http://www.buzzmachine.com/2013/03/02/roll-over-gutenberg/
QuoteRoll over, Gutenberg
Germany, I fear, is not the land of innovation. It is a land of institutions.
This week the German Bundestag passed a law created by publishers — primarily Axel Springer and Burda — to force internet companies — read: Google — to pay for quoting — and thus promoting and linking to — their content. The legislation, the Leistungsschutzrecht, was known as the Google tax.
In the end, compromise legislation exempts precisely what the publishers had been going after: snippets of text of the sort that search engines quote. The bill now generously says that single words or very few words — it is not precise in its definition — remain free. But of course that exception only proves the absurdity of the effort: Who could ever own a word or a phrase? Or a thought?
So now, if the bill passes the next house of the legislature, lawyers will make a fortune debating how short is too long. No matter the length, speech suffers. Don't the publishers see that they live by the quote? Their content is made up of what other people say. Their content gains influence when other people quote it.
But that is beside their point. They want to tax Google. They say it is not fair — imagine a kindergartener stomping his little feet — that Google makes money as they lose money. They think they deserve a share, though the truth is that their content makes up very little of what people search for. And, besides, every time Google links to them it is up to the publishers to establish a relationship with that user and find value in it. That publishers have failed to do this almost two decades into the web era is not Google's fault; it is their fault. Rather than innovating and finding the necessary opportunity in their disruption, these publishers — conservatives who otherwise would diminish government — go running to the Chancellor and her party to pass their Leistungsschutzrecht.
To be fair, this is not purely a German disease. It is a European ailment as well. In France publishers hide behind government's skirt to blackmail Google into paying into a fund to support innovation by publishers who've not innovated. The French government is also looking at taxing the gathering of big data — a tax, then, on knowledge. Belgian publishers rejected Google's links and then thought better of it and finally extorted Google into advertising in their publications to avoid that nation's version of a Leistungsschutzrecht. The internet causes a certain insanity the world around. In the U.S., we had SOPA and PIPA, laws like the Leistungsschutzrecht meant to protect ailing industries — though they were defeated. Then there is ACTA, an international attempt to protect the copyright industry.
But there are more issues in Germany. It is leading the privacy technopanic in Europe. Government leaders have urged citizens to have pictures taken from public places of public views of the facades of buildings blurred in Google Street View; they label this their Verpixelungsrecht. A privacy extremist in one state in Germany has tried to outlaw Facebook's "like" button. That same state tried to overrule Facebook's requirement to use real names.
And another: In entrepreneurial circles, Germany is known as the land of internet copycats. Again and again, German entrepreneurs have copied American services and business models, though their real business model is to get bought by the American originals.
Mind you, I love Germany (though to many Americans, that seems like an odd statement). There's nowhere I'd rather visit. I have many friends there. I have met many talented technologists there. I marvel at its book culture and at its lively — if also suffering — market for serious journalism.
But today I worry about Germany. It is an industrial wonder in a postindustrial age. Government and media are embracing each other to defend their old institutions against disruption and the opportunity that can come with it. As I wrote in my book Public Parts, I'm concerned that Germans' will to be private, not to fail, and especially not to fail publicly put them at a disadvantage in an entrepreneurial age when failure is a necessary product of experimentation. I fear that entrepreneurs, investors, and internet companies will shy away from Germany's borders given the hostility that is shown especially to American internet companies.
I am disappointed that the land of Gutenberg, the land that invented the ability to share knowledge and ideas at a mass scale and to empower speech is now haggling over the control and ownership of a few words. As they say in German, schade. What a shame.
In short: German online media complained that Google News/search quotes the first paragraph of news stories. So Google has to pay. Never mind that you can use tags to be exempt from Google searches, if you want to. The media (with a few exceptions) ran a strong campaign in favor (the first legislative drafts would have caught bloggers and news aggregators alike), ignoring all naysayers (of which there were plenty), and - mostly - got their will.
It's not the first time, either. A few years ago they pushed for a law that state TV/radio websites must remove their online media after 7 days, because it was unfair competition for the commercial media.
Are Germans luddites? To some extent, yes. One reason why it took me so long to get onto Facebook was because a lot of the people I know in Germany or Austria (easily more than 50%) refuse to use it, so there was little incentive.
Meh. That's the sort of thing that big companies do if they think they can get away with it, especially when they're feeling pressured by obsolete business models.
I agree, but the problem with the media is: what politician dares go against their combined front?
one more proof that bureaucracy is not only the tool of stagnation and decline, but also of big companies to preserve the status quo and fight against a free market.
