Germany's "Google tax"

[Warspite]

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".

[Tamas]

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?!

[Admiral Yi]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Syt]

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.

[Warspite]

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.

[celedhring]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Martinus]

For fucks sake, stop with the thread resurrection.

[Syt]

For fucks sake, stop with the thread resurrection.

There was an update today that warranted resurrection over starting a new thread.

[Syt]

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.