Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

noorbeast t1_j9x9e5t wrote

Reply to comment by LiberalFartsMajor in The Bill C-18 Reality: Everyone Loses When the Government Mandates Payments for Links by The1stCitizenOfTheIn

Indexing, and associated ad model revenue, are directly linked, Google search and associated ad revenue would be nothing without the content of others.

I do agree media companies want to have their cake and eat it too, but that is a separate matter from the need to regulate big tech, particularly the profit from harm business model, and the efforts by big tech to manipulate and threaten when it comes to the right of nation states to set whatever laws they deem appropriate for their citizens.

−7

KSRandom195 t1_j9y6c6e wrote

The problem is this is a law that dictates the formation of a civil contract between private entities.

If news companies want to negotiate a contract with Google and co that has Google pay them to link to their content, let them do that. However, they’ve been unsuccessful at that because they have no leverage. If they delink from Google they stop getting traffic from Google, so they actually lose revenue.

I’d agree that if Google were causing harm regulation would be appropriate. But if the website tells Google to not index them they start losing revenue strongly suggests Google is not doing harm to the website being linked, but is instead providing a mechanism for revenue.

And even if regulation were appropriate, it should not be regulation that mandates a civil contract between two private entities. It should be, “Google cannot link to news sites.” By mandating a civil contract between two private entities it gives artificial leverage to the news companies, which can give unreasonable demands and Google is forced to accept.

Again, the news companies don’t want that outcome because it causes them to lose revenue. So this is only about the news companies having their cake and eating it too.

11

maracle6 t1_j9xdgm9 wrote

Google’s currently complying with the law so I guess all is well. If they must pay to link content then they can also not pay to not link the content.

4

KSRandom195 t1_j9y6i1k wrote

IIRC the law in Australia made it illegal to not link the content. You legally are required to link to it, and pay for the privilege.

8

mf864 t1_ja0u9fe wrote

Which is crazy. That is lke having a law that mandates YouTube reviewers use copyrighted content from the media they are reviewing and pay for it because those reviewers are making money on the content they are reviewing.

Or even more accurate, not reviewing media you don't have permission to use copyrighted content is not allowed and you are forced to pay to review media you don't even want to review.

5

mf864 t1_j9z1nuq wrote

Ok. Then why is Canada mad google isn't linking to Canadian need sites anymore?

This is like complaining that someone decides not to use copyrighted material instead of paying for it. You don't have a right to someone's content and they don't have a right to force you to use and pay for their content either.

3