological policy choices, whilst withholding evidence going against them. The EC officials must have confused policy-based evidence making with evidence-based policy making.

Just before the 2017 Winter break, MEP Reda uncovered another attempt of the EC to swipe evidence under the carpet. Officials from the EC's Directorate‑General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CNECT) where caught in the act, when they 'kindly' reminded a researcher of the EC's Joint Research Centre (JRC) to not publish a study, contradicting the EC's policy choice, on the highly debated press publishers' right (Article 11) at the request of their hierarchy.

Source : European Commission Hides Copyright Evidence Again

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
European Commission Hides Copyright Evidence Again | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 20 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:04PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:04PM (#624213)

    Without any explanation of the issue the European Commission is hiding evidence on, this is nothing but a dumb hit piece. It doesn't even achieve the goal of generating public backlash against their policy, because the summary and the whole first half of TFA refuse to explain what that policy is.

    But luckily, the second half of the article, after the words "Now let’s look at why the EC actually tried to sweep this study under the carpet", actually digs into the issue, which is immediately summarized thusly:

    Contrary to some policy makers’ belief, newspapers do actually benefit from news aggregation platforms and a press publishers’ right is worth ZERO

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3