News publishers could charge search engines for story extracts
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
So, you're for too big to fail? If you like the world as it is, from searching to stores to banks and so forth, you'll love it when the big boys have legislative monopolies as opposed to the free market competition that was, and still could be, the driving force behind the www.
As is, Google is selling ads, making money off of showing other people's wares. For free.
As is, Google is selling ads, making money off of showing other people's wares. For free.
this gets tiresome .... can you find another drum to beat
how is the European Union allowing a newspaper
- running a website
- charging a fee for a search engine to display a snip it of text from an article the newspaper published on their website - Too Big Too Fail
[a search result that will result in a page view for the news paper [assuming] they have the information being searched for]
the old business model is circling the drain .... times change
as I said instead of page hits, they disappear from search results ... and their traffic evaporates
European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers
“Sharing of Value” Proposal Exposes Rightsholder Greed
The assumption that copyright owners should be entitled to share in any value created by online platforms is never really examined by the Commission. The theory is that because online platforms are doing rather well in the digital environment, and because traditional publishing industries are doing less well, this gives the publishers some kind of claim to share in the profits of the platforms. It's a questionable starting point, and as we'll see, the recommendations that flow from it are ill-considered and harmful.
The first of the two problems that copyright owners supposedly face in extracting such value is that there is a large amount of user-generated content uploaded by users to sharing platforms, and that European law does not place an obligation on platforms to proactively police this content for possible copyright infringement, but instead relies on the latter to identify that the material has been uploaded without authorization and to request its removal. That existing law strikes a reasonable balance, similar to Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S.
Major entertainment companies characterize this as a problem because it means that copyright owners have less ability to ask online platforms to pay licensing fees for their content. In the case of user-generated content platforms (think YouTube and Soundcloud), the platform can simply offer to remove a copyright-owner's content rather than paying for it—or, in practice, to voluntarily offer a compromise such as YouTube's Content ID that automatically scans uploaded content and shares ad revenues for content identified as the copyright owner's.
As for platforms that offer access to their own library of content (think Netflix and Spotify), rightsholders contend that they may be willing to pay less in order to remain competitive with the user-generated content platforms. In either case, major copyright holders contend that platforms should be paying them more for the content that the platforms make available online.
“Sharing of Value” Proposal Exposes Rightsholder Greed
The assumption that copyright owners should be entitled to share in any value created by online platforms is never really examined by the Commission. The theory is that because online platforms are doing rather well in the digital environment, and because traditional publishing industries are doing less well, this gives the publishers some kind of claim to share in the profits of the platforms. It's a questionable starting point, and as we'll see, the recommendations that flow from it are ill-considered and harmful.
The first of the two problems that copyright owners supposedly face in extracting such value is that there is a large amount of user-generated content uploaded by users to sharing platforms, and that European law does not place an obligation on platforms to proactively police this content for possible copyright infringement, but instead relies on the latter to identify that the material has been uploaded without authorization and to request its removal. That existing law strikes a reasonable balance, similar to Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S.
Major entertainment companies characterize this as a problem because it means that copyright owners have less ability to ask online platforms to pay licensing fees for their content. In the case of user-generated content platforms (think YouTube and Soundcloud), the platform can simply offer to remove a copyright-owner's content rather than paying for it—or, in practice, to voluntarily offer a compromise such as YouTube's Content ID that automatically scans uploaded content and shares ad revenues for content identified as the copyright owner's.
As for platforms that offer access to their own library of content (think Netflix and Spotify), rightsholders contend that they may be willing to pay less in order to remain competitive with the user-generated content platforms. In either case, major copyright holders contend that platforms should be paying them more for the content that the platforms make available online.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Hey, that's what the whole thing relies on, people simply not willing to resist. So, good for you. Accept it. Just take it.
Hey, that's what the whole thing relies on, people simply not willing to resist. So, good for you. Accept it. Just take it.
you still have not explained how I am all in for 'too big to fail' in this instance
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well, for starters, would we agree that google has an awful lot of power, far more than might be expected if you were drawing up how you wanted a publicly paid for utility, the internet, to be shared?
any of the big search engines ... at the moment that is google
in the past it was yahoo, Hotbot, Lycos, Altavista ...... etc
I am sure for vast legions AOL was the 'go to' source for news ...
but for this discussion yes, someone wants to search for something 'Google' is the defacto standard
what does this have to do with forcing ANY search engine [but especially those with deep pockets] to pay a fee to aggregate news stories - kinda like Drudge does
Leaked Soros Document Calls For Regulating Internet To Favor ‘Open Society’ Supporters
An internal proposed strategy from George Soros’s Open Society Justice Initiative calls for international regulation of private actors’ decisions on “what information is taken off the Internet and what may remain.” Those regulations, the document notes, should favor “those most supportive of open society.”
The Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) is part of the Open Society Foundations, Soros’s secretive network of political organizations. According to the organization’s website, “The Open Society Justice Initiative uses law to protect and empower people around the world, supporting the values and work of the Open Society Foundations.”
The call for international control of the internet is part of a 34-page document titled “2014 Proposed strategy” that lays out OSJI’s goals for between 2014 and 2017.
The leaked document was one of 2,500 documents released by “hacktivist” group DCLeaks. As reported by The Daily Caller, the section of DCLeaks’ website dealing with Soros has since gone offline for unknown reasons. TheDC saved a version of the 2014 strategy before the site went offline.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/l...-favor-open-society-supporters/#ixzz4IjTo6EBj
An internal proposed strategy from George Soros’s Open Society Justice Initiative calls for international regulation of private actors’ decisions on “what information is taken off the Internet and what may remain.” Those regulations, the document notes, should favor “those most supportive of open society.”
The Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) is part of the Open Society Foundations, Soros’s secretive network of political organizations. According to the organization’s website, “The Open Society Justice Initiative uses law to protect and empower people around the world, supporting the values and work of the Open Society Foundations.”
The call for international control of the internet is part of a 34-page document titled “2014 Proposed strategy” that lays out OSJI’s goals for between 2014 and 2017.
The leaked document was one of 2,500 documents released by “hacktivist” group DCLeaks. As reported by The Daily Caller, the section of DCLeaks’ website dealing with Soros has since gone offline for unknown reasons. TheDC saved a version of the 2014 strategy before the site went offline.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/l...-favor-open-society-supporters/#ixzz4IjTo6EBj
