Germany has apparently adopted a new copyright provision that does not cause deep links to news content to be copyright infringement. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) covered this in an article March 4, 2013 which you can find here.
So, apparently, this link to the news article is "legal" (or at least not a copyright violation in Germany at this time)
Now mind you, Blogger's treatment of embedded links (and most Blog sites) ... does not present any of the content from that site in an embedded way. However, if I use the same URL as part of a posting on LinkedIn or Facebook, they often do include an automated extract from the site, which is one of the factors upsetting the German News folks.
I notice that the WSJ seems to allow public access to this Google related article, but not so with a somewhat related article on how the TV Studios dealing with their concerns: "As Pirates Run Rampant, TV Studios Dial Up Pursuit." For this article, from what I can tell, you need to be a subscriber or pay for access. --- It is a more detailed article with nice color pictures graphs, etc. (I remember the Pre NewsCorp/Rupert Murdoch (also owning Fox News) days when the Journal only had Black & White, and used sketches of folks faces rather than pictures. ... for better or worse, the change in ownership and editorial bias has 'colored' the content) -- It is interesting in terms of transparency (or lack thereof) that the WSJ site does not have clear indicators of the News Corporation Ownership. The articles on the TV Studios (but also ties into related movie studio interests -- (20th Century Fox in the case of News Corp) -- does not identify the related editorial/ownership interests of the WSJ in the topic. It would surprise me if News Corp did not also join the German law suit with some level of input, and failed to disclose this in their coverage of the issue.
There are a couple of real problems here:
a) there is real abuse of copyright that is occurring
b) traditional media outlets often spend more effort (in lobbying, legal activity, monitoring, etc.) than in developing new business models that work profitably in this new environment.
c) content owners do not make content available though broadband media in a timely fashion
so to watch live sporting events (as mentioned in the TV Studios article) ... you have to buy access via a paid cable channel -- typically having to buy access to many items you don't want for an extended contract period, with installation and other fees --- if they allowed folks to pay a reasonable amount online, or followed the "old" broadcast model (with inserted ads) they would find much less incentive for piracy.
The Journals TV article ends with the question from a media representative "How do we protect ourselves?", by which he seems to mean "How do we protect our preferred or traditional business models?" ... It might be a more effective use of time to ask "How can we maximize access to our content in ways that provide profitable income?" It is an old rule of economics that the cost of a commodity will drop (in a free market) to the incremental cost of providing that commodity. The problem with digital delivery is that the costs for providing content approach zero. If you are producing a news story, or a blog, then the creation costs are fairly low. If you are producing a TV show they are higher, and of course major studios spend rather massive amounts of money creating feature films. But this affects every author, musician, etc. and until we learn how to fund our entertainment and creative artists we will be caught in a tension between old models and new technology.
