Germany's "Google tax"

[Martinus]

On more reflection, I wonder if the big old publishing and news firms have a point. I think innovation is good, but a lot (most?) of what Google does is just scoop up content that other people have created - and taken the risk on - and then use it to make money for themselves through data collection and advertising.

I've come to believe that in publishing, it may very much be a case of meet the new boss; he's just as bad as the old boss.

Indeed, I don't see how one can consider this being "Free market is being repressed!" when Google here is taking content produced by others, and monetizing it for themselves without paying the producer, or at least getting authorization from them. Stealing ain't free market.

Now, it can be smart for content producers to allow Google to reproduce part of their content, since it will drive traffic towards them; but shouldn't they be enabled to have a say on how their content is used by others? Ultimately, if Google is right, producers that are too restrictive will see less traffic and die out naturally. Now, that *is* free market.

The thing is, Google is just posting links to external content, with short quotes. What Google is monetizing/"stealing" is therefore not individual content but the fact that it provides aggregation of content from several other websites in one place and generates traffic on its website this way (but if someone wants to read a specific article, he has to go to the website of the original content provider).

This effectively does reduce the traffic on the original content providers' website, but mainly on portal entrances, not individual article websites (but this is only because google provides a better service as it is more diverse).

Incidentally, I think the entire click traffic business model is dysfunctional and should go the way of the dodo. The problem is content providers have not come up with anything better so far (and pay for view model is not yet wide spread enough).

[celedhring]

Now, it can be smart for content producers to allow Google to reproduce part of their content, since it will drive traffic towards them; but shouldn't they be enabled to have a say on how their content is used by others? Ultimately, if Google is right, producers that are too restrictive will see less traffic and die out naturally. Now, that *is* free market.

I guess the question to be determined is how far fair use and quotation rights go in this newfangled interwebs era.

One of the cornerstones of quotation rights in Europe (I'm not familiar enough with the US) is that you can't just list quotes, there has to be a commentary or elaboration on them, so these quotations are used to create new content. I can't see how search results pass muster regarding that.

[Admiral Yi]

Now, it can be smart for content producers to allow Google to reproduce part of their content, since it will drive traffic towards them; but shouldn't they be enabled to have a say on how their content is used by others?

As Syt already pointed out, sites can always opt out of Google searches.

[celedhring]

Now, it can be smart for content producers to allow Google to reproduce part of their content, since it will drive traffic towards them; but shouldn't they be enabled to have a say on how their content is used by others?

As Syt already pointed out, sites can always opt out of Google searches.

If they don't give access to google they die, it's simple. "Well, it's their decision", you may say. Even disregarding Google's market position (they could always prop up a competitor with friendlier business practices), the problem is that there's no alternative, no choice in the market; all search engines have the same business model regarding the content they list, because they have no reason to do otherwise.

[Martinus]

Now, it can be smart for content producers to allow Google to reproduce part of their content, since it will drive traffic towards them; but shouldn't they be enabled to have a say on how their content is used by others?

As Syt already pointed out, sites can always opt out of Google searches.

If they don't give access to google they die, it's simple. "Well, it's their decision", you may say. Even disregarding Google's market position (they could always prop up a competitor with friendlier business practices), the problem is that there's no alternative, no choice in the market; all search engines have the same business model regarding the content they list, because they have no reason to do otherwise.

That's just not true. Most people do not read articles by using search engines anyway - they either go to the website of their favourite news provider or to the website of a news aggregator (such as Google) and browse.

Besides, while I am normally a proponent of antitrust law, I don't think it should go so far as to force someone to buy service one has to pay for (especially when the "service" is as flimsy as a "quotation right"). Not to mention, there are serious concerns about freedom of information in such a model.

And finally, the main concern content providers have in this model is not that someone will just read a quote/blurb on the Google website and get the desired content without having to go to the original content provider website - but that this limits their ability to manipulate consumers into following a link simply on the basis of a catchy headline that often has little to do with the actual content (and the ability to do this is limited when there is a further quote included under the link). Frankly, I can't see how it is in the public interest to protect that ability.

[celedhring]

Google would not be "forced" to buy anything. If the producers try to be abusive themselves, they don't get listed. And they die. Again I'm not in favor of the state setting the rates themselves, only that they provide the framework where fair negotiations between the several agents can take place. In an ideal outcome nothing gets changed from the end user perspective, and google and content providers just work out a deal that works for both.

And search results are how new people discover these media, it's massive to get a good window there. Again, if media try to be smartarses with sensationalist headlines to trick consumers, then one has to expect (or at least hope) that these consumers will wisen up and not read stuff from that site.

