Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't understand.

If they already have the ability and protection for all of this, what difference does the legislation make? If not, how do they already have this freedom?




They have the freedom to tell Google to go away, but they don’t have the freedom to extract money from Google. They needed the legislature for that.


What do you mean by "freedom to extract money"? Charge and negotiate? If they don't have the right to negotiate fees for commercial use of their content, that sounds like quite a large missing part that needed adding.

Can you explicitly put down a case of something they couldn't do, but now can, and why you think that's a concern? Because I honestly just don't understand the point that people are trying to make with this.


They’re making google to pay them by force of law. It’s really that simple.


Then they cannot currently be able to stop Google taking their content for commercial use, right?


They sure can, that’s what robots.txt is for.

They want google to continue to index them, and to be paid for that. They have 0 leverage to pull that off, so they’re using the legislature to accomplish it.


I think this is going a bit in circles so I assume I'm not being clear, I'll try and be more precise.

There's nothing in the legislation that forces google to index them.

You are saying that companies can:

1. Already stop google indexing the content for commercial use

2. Already negotiate with google for payment for commercial use of the content

What is the additional thing that this is forcing, in your view?


Oh, right. Now I understand.

The law circumvented the negotiation in 2 and said that google must pay for the content by law.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: