Google and Meta to be forced to pay for news - embedding or just hyperlinking?

Forums › Off topic › Google and Meta to be forced to pay for news - embedding or just hyperlinking?

Aaron2222

150 posts

Master Geek

#302591 4-Dec-2022 20:31

The government's announced new legislation to force Google and Meta to pay for news: https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/12/04/google-meta-to-be-forced-to-strike-deals-with-news-media-govt/

Now I don't use Facebook, or Google News on mobile, but from my experience on desktop, both the news section of search results and Google News both just hyperlink to the articles on the news outlet's website. Are Google and Meta embedding news articles within their platforms, or is this just trying to charge for hyperlinking to content?

1 | 2

Mad Scientist
29042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3005705 4-Dec-2022 20:41

interesting ... in Australia Meta is making news site pay for news on Meta ... IIRC

Lenovo

Lenovo computer and accessories deals (affiliate link).

Aaron2222

150 posts

Master Geek

#3005706 4-Dec-2022 20:49

Other countries have done similar things (Australia and Canada according to the article). I could see it for news aggregation where the aggregator is profiting from offering the service (through ads etc), driving people away from the news site's homepages, but I checked Google without an ad-blocker, and saw no ads on Google News or in the news section of Google Search. And where's the line between news aggregation and web search/indexing (pay to hyperlink for web search would clearly be a terrible idea)? Or user-generated content like Facebook posts that share links? I remember talk about that back when other countries were introducing similar legislation, but can't remember the specifics, and haven't read their legislation. Anything regarding hyperlinking needs to tread very carefully IMO.

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#3005915 5-Dec-2022 12:16

Batman:

interesting ... in Australia Meta is making news site pay for news on Meta ... IIRC

You do not recall correctly. Meta is forced to pay "news" companies, just like Google and Twitter.

Oblivian

6944 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3005974 5-Dec-2022 13:02

It's a bit of an oddity really?

Media company wants more reach, joins the social Medias the generation is using.

Find out said socials are injecting advertising around their links for reach and as such revenue. Rather than people Clicking it and seeing their own advert banner directly at the source/page

Media now Asks socials for a slice of the pie?

This appeared for me today. Convenient timing...

Behodar

9246 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3005983 5-Dec-2022 13:29

The press release refers to content "hosted" by Google/Meta. This would imply that the actual text is being copied, which is presumably a violation of copyright. Simply hyperlinking to an existing article shouldn't be breaking any rules: The Web is founded on the concepts of hyperlinks and anything published on it has implied consent to be linked to. I'd be stunned if this legislation is actually talking about links.

With that said, I don't understand why new legislation is required when the content is already copyrighted.

wellygary

7378 posts

Uber Geek

#3005986 5-Dec-2022 13:43

Behodar:

With that said, I don't understand why new legislation is required when the content is already copyrighted.

Because the cost/effort of taking action would outweigh the loss on any article, plus there is the issue of jurisdiction as copyright is country limited,

Oblivian

6944 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3005995 5-Dec-2022 14:01

Don't think I've ever seen scrolling along anything that's branded facey but is a news article

Unless it's got favoured aggregators that flog them 3rd hand.

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#3006000 5-Dec-2022 14:11

Behodar:

The press release refers to content "hosted" by Google/Meta. This would imply that the actual text is being copied, which is presumably a violation of copyright. Simply hyperlinking to an existing article shouldn't be breaking any rules: The Web is founded on the concepts of hyperlinks and anything published on it has implied consent to be linked to. I'd be stunned if this legislation is actually talking about links.

With that said, I don't understand why new legislation is required when the content is already copyrighted.

In the Australian model, it does indeed refer to mere linking. And it's also illegal to just not link to it to avoid paying. It really is corrupt and unfair, and you should shut it down before it gets any further.

mattwnz

19378 posts

Uber Geek

#3006006 5-Dec-2022 14:17

Kyanar:

Behodar:

The press release refers to content "hosted" by Google/Meta. This would imply that the actual text is being copied, which is presumably a violation of copyright. Simply hyperlinking to an existing article shouldn't be breaking any rules: The Web is founded on the concepts of hyperlinks and anything published on it has implied consent to be linked to. I'd be stunned if this legislation is actually talking about links.

With that said, I don't understand why new legislation is required when the content is already copyrighted.

In the Australian model, it does indeed refer to mere linking. And it's also illegal to just not link to it to avoid paying. It really is corrupt and unfair, and you should shut it down before it gets any further.

Nothings surprising in Australia. But if it is referring to just linking and perhaps a headline , that would be really bad. Linking is how the internet works, and is how search engines find pages and websites. It makes me wonder if these politicians and decision makers don't understand how the internet work.

MikeAqua

7611 posts

Uber Geek

#3006022 5-Dec-2022 14:40

I think politicians the world over are scrambling to preserve some semblance of a reliable and dependable journalism sector.

Social media and the internet generally have taken advertising revenue and readers/viewers from mainstream media hand over fist.

The mainstream media has had to descend to clickbait journalism to retail some advertising revenue. Meanwhile social media has become the perfect platform for peddlers of misinformation and disinformation.

Mike

Handle9

9640 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3006086 5-Dec-2022 19:28

MikeAqua:

I think politicians the world over are scrambling to preserve some semblance of a reliable and dependable journalism sector.

Social media and the internet generally have taken advertising revenue and readers/viewers from mainstream media hand over fist.

The mainstream media has had to descend to clickbait journalism to retail some advertising revenue. Meanwhile social media has become the perfect platform for peddlers of misinformation and disinformation.

There's definitely that aspect. There's also the aspect that social media relies on MSM to generate interest and monetises that interest without sharing and of the revenue.

It's not at all black and white how this should all work.

Aaron2222

150 posts

Master Geek

#3006117 5-Dec-2022 22:01

mattwnz:

Kyanar:

In the Australian model, it does indeed refer to mere linking. And it's also illegal to just not link to it to avoid paying. It really is corrupt and unfair, and you should shut it down before it gets any further.

Nothings surprising in Australia. But if it is referring to just linking and perhaps a headline , that would be really bad. Linking is how the internet works, and is how search engines find pages and websites. It makes me wonder if these politicians and decision makers don't understand how the internet work.

Stuff's article states "The legislation would be based on that used in Canada and Australia", which feels concerning. We'll have to see what the text if the bill says once it's been introduced to Parliament.

sir1963

2245 posts

Uber Geek

#3006174 6-Dec-2022 10:00

Behodar:

The press release refers to content "hosted" by Google/Meta. This would imply that the actual text is being copied, which is presumably a violation of copyright. Simply hyperlinking to an existing article shouldn't be breaking any rules: The Web is founded on the concepts of hyperlinks and anything published on it has implied consent to be linked to. I'd be stunned if this legislation is actually talking about links.

With that said, I don't understand why new legislation is required when the content is already copyrighted.

Well if it is music , books, videos, etc etc etc then according to the USA even linking to the stuff is in breach of copyright

Aaron2222

150 posts

Master Geek

#3006188 6-Dec-2022 10:41

sir1963:

Well if it is music , books, videos, etc etc etc then according to the USA even linking to the stuff is in breach of copyright

I assume that's linking to pirated content though, not to the publisher's own website hosting that content.

Wombat1

400 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3006203 6-Dec-2022 11:16

Hopefully this would mean less stuff rubbish in my facebook news feed. I dont go onto their site to read their nonsense, and dont want to see it in my feed either.

1 | 2