5 ms·

Actions like these start making a lot of sense if you start viewing Google and their friends as a bunch of hi-tech mafioso. Newspapers are essentially forced t

Actions like these start making a lot of sense if you start viewing Google and their friends as a bunch of hi-tech mafioso. Newspapers are essentially forced to pay protection money and then publicly kiss the ring, declare their allegiance and pray that the deal is not altered further.

wbl 6y ago
Google doesn't compete with papers but link papers to readers.
- tomgp 6y ago
  News papers business is selling ads, that’s Google’s Business too. Google has an advantage over individual publications in that it can track user behaviour across multiple sites. So news outlets have made deals with google to act as brokers for their ad space giving google more power and the ability to effectively set ad prices. Google regularly throws news organisations pitiful sums of ‘innovation’ money for PR purposes whilst creaming multiple times that amount off their revenue streams. It’s going to take a brave publication to question the value of Google’s algorithm and bring ad sales in-house but I think that’s the only way out of this situation.
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    A lot of outlets still do in-house ad sales—especially those that run print and standalone digital issues still. Unfortunately, while there is still some business there—it's nothing compared to what it used to be. Most companies just go the online ads route now. I would love to see the kind of push back you mention... but it would be a David v. Goliath task at this stage, except David forgot his sling at home.
- tannhaeuser 6y ago
  GOOG, FB, and AMZN extract all value out of the web, the music industry, retail, IT/cloud, soon e-learning, and basically everything, with content creators getting nothing. In music, we've already seen the effect of no monetary feedback for too many years now; save for very few counterexamples, we haven't seen any innovation since the 1990's; instead we have raised a generation of YouTube addicts. That is the problem to solve sooner rather than later; it doesn't matter how and why we got here, and it's not a question of whether Google or someone else did anything wrong. It's about how we can go on in a civil society with large public investments into eg IP networking, law enforcement, etc. to only line the pockets of very very few.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    What’s wrong with YouTube? I frequently find far better content there than anywhere in the traditional media. I think we’re really lucky to have YouTube - it’s one little ray of hope.
    - LockAndLol 6y ago
      YouTube is the biggest site for music copyright infringement. Not even the pirate could've dreamed of such a massive music distribution network that doesn't remunerate artists. YouTube is also a monopoly that wields its power with impunity. Content creators can be in business one day and out of it the next. Large corporations can claim nearly anything theirs and Google won't do anything about it while smaller content creators can see their IP infringed upon by the former and have no recourse.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > that doesn't remunerate artists I think if you use copyright music YouTube detects that’s automatically and gives them the ad revenue? That’s what the Vevo agreement was.
        LockAndLol 6y ago
        It remunerates labels and copyright trolls way more than it does artists. It's also been known to incorrectly identify sources of copyright infringement and unjustly take away ad revenue. I long stopped following it, but I imagine there's a subreddit called /r/youtubedrama (or the like) that documents that quite well.

wbl 6y ago

Google doesn't compete with papers but link papers to readers.

tomgp 6y ago
News papers business is selling ads, that’s Google’s Business too. Google has an advantage over individual publications in that it can track user behaviour across multiple sites. So news outlets have made deals with google to act as brokers for their ad space giving google more power and the ability to effectively set ad prices. Google regularly throws news organisations pitiful sums of ‘innovation’ money for PR purposes whilst creaming multiple times that amount off their revenue streams. It’s going to take a brave publication to question the value of Google’s algorithm and bring ad sales in-house but I think that’s the only way out of this situation.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  A lot of outlets still do in-house ad sales—especially those that run print and standalone digital issues still. Unfortunately, while there is still some business there—it's nothing compared to what it used to be. Most companies just go the online ads route now. I would love to see the kind of push back you mention... but it would be a David v. Goliath task at this stage, except David forgot his sling at home.
tannhaeuser 6y ago
GOOG, FB, and AMZN extract all value out of the web, the music industry, retail, IT/cloud, soon e-learning, and basically everything, with content creators getting nothing. In music, we've already seen the effect of no monetary feedback for too many years now; save for very few counterexamples, we haven't seen any innovation since the 1990's; instead we have raised a generation of YouTube addicts. That is the problem to solve sooner rather than later; it doesn't matter how and why we got here, and it's not a question of whether Google or someone else did anything wrong. It's about how we can go on in a civil society with large public investments into eg IP networking, law enforcement, etc. to only line the pockets of very very few.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  What’s wrong with YouTube? I frequently find far better content there than anywhere in the traditional media. I think we’re really lucky to have YouTube - it’s one little ray of hope.
  - LockAndLol 6y ago
    YouTube is the biggest site for music copyright infringement. Not even the pirate could've dreamed of such a massive music distribution network that doesn't remunerate artists. YouTube is also a monopoly that wields its power with impunity. Content creators can be in business one day and out of it the next. Large corporations can claim nearly anything theirs and Google won't do anything about it while smaller content creators can see their IP infringed upon by the former and have no recourse.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > that doesn't remunerate artists I think if you use copyright music YouTube detects that’s automatically and gives them the ad revenue? That’s what the Vevo agreement was.
      - LockAndLol 6y ago
        It remunerates labels and copyright trolls way more than it does artists. It's also been known to incorrectly identify sources of copyright infringement and unjustly take away ad revenue. I long stopped following it, but I imagine there's a subreddit called /r/youtubedrama (or the like) that documents that quite well.