> By pushing to the “link tax”, publishers are shooting themselves in the foot three times over.
I don't think that's true at all. Beyond some short term traffic loss there are no negative consequences for the media industry if Google leaves this space. I suspect that's what big publishers actually aim for, they understand Google is not likely to pay and want to control how users discover news themselves.
The challenge publishers are fighting is effectively scabs in a union strike. If news publishers block Google, the one (or few) publisher who chooses not to gets all the traffic. And the problem with news is it's easily copied and redistributed. So the real reporters and journalists could all block Google and Google may try to sustain itself on pushing blogspam instead.
It's very possible that only government regulation which forces participation (such as the link tax) can actually work.
> It's very possible that only government regulation which forces participation (such as the link tax) can actually work.
Why don't we just make Google give every news org a few million a year then? Why pretend it's anything else but Google directly paying for the news?
Side point, if news subscriptions were reasonably priced (upfront pricing, and billed monthly instead of this odd weekly nonsense), they would probably not care at all about Google.
Google brings traffic, traffic brings views, and views bring ad revenue. The number of media outlets, today or historically, that subsist entirely on subscriber numbers is tiny next to the amount that use subscriptions as well as ads.
Isn't this the same as the link tax? Except that the link tax clearly assigns the money to the news outlets who are actually producing the news people are reading on Google, whereas "every news org" is hard to quantify and discerning who should receive how much funding is a complicated question otherwise?
Is it possible people are opposed to the link tax not because of what it does, but the marketing they've been exposed to characterizing it as bad? Even the description "link tax" is oddly loaded, as "snippet tax" would be far more accurate, to that it applies to lifted content, not "literally the URL".
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. They assume people only store audio on cds? So individuals/companies that were storing data on cd's were supporting the music industry?
I suppose my sarcasm wasn't indicated well enough. Google doesn't have any special duty to fund the news, anymore than Zuckerberg does personally, or George Soros, or any other financier. You can't just go around and demand someone pays for something you think is important.
The issue is that Google is, in fact, scraping news content and delivering it to users while cutting the creators of that news out of the revenue. Google doesn't have a "special duty" to fund the news, it has an obligation to pay for what it's taking, usually without permission to do so.
I don't think that's true at all. Beyond some short term traffic loss there are no negative consequences for the media industry if Google leaves this space. I suspect that's what big publishers actually aim for, they understand Google is not likely to pay and want to control how users discover news themselves.