Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Australia The Media

Google Halts Its Curated News Plan in Australia, Calling Government's Rules 'Unworkable' (engadget.com) 52

Posted by EditorDavid from the I'm-feeling-lucky dept.
Google "has decided to freeze plans to launch its curated News Showcase in Australia over claims the draft News Media Bargaining Code is 'unworkable'," reports Engadget: Google still objected to what it called a "must include, must pay" approach in the code where it not only has to pay news outlets it links to, but is obligated to carry those outlets for free. The company argued it would deal with payment demands that would "not [be] financially sustainable" for any firm. It also argued that the code was too broad and could prove costly if there's a claimed violation, with Google potentially paying up to 10 percent of its Australian revenue for a single infraction.
"We believe these conditions could be amended to make it a fair and workable code," Google argues in its blog post, "a code that can work together with commercial deals and programs like News Showcase."

"The agreements we have signed in Australia and around the world show that not only are we willing to pay to license news content for a new product, but that we are able to strike deals with publishers," Google argues in its blog post, "without the draft code's onerous and prescriptive bargaining framework and one-sided arbitration model."

Engadget notes that Australia's Competition and Consumer Commission "previously said that a Google open letter decrying the code 'contains misinformation,' and that the company wouldn't be required to charge for free services or share data with news organizations like the letter suggested."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Halts Its Curated News Plan in Australia, Calling Government's Rules 'Unworkable' More

Google Halts Its Curated News Plan in Australia, Calling Government's Rules 'Unworkable'

Comments Filter:

  • Here I trust Google more (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday October 11, 2020 @02:59PM (#60595760)

    Normally I'd not be inclined to trust Google.

    But Google has an army of lawyers to figure out what regulations actually mean. It seems far too common today that regulators pass all sorts of restrictions but do not actually understand the full extent of what is in them, and the implications to companies.

    I think Google is wise to just say it has to abandon the whole thing in Australia, with the government looking to be so stern about news summarizing there.

    It kind of makes me wonder if any of those rules apply to Apple News? Apple News seems to be structured very differently, maybe not since Apple is heavily leaning towards collecting money from users for access to curated news.

    • apple has probably roll over like they do with China. Profits above ethics for them.

      • Profits above ethics for them.

        How are ethics involved when we are talking about the news industry? :-)

      • The Code only covers Google and Facebook. For now at least.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mabinogi ( 74033 )

        That's the thing - Google isn't bailing out due to ethics, they're bailing out because basically the code requires them to hand over a whole bunch of money to multinational news companies in exchange for.... ...nothing that every other entity in Australia couldn't get for free.

        It creates an artificial barrier to two specific companies. It's about as market-interfering as you can possibly get.
        And whilst government interference in the market can be good when it's to protect consumers, and even under some cir

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • The world of politics is a Great Filter to curate a collective of sociopaths.

        Very well put! I like that! We have cultivated a fine crop this season, wouldn't you agree? We have vintage going going back to 1976.

    • Everybody else would also have to pay, but they don't lean on anybody else until after they make the biggest company come to an agreement.

      It is a double-edged strategy; if Google is willing to walk away, and does so, then Google can only win. They can't convince anybody that they'll be able to force anybody to pay it, they'll have to make the demanded changes and come back. Google might have to take a time out, a temporary loss, but then they get a better program than they'd have had to agree to if the gove

      • Australia can survive without Google, and Google can survive without Australia.

        However, Google makes slightly less money if it leaves Australia, whereas someone else (DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc) will be only too happy to fill in Google's shoes and take that Australian revenue for themselves - meaning no real loss of service for Australians.

        While those alternatives might make less money per impression in complying with the new legislation, by taking over Google's market share, the alternatives still end up wi

        • The issue has nothing to do with "survival' on either side.

          The proposal is for the company to lose money. For the big rich Americans to give some digital welfare to Australian news companies.

          Smaller companies with less money and go there to lose some if they want, but for them it would in become a matter of survival, because of the size of the potential penalties. Nobody is going to go into a controlled market where they're guaranteed to lose money and might also get fined.

          • No one seems to have mentioned it this far - but "Australian news companies" is Rupert Murdoch.

            • He's irrelevant, though. He's 89 years old. Professional managers replaced him long ago. He's just an estate now.

          • Oh please. Google got rich leveraging off the content that everyone else in the world created. It's about time they paid a reasonable amount for the content they crawl all over to create their product.

            • blub blub blub blub blub

              Yes, yes, google got rich and made use of the commons to do it.

              No, google did not get rich off the work of Australians.

              No, google did not get rich off of free linking to news. Everybody always had free linking to all the websites.

