4 ms·
> it basically just demands that Google negotiate with media entities for a price-sharing agreement This is not an accurate summary of the law's effects. Yes,
by asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> it basically just demands that Google negotiate with media entities for a price-sharing agreement
This is not an accurate summary of the law's effects. Yes, that's part of what it says. But if they can't come to an agreement, Australia gets to set the price sharing amount. And declining to link to news content isn't allowed, so if it costs Google more than the news is worth, well then it's effectively just a tax that applies to only a single company.
This is like if I, the mayor, said, you must negotiate with this man to rent some rooms of your house. If he doesn't like the price you give, I'll decide what it is. No, you can't choose not to rent rooms to him.
- r00fus 6y agoThe inability to decline linking would be truly draconian. Which part of the law states that? (edit:clarity)
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoMaybe I was looking at an older version of the law. The version posted at the top only requires non-differentiation -- that Google cannot decline to index a business because it requires payment. So Google would have to stop indexing news in Australia altogether, but then could avoid payment. That being said, I have seen reporting before that suggests that delisting news, even all news, would not be sufficient to avoid paying under the law.