
The HN tax?  FTC mulls taxing online news aggregators - joe_bleau
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/ftc-floats-drudge-tax/
======
aaronsw
If you read the actual report they're quoting
([http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-
staff-d...](http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-
discussion.pdf)) you'll see, as usual, that the _Washington Times_ is being
totally dishonest.

First, the report is simply a list of proposals news industry people have made
about how to save their businesses, not new FTC proposals.

Second, it isn't a tax -- it's simply talking about news providers providing
licenses for their content to news aggregators.

Third, the FTC isn't even talking about changing the law to create new legal
rights against news aggregators. What they're actually talking about is
removing antitrust barriers to news providers getting together and starting a
joint licensing scheme.

In short, this is less than nothing.

~~~
roboneal
Straight out of the source document -- "Nonetheless, a compulsory license
places an effective tax on certain conduct."

A tax by any other name is still a tax -- and if these ideas are enacted there
would be an effective "news aggregrator" tax.

~~~
px
Regardless, the opening paragraphs of the source document make it clear that
these are NOT formal policy recommendations.

~~~
roboneal
Agreed the source document labels itself as "POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM".

So I don't see why the bashing of the Washington Times Editorial as "TOTALLY
DISHONEST" -- which CLEARLY makes reference to the "May 28 Draft proposal" in
the first paragraph.

It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's
existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized.

~~~
hristov
The Washington Times are being totally dishonest because this not a FTC
proposal, it is not a draft proposal either, it is just a summary of issues
that are to be discussed in future meetings with the press and various
roundtable discussions etc.

"It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's
existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized."

No that is not obvious. Try reading the document. On the contrary, it is
obvious that at this stage they are just throwing ideas at the wall. There is
absolutely no indication that the FTC has endorsed any of these ideas or that
they even came from FTC personnell (the document actually suggests that many
of the ideas came from external sources).

If you do not like any of those ideas please comment on them (the document
provides a link for that).

But if you are going to hold the FTC responsible for everything that gets
mentioned in one of their discussions with the public as if it is their plan
and idea, the FTC and the government will just stop having discussions with
the public.

------
px
I wonder if the Washington Times editorial board even bothered reading the FTC
document:

[http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-
staff-d...](http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-
discussion.pdf)

There is no question that this is a newsworthy topic. But it is ironic that
journalism of such poor quality is being used to defend the current
journalistic system.

I think the editorial is a bit of an over-reaction. Consider the following
statements from the FTC document-

We note that this draft does not represent final conclusions or
recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of
discussion, in particular at FTC roundtable discussions to be held on June 15,
2010, at the National Press Club.

-and-

We anticipate that different participants in the roundtables at which this
document will be discussed will criticize some or all proposals, improve
others, and add ideas of their own. The purpose of this document is precisely
to encourage such additional analyses and brainstorming.

------
roboneal
The fact that the FTC feels that journalism NEEDS "reinventing" indicates a
bias.

Journalism is reinventing itself with market forces alone and doesn't NEED the
Federal government to "fix" it.

~~~
hristov
The problem is that all media, including some of the biggest proponents of the
free market (News Corp) are clamoring for the FTC to somehow save their asses.
So the FTC figures they have to do something.

It may be a good idea for some people like you to send in comments to the
effect that the FTC does not need to do anything. The problem with roundtables
and public comments often is that people that need to scratch an itch are more
likely to go to them, which means that they may result in skewed conclusions.

------
anamax
As the discussion at [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/29/ftc-protects-
journalis...](http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/29/ftc-protects-journalisms-
past/) points out, the FTC folks didn't listen to the folks who they asked to
comment. In particular, that document contains a number of false statements
about what various news biz.

"Yes, the omission of reporting and facts from the FTC is downright shocking.
I sat in their hearing room and told them we found news sites making a
sustainable living. Others who were doing it were there."

"There was no doubt about what I said: The Batavian is advertiser supported
and its profitable and growing (heck, we’ve doubled revenue since I was in DC
with the FTC)."

------
brolewis
As a listener to NPR, I don't agree that there is a bias toward government
spending programs. This, to me, gives more credance to the poor writing in the
article. If the writer believes there is a bias, then provide reference to
some articles that support their statement.

------
peteforde
The Washington Times... not to be confused with The Washington Post, folks.

~~~
hristov
It should not be confused with a newspaper in general.

------
kiba
Look like not every news agencies is involved in some sort of conspiracy to
create a news cartel supported by government tax dollars.

