Google sees signs of success in its campaign to water down Australian pay-for-news plan
- Reference: 1601447528
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/09/30/google_sees_signs_of_success/
- Source link:
The search ‘n’ ad giant confirmed on Wednesday that it had met with Australian policy-makers to discuss the draft code. The Register understands that Google considers the tone and substance of the meetings suggest its opposition to the plan has not fallen on deaf ears and may even have begun to sway opinion among those who will review feedback on the code and then refine Australian policy.
The draft code, [1]put forward by the ACCC in July , would allow Australian news publishers to seek compensation for stories that are linked to on Google and Facebook, either on services such as Google Search and News, or when posted by users.
The draft code proposes that local news outlets would be able to seek a payment from the two Web Giants, who would be compelled to negotiate. Should the negotiations fail, the ACCC will appoint an arbitrator to strike a binding deal based on offers from each of the negotiating parties. The arbitrator's decision will be final.
In response to the draft code, Google has run an [2]impossible-to-miss campaign across its Australian sites warning that its search Search and YouTube services would be in peril if the plan goes ahead. Facebook has threatened to pull news articles from its newsfeeds in Australia entirely if the code is implemented.
Facebook rejects Australia's pay-for-news plan, proposes its own idea: How about no more articles at all, sunshine? [3]READ MORE
In recent weeks Google has focused its campaign on the arbitration model, with ANZ managing director Mel Silva saying that the company is not entirely opposed to paying publishers but opposes the arbitration model. Google is now saying it wants "a fair code". Silva has also said the draft code is unworkable "... because it’s normally used in vastly different circumstances and is one-sided as the arbitrator is not required to consider the value that Google provides to news media businesses, which in 2018 was estimated at more than $200m per year.”
Silva reiterated that the company is also concerned about a requirement that would force Google to notify news outlets if it makes changes to its algorithm and the lack of safeguards around data sharing provisions. “These issues are serious,” she summed up. “but with the right changes, we believe the law’s proposal could be made fair and workable.”
The ACCC has been somewhat responsive to Google’s arguments. Earlier this month, chairman Rod Sims flagged that aspects of the draft code would be changed. But he refused to budge on the use of arbitrators. “The core of the code can’t change. You need an arbitration mechanism. You need a non-discrimination clause. They are the bits of glue that hold the code together and make it workable,” he said. ®
Get our [4]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/31/australian_draft_media_bargaining_code/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/24/google_australian_campaign/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/01/facebook_australian_news/
[4] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Wishful thinking
If Google and FB were to pull out or reduce their services, perhaps the Oz action could be considered to be a way of breaking their monopolies.
Thereby leaving room for smaller companies to move i and offer services. As things are the two have far too much power and do more or less what they like.
Re: Wishful thinking
I'm all for increasing competition, but if this is passed, it would have the opposite effect. The news publishers would stop getting linked to, and instead of making money from link taxes, they would slowly start to fail, and maybe one or two big ones would become the main sources.
Re: Wishful thinking
This is not about linking, it's about them including the news article on their site, e.g. google-news.
Re: Wishful thinking
The arbiter should be neutral, he should not favour either side.
It does seem like a slippery slope though. I'm not a social media user anymore but I just wonder why it's only Google and Facebook. What about if I'd post a link to a news article on a forum or blog or reddit?
I might be wrong but seems to me like links to news articles from people they know would actually encourage people to click on them which would then load the lovely ads we see when reading said article. Isn't this essentially free publicity?
This is not about linking, it's about them including the news article on their site, e.g. google-news.
Arbitration...
I thought Google was all for arbitration, forcing its employees to use it and trying to ban them from suing directly?
Wishful thinking
"the company is not entirely opposed to paying publishers but opposes the arbitration model. "
Google definitely does not oppose an arbitration model. But it opposes a model in which it's not them who's the arbiter that can force his arbitrary pricing, conditions and and decisions on others.
Also the paragraph at the end about ACCC makes it obvious that there's not substantial change planned to the model of the law, despite of what Google's saying. Which is a good thing.
Google and all other companies which make their living off taking other people's stuff and not paying anything in return needs to be stopped, and this is the first step. And the arbiters of prices should definitely not be these companies, but those who actually own the stuff that's used by them.
If Google or Facebook think they're providing actual value "in return" to content creators with their "services", then they are free to put a price on that, too, and let creators decide whether they really think it's worth that and are ready to pay that. But one has nothing to do with the other, and Google and Facebook shouldn't be allowed dictate terms on both.