How on earth can you place this one at the feet of "bureaucracy"?
It's the work of lobbyists paid by unchecked media corporations.
Yeah, not quite sure how this is specifically bureaucracy related.
Something to add: the fee will benefit the publishing houses only. There's no mechanism for the journalists to get a share.
Maybe bureaucrats will be enforcing the corrupt law? That bureaucracy is a tool that is being misused?
All lawyers must die.
Also, I don't think this is about Germans being luddites - I know that in Poland big "original content" news corporations are pushing for laws like this, as well, so far unsuccessfully. I just think this means that in Germany every politician is scared shitless of Bildt.
Quote from: Syt on March 04, 2013, 11:38:19 PM
Yeah, not quite sure how this is specifically bureaucracy related.
Something to add: the fee will benefit the publishing houses only. There's no mechanism for the journalists to get a share.
Yup. If anything, this law is an example how free market can lead to very un-free outcomes - if you allow some companies to be too big, they can trample over every one else.
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 02:20:35 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 04, 2013, 11:38:19 PM
Yeah, not quite sure how this is specifically bureaucracy related.
Something to add: the fee will benefit the publishing houses only. There's no mechanism for the journalists to get a share.
Yup. If anything, this law is an example how free market can lead to very un-free outcomes - if you allow some companies to be too big, they can trample over every one else.
HELLLOOOO?!!!!!
free market? Where the GOVERNMENT FORCES one company to pay tribute to an other one? give me a break.
The market has led to a small handful of publishers that rule the market and can exert huge pressure on politicians that are, indeed, scared shitless of them. German political debate these days doesn't occur in parliament but in political talk shows and through media campaigns.
Quote from: Syt on March 05, 2013, 02:59:43 AM
The market has led to a small handful of publishers that rule the market and can exert huge pressure on politicians that are, indeed, scared shitless of them. German political debate these days doesn't occur in parliament but in political talk shows and through media campaigns.
In a free market the government would not have the right to interfere in the market. Hence the term "free".
And in a free market, these traditional companies would be in decline and/or hard pressed to adopt to new technologies. They are not (yet) because they have government enforcement and tax money working for them.
Every law a government makes interferes in the market in some way. You're asking for pure anarchy, then?
Also, IMO markets tend towards power agglomeration (competitors tend to try and dominate the market in their geographical and/or business area). If such a situation (or monopoly) is reached the market can become dysfunctional and requires outside regulation.
It's amazing how ignorant Tamas is of economy 101.
A free market's about as realistic as a free lunch.
For the libertarian, the hand of the statist is behind every evil in the world.
Jeebus.
If you think it is okay that laws are being made to protect dinosaurs from competition than you should be happy, as it is exactly what is happening.
Regulating in terms of guarding from illegal activities is one thing. Making stupid laws to interfere in competition is entirely different.
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 03:33:58 AM
It's amazing how ignorant Tamas is of economy 101.
dude your livelihood is based on navigating the byzantine regulations in europe. Your opinion is: not unbiased.
I'm in M&A - it's as free market as you can get. And I have seen enough to be sufficiently sceptical of how it works.
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2013, 03:53:25 AMIf you think it is okay that laws are being made to protect dinosaurs from competition than you should be happy, as it is exactly what is happening.
Where did I say that? IMO this is the kind of situation where the government should sit put or work to increase competition. Yes, I'm for government interventions - when there's a situation where there's too little competition and one side of the market has enough (perceived) power to bully the rest of the market and politicians. Or for example when the good in question is not one where the consumer can simply choose not to buy (medicial sector).
Similar with infrastructure - are most of the public infrastructure projects deficitary (roads, rail, etc.)? Yes. But are their net effects on society greater than their cost (by enabling businesses to use them and function)? Definitely yes.
Quote from: Syt on March 05, 2013, 04:09:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2013, 03:53:25 AMIf you think it is okay that laws are being made to protect dinosaurs from competition than you should be happy, as it is exactly what is happening.
Where did I say that? IMO this is the kind of situation where the government should sit put or work to increase competition. Yes, I'm for government interventions - when there's a situation where there's too little competition and one side of the market has enough (perceived) power to bully the rest of the market and politicians. Or for example when the good in question is not one where the consumer can simply choose not to buy (medicial sector).
