Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Brickbat: Fair Use

Charles Oliver | 2.28.2014 6:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | cc
(cc)

The Spanish government has proposed a new law that would require search engines to pay to display even brief fragments of copyrighted material. The government did not say how much will be charged.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Let Them Eat Grilled Cheese! Retired Gen. Wesley Clark Gets Paid a Quarter-Mil for Flogging Food Trucks to Vets

Charles Oliver is a contributing editor at Reason.

PolicyCivil LibertiesScience & TechnologyWorldCopyrightSpain
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (11)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. SweatingGin   12 years ago

    Gox files for bankruptcy

  2. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    I suppose search engines could block results from European news outlets. That should take care of that.

  3. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

    I gotta critique the page image. The halberd was a foot soldier's weapon - for anti-cavalry work. Anyone one a horse with that much armor should be armed with either a lance or a sword. Also - leg armor on a horse? They wouldn't put up with it and it would cause too many crippling injuries even if you could get it on.

    1. WTF   12 years ago

      Well, since we're going full pedant here, you'll notice that he is tilting at windmills, so it is a representation of Don Quixote, who didn't really have a massive charger with full plate armor, so this is actually a representation of how he imagined himself to be.

      1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

        If it was what he imagined himself to be - why are they still windmills and not giants?

        1. WTF   12 years ago

          Because the artist had to convey that the knight in shining armor is in fact Don Quixote.

          1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

            The same thing can be accomplished without screwing up the man of la mancha's panoply.

            1. WTF   12 years ago

              But since Don Quixote was not a real knight and only imagined himself as a fantasy, idealized one as existed only in his mind, it makes sense that his panoply was not historically accurate.

              1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

                I still think the artist screwed up.

                1. WTF   12 years ago

                  Actually, you're probably right.

    2. Almanian!   12 years ago

      cool story, bro

  4. Rich   12 years ago

    The government did not say how it would be determined which fragments must be paid for and how amounts would be calculated.

    A Google search would probably turn up an appropriate proprietary algorithm.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The Gun-Free School Zones Act Is Doubly Dubious

Jacob Sullum | 9.3.2025 12:01 AM

The White House Says Trump's Tariffs Have Raised $8 Trillion in Revenue. That's Not Even Close.

Jack Nicastro | 9.2.2025 5:20 PM

An Alaska Man's $95,000 Plane Was Seized Over a 6-Pack of Beer. Now He's Taking His Case to the Supreme Court.

C.J. Ciaramella | 9.2.2025 4:44 PM

GAO Report Finds 'Shrinkflation' Was Fake News

Eric Boehm | 9.2.2025 3:40 PM

The Rationale for the Federal Circuit's 'Radical Left' Tariff Decision Is Fundamentally Conservative

Jacob Sullum | 9.2.2025 1:55 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300