https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55760673
Quote
Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia over the nation's attempt to make the tech giant share royalties with news publishers.
Australia is introducing a landmark law to make Google, Facebook and potentially other tech companies pay media outlets for their news content.
But the US tech giants have fought back, arguing the laws are onerous and would damage local access to services.
Australian PM Scott Morrison said lawmakers would not yield to "threats".
The proposed news code would tie Google and Facebook to mediated negotiations with publishers over the value of news content, if no agreement could be reached first.
Google Australia managing director Mel Silva told a Senate hearing on Friday that the laws were "unworkable".
"If this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia," she said.
QuoteOn Thursday, Google agreed to pay French news publishers for snippets of news stories displayed in search results, after the nation's media argued copyright law claims.
Google can pay in France but can't seem to work it out in much smaller Australia.
QuoteOthers have questioned if the removal of the search engine would also remove Gmail, Google Maps and Google Home services - something the company has not made clear.
Wouldn't this open Google to massive liability from Australian consumers? Gmail and G Home Services are required to make standard Android phones and tablets work. If I had an Android phone and it suddenly quit working because Google cut my country off I'd want my money back plus damages.
If Google shut off G Search to Australia 1. it would represent a massive opportunity to other search providers, 2. other sovereign states would take notice and not the good kind of notice for Google.
Quote from: Brad on January 22, 2021, 12:08:23 PM
Wouldn't this open Google to massive liability from Australian consumers?
I would expect that what they would do is offer a *paid* version. You get to keep your services, but at the same pricing as Google Workspaces (in the case of GMail). That could be an indication of how things would play out following a successful anti-trust case.
Or they could run as usual, since those platforms don't have the kind of copyright issues that are at the heart of Google Search. If this succeeds, then the next step will be photographers. The new (as of a decade ago or so) "gallery" format has decimated traffic to photo sites.
QuoteI would expect that what they would do is offer a *paid* version. You get to keep your services, but at the same pricing as Google Workspaces (in the case of GMail). That could be an indication of how things would play out following a successful anti-trust case.
I could see a mass migration of consumers away from Android in that case. It's sort of a bait and switch then, "Oops Aussies we're suddenly going to start charging you which you didn't know when you bought the phone." Sounds like a shakedown to me.
And also, Samsung and other Android OEM's would be ticked off. It effects their sales and their good name. Google has been strong arming them into making Google search the default in return for use of Android. I'd make the argument that there is an implied obligation to the OEM, there that in return Android is expected to work.
I doubt it will go that far. But Google's threat was ill advised. Sovereign nations can play hardball on a level corporations, even Google, can't match. If they want to.
Ah... I didn't think of the phone question. I haven't had an Android phone in 7 years and don't have a plain Gmail account (Workspaces Gmail, yes, but not @gmail.com).
Can see both sides but it does come across as a bit petty, G acting as if they're too big to fail. Saying that, if they turned off services tomorrow in a country it'd create some mess. Comes across as a threat.
G definitely being backed into a corner by many jurisdictions. I guess without a credible alternative in the meantime for some of their services (mainly search I presume), G will have to compromise somehow. Wonder if they have it in them, in their infinite wisdom.
FB/G business model is ultimately taking other people's content at scale and scaling it. Then taking their users, selling their data to milk it some more and make their position unassailable. Now they're being called out on it (even with the section 230 chat about platforms). Surely when G bought YT they would realise there was no way on Earth they could moderate content on that scale. Once their bottom line comes into question their bottom lip goes.
Do the google snippets fall under fair use of copyrighted work in the United States? Or is it just a matter of Google having all the power/lawiers to get what the want? I guess in a way that's the same question twice.
Google's worse nightmare: They cut off Australia from Google search and after a bit of experimentation, Australia finds that they can survive just fine with only Bing and Bing retreads and without Google. ;D
QuoteAustralia, though, has a knack for picking fights.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/22/google-threatens-leave-australia-but-poker-face-slipping?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1611352316
QuoteMeanwhile, Google's revenues have increased markedly in the same period, amounting to more than $160bn (£117bn) globally in 2019. In the same year, Google was reported to have made $3.7bn in gross revenue in Australia.
Of that revenue, $7.7m was generated from news content, Google said in a blog last year.
(original article)
Any idea where they get that 7.7M number from? No ads on news IIRC. Is this just a guess/measure/numberwang of people who hit news and subsequently do searches? Seems like a paltry number to throw out in reference to their revenue from the country.
Also a bit ridiculous that they'd pull out of the country over $7.7M? Think they're just unwilling to admit that the news feeds aggregated into the 'portal' are worth far more than that.
Quote from: littleman on January 22, 2021, 09:54:46 PM
Do the google snippets fall under fair use
Up for debate. There are four criteria (this is US only):
- Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes:
- Nature of the copyrighted work:
- Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole:
- Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work:
#1. Clearly Google's purpose is commercial. So that fails the fair use test.
#2. That depends of course. News items are more likely to pass a fair use test than a creative work. So in this case, the NYT does not have as good a case as an illustrator.
