> well google in the end can just shutdown google news.
That's the expected (and fair) outcome. To be fair, why should a multinational be entitled to profit from unauthirized access and distribution of third-party content while the content creators are left with the bill of creating it?
News organizations provide a service (news reporting). News aggregators provide a service (news aggregation). Why shouldn't they both get paid?
Why should news organizations be entitled to profit from unauthorized access and distribution of third-party content while the creators are left with the bill of creating it? Shouldn't they be paying the celebrities they gossip about for doing all the "noteworthy" things they do and giving them something to drive readership with?
The obvious flaw is that it's a symbiotic relationship. News organizations want traffic from Google in the way that celebrities and companies and politicians want news coverage (in the "no such thing as bad press" sense). They see Google's market cap and think they're making all this money, but the money isn't from news aggregation. That's peanuts. And if you're making a dime and they're making a nickel and you demand a dollar more, you don't get a dollar more, you get a dime less.
> News organizations provide a service (news reporting). News aggregators provide a service (news aggregation). Why shouldn't they both get paid?
That's a good question, and it seems to me that's the whole point of this legislation.
Currently there is a mega-multinational company which posts record profits for services that consist of scraping and unauthorized distribution of third-party content, and in a manner that even eliminates any traffic from the content creator's site.
So in the current state of affairs only the scraper gets paid, and the content creators are left with the bill.
How is that fair?
> Why should news organizations be entitled to profit from unauthorized access and distribution of third-party content while the creators are left with the bill of creating it?
For some reason you've invented this silly idea that researching and developing a newspiece is, somehow, the same as scraping websites.
I'm sure that we can agree that journalism and web scraping have nothing in common, just like xeroxing a book is not the same thing as writing a novel.
> So in the current state of affairs only the scraper gets paid, and the content creators are left with the bill.
Googlebot respects robots.txt. Anyone who doesn't want to be indexed, isn't. For some reason they still seem to want to be.
> I'm sure that we can agree that journalism and web scraping have nothing in common, just like xeroxing a book is not the same thing as writing a novel.
What do you mean? It's basically the same thing. When a reporter interviews some guy, they put his words in their story -- without compensation. How is that fair?
Last time I checked the news companies put their articles online for anyone to read. I don't see how Google isn't authorized to access the content. I'm pretty sure they follow robots.txt. If the news companies can't make money from people reading their articles, maybe they should just stop putting them online.
How? Without thinking too deep about it (so curious) wouldn’t a micropayment economy look exactly like the likes/views/engagement economy, only, perhaps distributed?
What I mean, the change of currency doesn magically solve the problem on how to detect and promote actual value and then organize people into funding that instead of the next shit determined by an algorithm to catch your attention
You can make pennies per article with adsense ads at no direct cost to your audience and people use ad blocker rampantly. You can also use PayPal to give as little as a dollar. I have sites with PayPal tip jars. When people tip, they rarely leave only one dollar. Those that tip usually are more generous than that.
I'm quite convinced that people wanting micropayments to be solved are pretty much like friends who say they would give you money if they won the lottery. In other words, these are people who just don't want to do anything for you, but don't want to admit to that. So they latch onto some implausible scenario and enthusiastically swear up and down that should lightening strike, they will absolutely do X, knowing the odds are very long against that happening.
But why would you spend effort on quality content, the same public getting manipulated into consuming crap in exchange for their time would just as happily waste their “micro money” on the same crap
That's the expected (and fair) outcome. To be fair, why should a multinational be entitled to profit from unauthirized access and distribution of third-party content while the content creators are left with the bill of creating it?