5 ms·

The actual PDF of the decision is there: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/sites/default/files/integral_texts/2020-04/20mc01.pdf https://www.autoritedelaco

The actual PDF of the decision is there: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/sites/default/files/integral_texts/2020-04/20mc01.pdf https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/sites/default/files/i... The arguments are: - Press freedom is a fundamental right - The press is not in its best state right now in France, so hitting them (for example, removing them from the search result from Google, which is in a monopoly position) is dangerous for the press freedom - Google did not try to negotiate a fair price for the news, with the publisher - Google applying a "zero price" for newspaper is not reasonable, as google has an economic incentive (users using its search engine) to display the news paper content in its search engine and in google news - Google is in a monopoly decision, as most of the traffic of the newspapers comes from Google - Google is discriminatory as it applies to newspapers equal treatments, even if they are in different situations (newspaper with protected content, and newspaper without protected content) - Google tries to bypass the spirit of the law, which is for newspapers to get paid for their content by people using their content, and Google can do so because it's in a monopoly position in search - Google does not has objectives explanations regarding its behavior besides « we don't pay for content », but paid for content in the past (for example, the french agency AFP) The decision is manyfold: - Google has to enter negociations, in a fair manner (I think this means no « we will not pay anything » unless they can back it off); - The price decided by the negociations will be applied retroactively, from the date the new law was passed - They have to report to the authority every three months the progress they make on this - Restore the service they provided to newspapers to what was in place before the new law was voted Let's note the court making this decision can not decide what the law is, and applies it as it was voted; even if it thinks some part of the law sucks, they cannot change it, it's not their role in the justice system.

PunksATawnyFill 6y ago
These claims seem irrelevant, inaccurate, or dumb. Google News only shows brief abstracts from each article, and drives traffic to the publications' own sites. It's free advertising! How is this at all BAD for the publications?
- Reventlov 6y ago
  It's not bad, but they are not paying for this content, even if they have an incentive to display these abstracts (people using their tools). The law regarding the « droits voisins » (related rights) says it's a right to get a fair price for people using your content, and that's why Google has to pay if they want to display the content. As google is in a monopoly position, they can not refuse to display them (without even having tried to find a fair price) as it would hurt press (and, doing so, press freedom, which is a fundamental right in france). You may think it's dumb, you may think it's not, I'm not debating this, I'm just stating what is the position of the lawmaker and the court.
  - wolco 6y ago
    A better summary. Press freedom is fundamental. Monopoly must pay for press because they must show it. We demand they show it for press freedom.
  - zajio1am 6y ago
    > It's not bad, but they are not paying for this content, even if they have an incentive to display these abstracts And press has an incentive to pay for being propagated in search results. As both sides gain in this exchange even without monetary transaction, there is no obvious way to see who should pay whom and zero price (in both sides) is a reasonable position. It is true that Google being in a monopoly position makes it hard to establish price for 'being announced in search results'.
  - cabalamat 6y ago
    > it's a right to get a fair price for people using your content, and that's why Google has to pay if they want to display the content But the French government wants Google to pay regardless of whether Google wants to display the content or not. Which is clearly offensive to natural justice, even if you don't like Google.
  - travisoneill1 6y ago
    How would this hurt press freedom? You are still allowed to print what you want. Press freedom is not an entitlement to an audience.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Google is discriminatory as it applies to newspapers equal treatments, even if they are in different situations This would appear to be the opposite of what "discriminatory" means.
- Quanttek 6y ago
  Quite the opposite. The core idea of anti-discrimination law is simple: Treat people the same where they are the same and treat people different where they are different. Here the example of the rough sleeping tax applying equally to the homeless and those with homes is often used to illustrate latter.
  - nitwit005 6y ago
    Discrimination means recognizing the difference between things. You're insisting that discrimination is required to be non-discriminatory.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > You're insisting that discrimination is required to be non-discriminatory. Because parsing this sentence threw me for a loop, I'll note that I think you mean "you're insisting that, in order to be non-discriminatory, discrimination is required" rather than "you're insisting that there is a requirement imposed on discrimination, to wit, that it must be non-discriminatory".
- anoncake 6y ago
  Maybe not in French legalese.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    That could certainly be the case, but... (1) It would still be disturbing if the meaning of "discrimination" in French legalese was the exact opposite of its meaning everywhere else including vernacular French. War is peace. (2) I have a sneaking suspicion that the meaning of "discrimination" in French law is sometimes this and sometimes the ordinary meaning, and if that's true it's a much worse state of affairs than just the legal meaning being opposed to the ordinary meaning.
satyrnein 6y ago
How can someone negotiate a rate without the ability to walk away?
- akiselev 6y ago
  They do have the ability to walk away - just like users have the ability to walk away from Google. They can cease operations in France and remove themselves from France's jurisdiction (probably the whole EU, including their wonderful little tax haven). They did it to China once, if I remember correctly, after a series of state sponsored Gmail breaches. Don't want to pay? Don't participate. I'm enjoying the schadenfreud even though I'm terrified of the implications for the rest of tech.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Can they instead simply start their own news gathering operation?
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      They'd get fined heavily for that... Using a monopoly position in one market to enter another...
      - zepto 6y ago
        If that were true, then Google can’t start any new information service businesses. Is that what you are saying?
        thatguy0900 6y ago
        I'm sure they could start something in a different area where regulators arnt already breathing down their necks. France probably wouldn't react well to the specific plan to start a news org though.
  - yostrovs 6y ago
mjfl 6y ago
> Google tries to bypass the spirit of the law, which is for newspapers to get paid for their content by people using their content, and Google can do so because it's in a monopoly position in search I don't understand. Google would display titles but not content on their news site, users would have to click through to the actual news website to read the story, and thus the news site would make money off those clicks. You could thus argue that Google was paying for the titles by directing users /clicks to the site?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