    • Re:Here I trust Google more (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dwywit ( 1109409 ) on Sunday October 11, 2020 @05:15PM (#60596254)

      Murdoch's Newscorp (and others) have watched revenues plummet, and this is supposed to stem that tide (perhaps a bad analogy, the tide's going out, but whatever).

      Murdoch has gotten away with anything he wanted in the past, but that tide may be turning.

      One of our past Prime Ministers has launched a petition for an investigation into "fair and balanced news", and it's getting some traction:

      https://www.aph.gov.au/ [aph.gov.au]/petition_sign?id=EN1938

    • The AU government is completely incompetent, and has been trying various head-scratching moves to censor and control the internet for around a decade. According to my local friend, the only reason the internet there ISN'T completely censored (yet) is the government is so fucking incompetent they're having issues implementing their own censorship protocols.

      This move by google is the clincher. The rules written by the idiot government are so unworkable they're willing to say 'fuck off' to an entire moderate

      • ... ISN'T completely censored (yet) ...

        The government doesn't censor the internet, they make ISPs do it, who of course, aren't interested in spending their money protecting another corporations IP. So they use the lazy answer of DNS redirection.

        https://www.holdingredlich.com... [holdingredlich.com]

        ... are so unworkable ...

        While the " idiot government" doesn't have the 'corporations have more rights' attitude common to the USA, most of the censorship is performed under copyright law: Guess which country demands protection the most times?

        ... drunk semiliterate morons ...

        I'm no fan of politicians but I notice that many p

    • Online advertising has stripped newspapers of 12-20 Billion dollars annually (just .au). True, newsprint and Television had this coming and old school will not be back. Some is not measured in direct emails, but the fangs have their teeth into that revenue pie too. That also means a career in Journalism and reporting is poorly paid and insecure as a gig job. Now set that against actual tax paid by these big two, and if they agreed - their tax rate could rise, or some withholding tax estimate. So it makes se

    • No one reads or cares about Apple News, it's a nothingburger so they get away with a lot.

  • He's no stable genius that one.

  • News papers sell adds and subscriptions. Where I live (Canada) almost half their revenue was from the classified ads in the 90s, (individuals sell things to other individuals). Well that is 100% gone to Craigs list, eBay and kijiji. Subscriptions aren't doing well either, almost no one buys a physical paper anymore and people expect everything on the internet to be free. So that leaves advertising which pays almost nothing online. The next problem is competition. I can read any English language new so

    • My first job out of college was at a "local" newspaper owned by one of the big outfits. This was over 30 years ago. Silly me was stunned to realize how much of the paper was not produced locally. After subtracting the classified ads and ignoring the stock market section, probably less than 15 percent was local and much of that was covering the sports at local schools. Everything else was from "the wire." Most newspapers slashed their journalism budget (as in feet on the local/state beat) long before the int

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thomn8r ( 635504 )

      If the rest go bankrupt then there would be enough money left for the remaining ones to actually pay for good journalism. I'm willing to wait while 90% of the papers die and I won't shed a tear for them.

      Since when has monopoly consolidation improved quality? When those 90% go away, you'll end up with a bigger Fox News, who literally argue in court that they are entertainment and no reasonable view should take them seriously.

  • So why don't you cry about it, Google.... Finally someone willing and able to tell Google who is really in charge. Now if we can get the United States government to follow Australia's lead we may yet save the Republic from these ugly, too big for their britches corporations.

  • Google should just walk away. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by qwerty shrdlu ( 799408 ) on Sunday October 11, 2020 @06:18PM (#60596460)
    If providing access to Google News is too much trouble and expense, then they should just drop it completely, like they did in Spain. And if Australian media doesn't want them back, so be it. Just like in Spain. If they do want Google News back, then they, not Google can lobby the government to change the law- at their own expense.
    • Bye bye Google then.
    • Google really DON'T want to walk away. Despite their rhetoric google makes a lot of money from news content, Google are in a very tricky situation, they don't want to let the Australian regulator set a precedent, especially as the rules seem relatively fair as this could get adopted around the world and google do not want to be forced to pay for what they use world wide, but they also don't want to walk away from a very lucrative market.

    • If providing access to Google News is too much trouble and expense, then they should just drop it completely, like they did in Spain.

      Google didn't go willingly in Spain. They went as a last resort. Simply saying that they should walk away rather than do the sensible thing and play both a PR and lobbying game in parallel is a poor business strategy.

      Google has a revenue stream ( you don't think they provide news links for shits and giggles do you? ) which is under assault from the established media. Simply handing your competitors what they want and walking away is not a a wise move. It's akin to KFC no longer selling fried chicken when fr

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close