#3. I would say Google is safe on this with respect to news, but not with respect to photographs.
#4. Now... there's the rub. I would say it is clearly worse for a photographer to be on Google than not. Because Google fails criterion #3 for a photograph (in most cases) that diminishes the value, but that's not clear. If the photographer's major income is from selling prints, then having the photo reproduced well on Google is helpful. If her primary income is from selling CPM ads on her website, then Google could be considered to be stealing. With respect to news stories, I think Google can make a good argument that they are increasing the value of new articles by excerpting small amounts and making them discoverable.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
In the past, wasn't the argument from newspapers and magazines, that they were loosing ad revenue because Google helicoptered visitors into a specific page and the visitor read and then left? Whereas, the newspapers literally wanted people to start at the index page like you would with print, and then go deeper giving the paper more ad impressions.
The above was before Google was in the ad business on third party sites.
Today it seems like Google controls access as gatekeeper but also controls a lot of the advertising business shown on many newspapers, especially smaller ones.
Added:
The articles have started and are spreading on social networks:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/23/what-are-my-options-if-google-shuts-down-search-in-australia?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1611391445
Next will be a raft of articles on how to change the default search engine on various operating systems and browsers and which search engines work best as a Google replacement on mobile and desktop. ie. millions of dollars worth of free exposure for other search engines.
Whether the proposed Australian law is wise or not does not matter. Google has dug themselves a hole. Will they keep digging?
Facebook to block news content in Australia, defying regulators
https://www.rawstory.com/facebook-to-block-news-content-in-australia-defying-regulators/
---------------
Google and News Corp. strike a deal
https://www.nbcnews.com/media/google-news-corp-strike-deal-rcna291
https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-viewing-news-on-facebook-in-australia/
God's gift response from FB.
It will be interesting to see how Australia responds. The Aussies can play a long game when they want to, and this opens opportunities for FB competitors, at least on news sharing.
Canada vows to be next country to make Facebook pay for news | CBC News
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-next-country-facebook-news-1.5919665
Time to get tough with 'bully' Facebook, UK lawmaker and publishers say
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2AI18I
> Canada, UK
FB so over stepped itself.
Good read.
AU: The Facebook news ban revealed how problematic it is to rely on corporations to provide fundamental public services - ABC News
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-21/when-facebook-banned-news-australia-we-saw-role-it-plays/13175698
Good article that find some good people to talk to - Jaron Lanier, Shoshana Zuboff.
And as I've mentioned a dozen times, it really upsets me that the federal government and Calfire and so on depend on Facebook for this livestreams.
But I suddenly see something else here. I wonder to what extent the gloves finally come off in this fight if the media doesn't profit from being on Facebook and you see more and more reporting like this in Australia. You could see it cynically (revenge) or, well, cynically (they were afraid to really report on it before).
Like the radical leftist Phil Ochs' intro to his song Love Me I'm a Liberal: "In America, there are many shades of political groups, and one of the shadiest is a group called the liberals. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center when it affects them personally."
>rely on corporations to provide fundamental public services
OTOH, govs do such a crappy job on crafting online services. I've seen dozens upon dozens of howling posts about byzantine state and federal websites for unemployment, vaccinations, etc. My own state's vaccination site being one of them. Clunky *and* clueless comes to mind.
OTOH2, state & local govs want to cut costs by pulling legal notices out of local newspapers, killing one last revenue stream.
AU blinked?
Facebook will restore news in Australia after talks with the government - CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/23/tech/facebook-news-australia-media-bargaining-intl-hnk/index.html
I love the title on Slate
Australia's Wondrous Time Without News on Facebook Is About to Endhttps://slate.com/technology/2021/02/australia-facebook-news-deal.html
QuoteWhat was worse: It soon became apparent that many other important pages had been cleared too—including state health departments, just days before Australia was to begin its vaccine rollout....
Others (including me) slammed the government for screwing up the negotiations by making extreme demands and then failing to reach an agreement, in turn screwing over the publishers it was purportedly trying to "help" (not to mention a range of charities, unions, community groups, and sporting organizations).
>> blink
QuoteJust under a week later, the ban has been reversed, with an 11th-hour compromise seeing the government agree to fundamentally weaken the code. The change means the government may not apply the code to a company if it can demonstrate it has made a "significant contribution" to the Australian news industry through commercial arrangements, and it must give a platform a month's notice before subjecting it to the code. In other words, Facebook just has to strike some deals, and the government will leave it alone.
QuoteIn the days that followed, posts about the news ban diminished, but the presence of my Facebook friends did not. A girl I met in Mexico shouted out her partner's 30th; a couple celebrated buying their first home; my cousins in England posed with their kids. I saw profile pictures and memes, thank-yous and babies. It was extremely strange, and extremely wholesome, a reminder that good things were happening in the world, too.
Canada and Australia to coordinate on tech regulation: Ottawa
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/canada-australia-coordinate-tech-regulation-225338412.html
Decent interpretation
https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/status/1365076419760414720