The film, called “IPIDENTICAL: Imagine a world without creativity” is supposed to be an example of what the world would look like without intellectual property. In this world, everything is the same. There is one song in the world, called “The Song” and that’s it. There is one movie, “The Movie.” There is one car in one color. Everyone wears the same clothes. All products on store shelves are identical. See? How dystopian.
We have had the same here at IgnorantAndUnreasonable
Dear Google RTBF reviewer (who I’m sure will be reading this soon): Under the terms of the GDPR, you are only supposed to agree to a content removal if what we are publishing is “personal data” that is no longer necessary, and (importantly, please read this, guys) that is not “for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information” or “for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes….” This post, like the last few, are news stories that are in the public interest, specifically about how someone is abusing the GDPR’s “right to erasure” process to delete news reports about his abuse of the GDPR “right to erasure” process. This story is not about anything earlier that Thomas Goolnik may or may not have done. It is about what he did within the last few days. It is not old. It is not no longer relevant. It is directly relevant, and this post should not be subject to any GDPR right to erasure claims.Dear Thomas Goolnik: Seriously dude? How much longer is this going to go on? It is legal for a news report to mention your name. We’re not even talking about the original think you want forgotten. We’re talking about what you’ve been up to the past few years trying to get everyone to forget the thing you want forgotten. Maybe let it go.
Remember Thomas Goolnik? Apparently, he doesn’t think you should. But let’s start this post off with some special notes for two specific parties, and then we’ll get into some more details:
Dear Thomas Goolnik: I’m assuming you’re reading this because you seem to come across every post we write about you and then file bullshit complaints in the EU about how they need to be forgotten. And, every time that happens, we write another post. Perhaps you should think about not trying to abuse the GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten, and recognize that it’s perfectly legal to mention your name. We won’t even mention the original original story you so badly want censored, even though I imagine lots of people will now go hunt that down.
Dear Google RTBF reviewers: this is not an article about some long ago no-longer-relevant event in Mr. Goolnik’s past. Even if we disagree about whether historical convictions should be disappeared down the memory hole, the right to be forgotten is supposed to apply only to past events that are no longer occurring. This article is not about Mr. Goolnik’s past. It is about his present: the fact that he repeatedly is abusing the Right to be Forgotten rules to try to delete our articles about him. This article is about this most recent attempt, and not his past, whatever that might include.
the German delegation had actually pushed back on the more extreme versions of Article 13 — and, in particular, had demanded that a final version have a clear carve-out for smaller companies, so as not to have them forced out of business by the onerous demands of the law. However, after some back and forth, Germany caved in to France’s demands, with many left scratching their heads as to why. However, some noted the “coincidence” in timing, that right after this, France also withdrew its objections to the pipeline which is very controversial in the EU (and the US, which is threatening sanctions).
“As a well-known allegory says: ‘Imagine a farmer who owns, feeds and milks his cow in order to give away the milk for free to a dairy company – and then finally buys it back in a milk carton at a very high price’. This is the business model of big research publishers.”
We at ignorantandunreasonable also got hit with one last week.
You’ll recall, of course, that prior to the GDPR, there was a big case against Google in the EU that created, out of thin air, a “right to be forgotten” (perhaps, more accurately, “a right to be delinked”) saying that for certain classes of information that showed up in Google’s search index, it should be treated as personal data that had to be delinked from that user’s name as no longer relevant. This never made any sense at all. A search result is not like out-of-date customer database info, yet that’s how the Court of Justice in the EU treated it. Unfortunately, with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) going into effect earlier this year, the “right to be forgotten” was even more officially coded into law. We’ve noted recently, there have been a few attempts to use the GDPR to delete public information on American sites, and now we at Techdirt have been hit with what appears to be just such an attempt.
Incredibly, after the vote approving the directive, reporter Emanuel Karisten of the Swedish publication Breakit, asked Voss about this and Voss gave a fairly astounding answer, stating that “this was kind of a mistake” and that “no one had been aware of this.”
We can conclude from this overview that the studies published so far contain no empirical evidence in support of the substitution hypothesis and thus no evidence that online aggregators have a negative impact on original newspaper publishers’ revenue. On the contrary, the evidence shows that aggregators may actually be complements to newspaper websites and may help consumer discover more news and boost the number of visits.
It’s not exactly great filmmaking, but it does show how he has to give up his electronics and sign a document before entering the room (quickly, so as not to allow anyone to see what’s in there). And then he comes back out after being handed a document saying that it’s also against the law for him to copy down anything from the draft text verbatim. He expresses his concern about how ridiculous this is and is told to take it up with someone else, who then tells him that he should be happy that MEPs can even view the document at all within the EU Parliament, and that this is a “great achievement.”