Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider (Australia))   Looks like Google blinked first in the showdown with Australia   (businessinsider.com.au) divider line
    More: Interesting, Google, use of its news content, non-disclosure agreements, Industry sources, Google News Showcase, sign deals, Google search, use of news articles  
•       •       •

592 clicks; posted to Business » on 17 Feb 2021 at 5:02 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



6 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-02-17 4:41:21 AM  
Probably because Microsoft were so very eager to play ball. Badda-BING-badda-boom.

Honestly, I don't see the big deal. The news media claim Google is stealing their content, but anybody who wants to read in any detail will click the link, and go to the site. Probably hit a paywall, but WTF? Except the mobile news app, which is a problem.
 
2021-02-17 7:31:45 AM  
So, is the next move of the Aussie government going to be forcing the auto industry to make payouts to the buggy whip and horse industry? OOOO or they could make telecoms pay telegraph companies
 
2021-02-17 7:56:16 AM  
This isn't Google blinking, something close to this has been their counteroffer all along: that they're willing to pay for content, they just aren't willing to have their core search functionality f*cked with.


Jesus McSordid: Honestly, I don't see the big deal. The news media claim Google is stealing their content, but anybody who wants to read in any detail will click the link, and go to the site. Probably hit a paywall, but WTF? Except the mobile news app, which is a problem.


The media corps were always free to let Google include them in its search results or not, but instead of opting out because Google wouldn't pay them, or requiring Google to pay them if it wanted to include them, they wanted to force Google to include them AND pay them.

Only the big media corps though. The whole thing is basically Murdoch et al. using their local political clout to shake down Google, and as long as they get their money they'll be happy enough. As for smaller content providers, the big boys' rules were just going to bury them further.
 
2021-02-17 11:24:14 AM  

lifeslammer: So, is the next move of the Aussie government going to be forcing the auto industry to make payouts to the buggy whip and horse industry? OOOO or they could make telecoms pay telegraph companies


Your analogy fails because google doesn't manufacture. They sell access. Also if telecoms just repackaged telegraphs that other people created, then yes they should pay for that product.

The lines get blurry when information is the product. Its best to understand the difference between advertising a product and making a product.
 
2021-02-17 11:32:57 AM  

Intone: lifeslammer: So, is the next move of the Aussie government going to be forcing the auto industry to make payouts to the buggy whip and horse industry? OOOO or they could make telecoms pay telegraph companies

Your analogy fails because google doesn't manufacture. They sell access. Also if telecoms just repackaged telegraphs that other people created, then yes they should pay for that product.

The lines get blurry when information is the product. Its best to understand the difference between advertising a product and making a product.


Except google doesnt actually have any form of news studio. Anywhere. They simply provide a centralized location for people to get news from dozens of different sources at once, exactly like Fark does. So whats to stop them from deciding that digg, fark, reddit, or any of the other aggregation sites need to be forced to pay the poor suffering news sites money to send them traffic

They had over 20 years to figure out how to adapt properly to the digital age. They stuck their heads in the sand and cried foul to the government to get bailed out by a third party who literally had nothing to do with the failures in their business, and if anything were directing MORE viewers to their websites (ala the spain fiasco, where google decided to leave and news sites had traffic drop like a rock)

All this is at its heart is a bunch of incompetent business forcing another company to keep them running in a way that makes no sense at all. But then again, its also just the latest in a loooooong line of wildly idiotic laws the aussies have made in the last two decades
 
2021-02-17 4:39:25 PM  
 
Displayed 6 of 6 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.