3 ms·
A competitor who would be equally obliged to pay rent for the news. That’s a pretty big regulatory hurdle for a startup to cross.
by falcolas 6y ago
A competitor who would be equally obliged to pay rent for the news. That’s a pretty big regulatory hurdle for a startup to cross.
- ardy42 6y ago> A competitor who would be equally obliged to pay rent for the news. That’s a pretty big regulatory hurdle for a startup to cross. Maybe, but Google's interest is in maintaining its search monopoly, not creating opportunities for its destruction in fits of pique. I'm also skeptical about how much of a hurdle this would actually be, since businesses typically have to pay suppliers (e.g. by licensing content). These rules probably only seems like a big thing because SV tech businesses have been weirdly allowed to opt out of paying in situations like this for a long time. It's not like the necessity of paying royalties prevented Netflix from taking off.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago> fits of pique "Fits of pique" like being extorted for $1 billion dollars per year? That's something like 4% of their global profit that they're being asked to fork over for the privilege of continuing to provide a just one search functionality in a small and isolated market. They'll just disable news searches in Australia lol.
- pankajdoharey 6y agoWould this payment also apply to a news startup which shows links from other news agencies and shows up on google. Is google obliged to pay this news site under the law? If so I just found my new internet startup and paying client.
- chillfox 6y agoThere’s some language in there so that they only have to pay large news corporations that hire professional journalists.
- boring_twenties 6y agoUnless I've grossly misunderstood, it seems that the bill would apply only to Google and Facebook right now.