3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

Dylan16807 8y ago
> and in a manner that even eliminates any traffic from the content creator's site Not true at all. They actually increase traffic. https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-reveals-the-winners-and-losers-from-a-link-tax/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-r... And you seem to have developed your own silly idea that quoting one or two sentences of a news piece is the same as xeroxing it.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> 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?

Dylan16807 8y ago

> and in a manner that even eliminates any traffic from the content creator's site Not true at all. They actually increase traffic. https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-reveals-the-winners-and-losers-from-a-link-tax/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-r... And you seem to have developed your own silly idea that quoting one or two sentences of a news piece is the same as xeroxing it.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> 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?