[garbon]

I've never really use google news. Looks like a random mish-mosh of sources.

[grumbler]

One of the cornerstones of quotation rights in Europe (I'm not familiar enough with the US) is that you can't just list quotes, there has to be a commentary or elaboration on them, so these quotations are used to create new content. I can't see how search results pass muster regarding that.

That refers to quotations of copyrighted material in other copyrighted material.  Search results are not copyrighted.

[grumbler]

Google would not be "forced" to buy anything. If the producers try to be abusive themselves, they don't get listed. And they die. Again I'm not in favor of the state setting the rates themselves, only that they provide the framework where fair negotiations between the several agents can take place. In an ideal outcome nothing gets changed from the end user perspective, and google and content providers just work out a deal that works for both.

And search results are how new people discover these media, it's massive to get a good window there. Again, if media try to be smartarses with sensationalist headlines to trick consumers, then one has to expect (or at least hope) that these consumers will wisen up and not read stuff from that site.

How many content providers are there, and how does each company running a search engine negotiate with each content provider?  I'm thinking that the search engine companies would just say, as they say now, "let us list your content for free, or we just won't list it."  Then, you end up with the exact situation we have today (since, as you note, the content originators have to get on the search engines or die) except you have a bunch of additional laws and many lawsuits.

Google makes money because of its service, not its content.  If the NYT was not listed in Google searches tomorrow, the users would barely notice, but the NYT would certainly notice.

[Martinus]

The problem is what news content providers do not expressly say but what they want - i.e. create a type of quasi proprietary right to information that they publish. That is why they want to limit the right to quotations - not because the text itself is original but because it includes information the disclosure of which they want to restrict until the user visits their website.

To some extent, I feel for them - in the era of printed daily media, if you had exclusive information and only you printed it in your newspaper, then you were secure in knowledge that at least on that day your medium had this information exclusively and, consequently, it was able to monetize that. Now, the information once released is immediately available on all the other news sources so this advantage (and, to some extent, the incentive to conduct investigative journalism) is much more limited.

The problem with creating such proprietary (or "first publisher") right to information is that, if the information is relevant to the public interest ("President X took a bribe") then restricting access to it is not in the public interest; conversely, if the information is not relevant to the public interest ("Startlet X had a boob slip"), then creating special protections for someone publishing such information is also not in the public interest.

That being said, for me these days the benefit of classic media is not access to information, but an access to deeper analysis - and here, the fact that someone quotes, say, the first paragraph of an extended article analysing some issue is not in any way harmful to the owner of the original article.

[mongers]

Now, it can be smart for content producers to allow Google to reproduce part of their content, since it will drive traffic towards them; but shouldn't they be enabled to have a say on how their content is used by others? Ultimately, if Google is right, producers that are too restrictive will see less traffic and die out naturally. Now, that *is* free market.

I guess the question to be determined is how far fair use and quotation rights go in this newfangled interwebs era.

One of the cornerstones of quotation rights in Europe (I'm not familiar enough with the US) is that you can't just list quotes, there has to be a commentary or elaboration on them, so these quotations are used to create new content. I can't see how search results pass muster regarding that.

They'd publicly hang Timmay if he ever visits Europe. 

[Syt]

In Germany, the law has oddly strengthened Google's market position. VG Media represents a number of large news publishers, and they handle the licensing. While they require payments from the smaller news aggregators (which has forced medium providers to cut their news linkage, and pushed small niche providers out of the market), they gave a free license to Google. Yahoo is taking this to the constitutional court for a number of reasons (law is written too broad and undefined, attack on freedom of information/opinion etc.).



Austria now wants to introduce a similar law, but the way it's worded it would only affect Google. Actually, the law is even stricter than in Germany as it wouldn't even allow quoting headlines or short snippets without paying a license fee. Google has replied with a letter basically saying that this is bizarre, considering the results in Germany, and pointed out that if push comes to shove they'll just switch their service off, like they did in Spain, and filter out stories from Austrian news sites from their search results (I'm sure Google can stomach this).

[Berkut]

I suspect this is really more of the content providers not really having a good idea on how to monetize the internet, noticing the google makes lots of money,and thinking "Hey, we should get some of that!"

[Syt]

I agree. I think only one major German publisher has pay gates for their articles.

[Martinus]

I suspect this is really more of the content providers not really having a good idea on how to monetize the internet, noticing the google makes lots of money,and thinking "Hey, we should get some of that!"

Yup, pretty much. In any case, online advertising is a completely fake business to me. It's like an elaborate rouse played by everyone on everyone.