5 ms·

These claims seem irrelevant, inaccurate, or dumb. Google News only shows brief abstracts from each article, and drives traffic to the publications' own sites.

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.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Because they don't want people to learn about a topic by going to Google and entering a search term and then clicking on the links that they are free to use. This workflow inherently routes around publications requiring a subscription fee unless they have something unique to offer. It also tends to drive revenue towards zero whichis an existential threat. In truth paying for journalism going forward is going to be a difficult problem made more difficult by the fact that most of the money spent on journalism does not go directly to people who produce value like editors, analysts, photographers, journalists but instead goes to buildings and busines people.

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.

michaelmrose 6y ago

Because they don't want people to learn about a topic by going to Google and entering a search term and then clicking on the links that they are free to use. This workflow inherently routes around publications requiring a subscription fee unless they have something unique to offer. It also tends to drive revenue towards zero whichis an existential threat. In truth paying for journalism going forward is going to be a difficult problem made more difficult by the fact that most of the money spent on journalism does not go directly to people who produce value like editors, analysts, photographers, journalists but instead goes to buildings and busines people.