You have this entirely backwards. Google hoovering up everyone's content to sell ads on it with NO payment to content creators was the original sin. This is a step towards correcting that. They should only pay when the content is returned from their engine and ads sold that go with it. So I don't know the exact wording of the legislation so I can't comment on that.
It shouldn't be limited to companies where people already make money. It should be a new global standard that if you include other's content and then monetize it via advertising, you don't only site them, you pay them.
The facebook argument that they are providing eyeballs is disingenuous. There are people that find content with an index and sharing and other content that is buried because of it. The fact is they took the power from the creators that used to be theirs. Recommendation and discovery. A power which creators could provide still with new tech. Google and facebook just got out in front of them and stole thier content to aggregate it and win.
You are welcome to share a link to marketing BS without paying me a cent. It turns out linking to me is GOOD not bad. It’s not stealing. I encourage it (as does every media outlet. They are free to block google and Facebook from sharing but they choose not to. And they optimize to maximize exposure)
In Australia’s case the law (which is linked to in the piece) requires a payment per link - even if there if there is no other content involved.
As far as I know NO ONE pays to link. And many people pay to have people link to them.
Meanwhile Google makes almost nothing from news (I will share more details in followup tomorrow) and less than 4% of Facebook content is from news sites.
That is true, and there may be room for refinement in the law. The problem is not the linking, it is building a broad index of other peoples content and then monetizing that. Without looking at the full scope of the actions taken to create an environment where google and facebook can take the majority of advertising dollars out of the market, you cannot get the full picture. Just saying, traffic is good, and I get traffic from here. That doesn't speak to the whole ecosystem.
Also, to say that google doesn't make money from news is to completely misunderstand what google does to create the value of their index. The value is only the content that they have in the index. It may also be in the algorithm that sorts it but without the content the algorithm has nothing to do. People pay to create the content that google then builds its index with for free. Then people who are getting good traffic from them say they are great. But that doesn't mean they are. Their algorithm strips the advertising dollar and decides the fates of millions of businesses. This is an outsized power and one they derive from taking content without paying for it.
To say that only 4% of facebook or whatever percent from google is news is also disingenuous. If the news wasn't in the index and people knew that they likely would search their far less than a source that had a more complete index. So attempting to limit the attribution to some hard percent of what is in the index is not the true value of that segment. The value that google is taking is the value of the expectation of the user that they are going to a source with a certain scope of information.
Australia may have it wrong, but that doesn't mean it was right before. The right way to do this is to have any aggregator that wants to sell ads have to pay anyone who is in that aggregation a portion of the ad revenue, by default. Especially in America where we have an acknowledge 1% with massive wealth based upon things like google that strip massive value into these peoples pockets. We need to stop giving them the power for free.
You have this entirely backwards. Google hoovering up everyone's content to sell ads on it with NO payment to content creators was the original sin. This is a step towards correcting that. They should only pay when the content is returned from their engine and ads sold that go with it. So I don't know the exact wording of the legislation so I can't comment on that.
It shouldn't be limited to companies where people already make money. It should be a new global standard that if you include other's content and then monetize it via advertising, you don't only site them, you pay them.
The facebook argument that they are providing eyeballs is disingenuous. There are people that find content with an index and sharing and other content that is buried because of it. The fact is they took the power from the creators that used to be theirs. Recommendation and discovery. A power which creators could provide still with new tech. Google and facebook just got out in front of them and stole thier content to aggregate it and win.
You are welcome to share a link to marketing BS without paying me a cent. It turns out linking to me is GOOD not bad. It’s not stealing. I encourage it (as does every media outlet. They are free to block google and Facebook from sharing but they choose not to. And they optimize to maximize exposure)
In Australia’s case the law (which is linked to in the piece) requires a payment per link - even if there if there is no other content involved.
As far as I know NO ONE pays to link. And many people pay to have people link to them.
Meanwhile Google makes almost nothing from news (I will share more details in followup tomorrow) and less than 4% of Facebook content is from news sites.
That is true, and there may be room for refinement in the law. The problem is not the linking, it is building a broad index of other peoples content and then monetizing that. Without looking at the full scope of the actions taken to create an environment where google and facebook can take the majority of advertising dollars out of the market, you cannot get the full picture. Just saying, traffic is good, and I get traffic from here. That doesn't speak to the whole ecosystem.
Also, to say that google doesn't make money from news is to completely misunderstand what google does to create the value of their index. The value is only the content that they have in the index. It may also be in the algorithm that sorts it but without the content the algorithm has nothing to do. People pay to create the content that google then builds its index with for free. Then people who are getting good traffic from them say they are great. But that doesn't mean they are. Their algorithm strips the advertising dollar and decides the fates of millions of businesses. This is an outsized power and one they derive from taking content without paying for it.
To say that only 4% of facebook or whatever percent from google is news is also disingenuous. If the news wasn't in the index and people knew that they likely would search their far less than a source that had a more complete index. So attempting to limit the attribution to some hard percent of what is in the index is not the true value of that segment. The value that google is taking is the value of the expectation of the user that they are going to a source with a certain scope of information.
Australia may have it wrong, but that doesn't mean it was right before. The right way to do this is to have any aggregator that wants to sell ads have to pay anyone who is in that aggregation a portion of the ad revenue, by default. Especially in America where we have an acknowledge 1% with massive wealth based upon things like google that strip massive value into these peoples pockets. We need to stop giving them the power for free.