Similar with infrastructure - are most of the public infrastructure projects deficitary (roads, rail, etc.)? Yes. But are their net effects on society greater than their cost (by enabling businesses to use them and function)? Definitely yes.
fair enough, except that it is impossible to draw a line, and my original point was that this new tax is a perfect example: you have a group of market actors, who gained a dominating position for a while. They are set up for losing that, due to new inventions and rivals. But due to their size, they are able to mobilize the interventionist mechanisms to their own benefit. This is bound to happen, wether its german media or US banks or whatever.. The very "solution" which is advertised to fight monopoly and overgrown market actors serve to set those in stone, making it much-much harder to weaken or destroy them when their time is up.
I think you are talking to the hand, here, Tamas. The idea that there is a happy medium where government actions to enhance market efficiency are properly seen as good, while government actions to change market outcomes are properly seen as bad, doesn't appear to have much shelf life on languish.
The reason why publishers in, say, Germany have the monopolistic-style power to influence government regulation on their behalf is because of misguided government policies in the past that have allowed these few companies to gain this kind of monopolistic-style power.
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 02:20:35 AM
Yup. If anything, this law is an example how free market can lead to very un-free outcomes - if you allow some companies to be too big, they can trample over every one else.
Well the free market is supposed to keep companies from becoming too big, but of course it doesn't work perfectly for exactly this reason: they start to have political power because of their size and they use that to advance their interests. But I am not sure how an alternative results in less political corruption or leads to less un-free outcomes.
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 03:33:58 AM
It's amazing how ignorant Tamas is of economy 101.
:lol:
The use of the word tax is s poor choice and probably confuses some people.
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 03:33:58 AM
It's amazing how ignorant Tamas is of economy 101.
This coming from the guy who complains that the government passing laws like this is an example of how screwed up things get with a "free market"???
Marty claiming that the government passing laws to aid large, struggling corporations against new technology is an example of the problems associated with the "free market" might be the finest example of pure cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It is not almost Orwellian in its obviously exactly opposite reality - it IS Orwellian.
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2013, 09:26:22 AM
Marty claiming that the government passing laws to aid large, struggling corporations against new technology is an example of the problems associated with the "free market" might be the finest example of pure cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It is not almost Orwellian in its obviously exactly opposite reality - it IS Orwellian.
There is nothing "Orwellian" in claiming that unchecked free market leads to monopoly which leads to the death of free market - just as unchecked democracy leads to tyranny which is the death of democracy.
In any case, this started with Tamas placing the blame for this at the feet of some "bureaucracy" - which is idiotic.
Lol, you're always thinking about feet.
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 09:34:51 AM
There is nothing "Orwellian" in claiming that unchecked free market leads to monopoly which leads to the death of free market - just as unchecked democracy leads to tyranny which is the death of democracy.
The problem is the levers that can check the free market are susceptible to corruption from the power and money of the big Corps, which also leads to Monopolies. There is nothing new about this, the Jacksonian Democrats were complaining about it in this country in 1830s.
There's a similar law here in the UK whereby legislation passed or the courts rules, can't remember which, that newspaper headlines could only be quoted or linked to by aggregators if a licence fee was paid.
It didn't matter if you were just linking (and therefore driving users) to paid content: you have to have a licence. This leads to the strange situation where my organisation has to pay £1000s a year for the privilege of linking to, in our members' newsletter and website, news media articles based on our research and press releases.
I think there will be a lot of frustration with these sorts of matters over the coming years, but in the end the old-style publishers are going to start to lose out once the opposition to them starts organising a better counter-lobbying movement that goes beyond a defence of piracy and the canard that "information wants to be free".
Skipping over the matter of educating Martinus in the existence of other economical theories than the ones in use in 80s Poland, what if Google just says "fuck you all" and refuses to show hits going to the online articles of these great german companies? Who will lose out on that?!
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 09:34:51 AM
There is nothing "Orwellian" in claiming that unchecked free market leads to monopoly which leads to the death of free market -
This is certainly a debatable proposition.
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 09:34:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2013, 09:26:22 AM
Marty claiming that the government passing laws to aid large, struggling corporations against new technology is an example of the problems associated with the "free market" might be the finest example of pure cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It is not almost Orwellian in its obviously exactly opposite reality - it IS Orwellian.
There is nothing "Orwellian" in claiming that unchecked free market leads to monopoly which leads to the death of free market - just as unchecked democracy leads to tyranny which is the death of democracy.
There is definitely something Orwellian about claiming that this example, of the Germany state passing laws to protect a large, powerful corporation against the rise of new technology is somehow an example of the dangers of the "free market".
Since
1) Germany doesn't have a particularly "free market" compared to other western states to begin with, and
2) This is actually a perfect example for anyone pro-free market to use to illustrate why markets should be more free, not less, since this is an example of the state RESTRICTING the free market!
