I'm not playing this game. I'm not claiming that the law was or wasn't repealed; I don't know. You're the one making the claim that it was repealed. Cite a source or you're just making things up.
You saying "I'm not seeing that anywhere" assumes you made the effort to look. People aren't going to do the homework for you. I don't have anything to prove. Google it and click the first result.
> You saying "I'm not seeing that anywhere" assumes you made the effort to look.
I did, and it's not a good faith argument to claim otherwise.
> People aren't going to do the homework for you.
You're the one making the claim. It's your homework, not mine.
> I don't have anything to prove.
You made a claim, so it is in fact yours to prove.
Given your refusal to back up your claim, it's beginning to look like you are just lying.
EDIT: I am seeing that there was an adoption of an EU regulation which modified the law, not repealed it, which is pretty different from the claim you're making[1]:
> BRUSSELS, June 22 (Reuters) - Alphabet (GOOGL.O)
, opens new tab reopened Google News in Spain on Wednesday, eight years after it shut down the service because of a Spanish rule forcing the company and other news aggregators to pay publishers for using snippets of their news.
> Madrid last year transposed European Union copyright rules, revamped in 2020, into legislation, allowing media outlets to negotiate directly with the tech giant.
To be clear: Google is still required to pay publishers in Spain: the change is that the price is negotiable.
So, it's becoming clear now why you refused to link a source: because you are wrong. And since now I am making a claim, I'm linking it:
