Both Google and Meta have taken steps to start paying US publishers for aggregating their news content, but neither tech giant has yet found a perfect solution that would fairly compensate publishers and potentially help combat the mass shuttering of newsrooms across America.
The article makes it sound like they are vacuuming up news stories from other websites and then reprinting them on theirs. If that's the case, why can't this just be handled under existing copyright laws?
I can't reprint paper news articles and sell them myself, so why would you be able to do what amounts to the same thing on the internet?
So then, what's the issue? Shouldn't the traditional news sites be happy that someone is pushing traffic to them? They want more money? What is their argument/rationale for that?
The article makes it sound like they are vacuuming up news stories from other websites and then reprinting them on theirs. If that's the case, why can't this just be handled under existing copyright laws?
I can't reprint paper news articles and sell them myself, so why would you be able to do what amounts to the same thing on the internet?
That's not what they're doing though. They're providing links to the other sites.
Unless they mean the Google News app but I'm pretty sure that sends you to their site too
Which itself is giving advertisement, publicity, and undue influence to those old newsrooms that otherwise would have been shuttered long ago.
So then, what's the issue? Shouldn't the traditional news sites be happy that someone is pushing traffic to them? They want more money? What is their argument/rationale for that?
They don't understand how the internet