Now, you can make reasonable arguments about the interplay of state control and market forces - but the idea that the state bluntly coming along and protecting some dinosaur of a company against new technology is a an example of the dangers of the unfettered free market....that is fucking stupid with an extra side of willful ignorance.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 10:08:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 09:34:51 AM
There is nothing "Orwellian" in claiming that unchecked free market leads to monopoly which leads to the death of free market - just as unchecked democracy leads to tyranny which is the death of democracy.
The problem is the levers that can check the free market are susceptible to corruption from the power and money of the big Corps, which also leads to Monopolies. There is nothing new about this, the Jacksonian Democrats were complaining about it in this country in 1830s.
That is why you have law enforcement to fight corruption - but the conclusion should not be that since regulators can be corrupted, it's better not to have any regulations at all.
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2013, 10:47:56 AM
1) Germany doesn't have a particularly "free market" compared to other western states to begin with, and
Is it really the case? Do you have any hard evidence backing this claim? Or are you just relying on the false stereotype that seems to claim that (whereas in practice Germany has one of the most robust economies in the world)?
I am not saying you are wrong, by the way, just asking if this is based on anything more than just your perception.
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2013, 10:47:56 AM
1) Germany doesn't have a particularly "free market" compared to other western states to begin with, and
Is it really the case? Do you have any hard evidence backing this claim? Or are you just relying on the false stereotype that seems to claim that (whereas in practice Germany has one of the most robust economies in the world)?
I am not saying you are wrong, by the way, just asking if this is based on anything more than just your perception.
Just perception - but that perception is not that Germany does not have robust economy, but that it isn't not an example of a economy that is more free than others.
INdeed, I would not claim that them NOT having a more free market than other European/American economies would have any bearing on the robustness of their economy anyway. They can be pretty average in "free marketness" while still have an above average robustness, for example.
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2013, 11:27:36 AM
That is why you have law enforcement to fight corruption - but the conclusion should not be that since regulators can be corrupted, it's better not to have any regulations at all.
Um what laws were broken here? No laws exist against big companies getting political influence and lobbying. How exactly is law enforcement supposed to fight this sort of corruption? And usually if there are laws passed to prevent this sort of thing, which is hard to do since the people who benefit are the people who would have to pass it, the treatments typically do not work or are worse than the disease.
But right and it is just as silly to say that since corporations and big business are possibly a corrupting influence it is the natural tendency of the free market to be unfree. This problem, the corrupting partnership of big business with government, is not one we have ever been able to solve despite having been aware of it for almost 200 years.
Well, this turned out as could be expected.
Some news sites gave Google a free pass. The ones that wanted money would only have their headlines linked in searches starting this month (it was already delayed by request of the news publishers), but not any text from the article.
A few weeks ago I read that the affected sites have since complained that due to Google's dominating position in the market this puts them at an unfair disadvantage and that they were looking into suing Google in order to force them to show part of their news articles (and obviously have Google pay for those quotes at the same time). However, pretty much any sane person rejected such a notion.
Today I read on Austrian news that the resisting German newspaper sites will buckle and let Google quote parts of their articles in online searches again. :cool:
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.
Quote from: Warspite on October 23, 2014, 03:25:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on March 04, 2013, 02:48:04 PM
Meh. That's the sort of thing that big companies do if they think they can get away with it, especially when they're feeling pressured by obsolete business models.
I was about to post the same thing.
It has nothing to do with German "nature" and everything to do with the German government's keen understanding that it cannot be toppled by Google but it can be toppled by Bild.
For fucks sake, stop with the thread resurrection.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2014, 03:48:43 AM
For fucks sake, stop with the thread resurrection.
There was an update today that warranted resurrection over starting a new thread.
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 03:37:50 AMNow, 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.
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 03:37:50 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 23, 2014, 03:25:18 AM
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).
Quote from: Syt on October 23, 2014, 04:01:19 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 03:37:50 AMNow, 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.
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 03:37:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 04:27:11 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 03:37:50 AM
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.
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 04:43:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 04:27:11 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 03:37:50 AM
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.
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.
I've never really use google news. Looks like a random mish-mosh of sources.
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 04:26:21 AM
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.
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 05:41:02 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 04:26:21 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 23, 2014, 04:01:19 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 23, 2014, 03:37:50 AMNow, 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. :P
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).
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!"
I agree. I think only one major German publisher has pay gates for their articles.
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2015, 12:24:48 AM
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.