PunksATawnyFill 6y ago

These claims seem irrelevant, inaccurate, or dumb. Google News only shows brief abstracts from each article, and drives traffic to the publications' own sites. It's free advertising! How is this at all BAD for the publications?

Reventlov 6y ago
It's not bad, but they are not paying for this content, even if they have an incentive to display these abstracts (people using their tools). The law regarding the « droits voisins » (related rights) says it's a right to get a fair price for people using your content, and that's why Google has to pay if they want to display the content. As google is in a monopoly position, they can not refuse to display them (without even having tried to find a fair price) as it would hurt press (and, doing so, press freedom, which is a fundamental right in france). You may think it's dumb, you may think it's not, I'm not debating this, I'm just stating what is the position of the lawmaker and the court.
- wolco 6y ago
  A better summary. Press freedom is fundamental. Monopoly must pay for press because they must show it. We demand they show it for press freedom.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  > It's not bad, but they are not paying for this content, even if they have an incentive to display these abstracts And press has an incentive to pay for being propagated in search results. As both sides gain in this exchange even without monetary transaction, there is no obvious way to see who should pay whom and zero price (in both sides) is a reasonable position. It is true that Google being in a monopoly position makes it hard to establish price for 'being announced in search results'.
- cabalamat 6y ago
  > it's a right to get a fair price for people using your content, and that's why Google has to pay if they want to display the content But the French government wants Google to pay regardless of whether Google wants to display the content or not. Which is clearly offensive to natural justice, even if you don't like Google.
- travisoneill1 6y ago
  How would this hurt press freedom? You are still allowed to print what you want. Press freedom is not an entitlement to an audience.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> Google is discriminatory as it applies to newspapers equal treatments, even if they are in different situations This would appear to be the opposite of what "discriminatory" means.

Quanttek 6y ago
Quite the opposite. The core idea of anti-discrimination law is simple: Treat people the same where they are the same and treat people different where they are different. Here the example of the rough sleeping tax applying equally to the homeless and those with homes is often used to illustrate latter.
- nitwit005 6y ago
  Discrimination means recognizing the difference between things. You're insisting that discrimination is required to be non-discriminatory.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > You're insisting that discrimination is required to be non-discriminatory. Because parsing this sentence threw me for a loop, I'll note that I think you mean "you're insisting that, in order to be non-discriminatory, discrimination is required" rather than "you're insisting that there is a requirement imposed on discrimination, to wit, that it must be non-discriminatory".
anoncake 6y ago
Maybe not in French legalese.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  That could certainly be the case, but... (1) It would still be disturbing if the meaning of "discrimination" in French legalese was the exact opposite of its meaning everywhere else including vernacular French. War is peace. (2) I have a sneaking suspicion that the meaning of "discrimination" in French law is sometimes this and sometimes the ordinary meaning, and if that's true it's a much worse state of affairs than just the legal meaning being opposed to the ordinary meaning.

satyrnein 6y ago

How can someone negotiate a rate without the ability to walk away?

akiselev 6y ago
They do have the ability to walk away - just like users have the ability to walk away from Google. They can cease operations in France and remove themselves from France's jurisdiction (probably the whole EU, including their wonderful little tax haven). They did it to China once, if I remember correctly, after a series of state sponsored Gmail breaches. Don't want to pay? Don't participate. I'm enjoying the schadenfreud even though I'm terrified of the implications for the rest of tech.
- zepto 6y ago
  Can they instead simply start their own news gathering operation?
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    They'd get fined heavily for that... Using a monopoly position in one market to enter another...
    - zepto 6y ago
      If that were true, then Google can’t start any new information service businesses. Is that what you are saying?
      - thatguy0900 6y ago
        I'm sure they could start something in a different area where regulators arnt already breathing down their necks. France probably wouldn't react well to the specific plan to start a news org though.
- yostrovs 6y ago

mjfl 6y ago

> Google tries to bypass the spirit of the law, which is for newspapers to get paid for their content by people using their content, and Google can do so because it's in a monopoly position in search I don't understand. Google would display titles but not content on their news site, users would have to click through to the actual news website to read the story, and thus the news site would make money off those clicks. You could thus argue that Google was paying for the titles by directing users /clicks to the site?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]