3 ms·
We've been asking the proponents that for months. Google got a free license in Germany while Yahoo did not. Even if they ban the free license (which is a whole
by sputr 8y ago
We've been asking the proponents that for months.
Google got a free license in Germany while Yahoo did not. Even if they ban the free license (which is a whole nother set of even bigger problems) Google can just not list them at all. It's not like they care about Google News all that much.
- simias 8y agoI agree that this is probably going to backfire spectacularly but if we give the proponents the benefit of the doubt it could be argued that while the big G might not care about Google News, users may. If these news aggregator shutdown they will look for alternatives which might create an opportunity for people to develop news aggregator that share the revenue more fairly with the newspapers. I doubt this is going to happen but I suppose it might sound right for people who are not deeply familiar with the way the internet works.
- Eridrus 8y agoHas this happened in Spain? They've already done this experiment on a smaller scale.
- sputr 8y agoGoogle simply shutdown it's operation there.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> If these news aggregator shutdown they will look for alternatives which might create an opportunity for people to develop news aggregator that share the revenue more fairly with the newspapers. The problem is, what revenue? News aggregation is not a huge profit center to begin with. Then you take that already-small amount of money and split it between thousands of independent news organizations, each of which requires its own transaction costs, and the transaction costs sink the whole enterprise.
- ivanhoe 8y agoWell, radio stations don't earn a lot either, but still have to pay licence fees for the music they play. Perhaps some sort of flat fee paid based on some statistics how much content has been shared from which source would make sense. It will not be a huge money, but it's still better than no money at all. Aggregators/ search engines need the content produced at the volume, otherwise they'll be out of business too at some point, so it can be mutually benefitial.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- cortesoft 8y agoRadio stations make the little that money they do because they are using a limited resource- spectrum. That is not the case on the Internet.
- nostrademons 8y ago80% of radio stations in the U.S. are owned by one company (iHeartMedia, formerly ClearChannel), and despite this monopoly negotiating power, the company is still operating out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy with a $20B debt load.
- lionsdan 8y ago> 80% of radio stations in the U.S. are owned by one company(iHeartMedia, formerly ClearChannel) They own the most, but it's not 80% (perhaps they cover 80% of listening markets). They own about 850 stations[1] out of roughly 10,000 commercial stations[2]. However, your point does stand as the second largest owner, Cumulus Media at 455 stations also filed for bankruptcy[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHeartMedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHeartMedia [2] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/business/media/iheartmedia-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/business/media/iheartmedi...