It's a can't live with them, can't live without them situation.
Google shows a detailed summary that 95% of people only read, so Canadian news companies miss out on the lion's share of ad revenue. But without Google doing this they miss out on the 5% that click through.
Google is the predator here. In a just world, Google would give the news companies a share of the search revenue (like Bing does with Microsoft Rewards).
The real unfortunate thing here is the bill is absolute dogshit that Google must "ensure a significant portion of Indigenous news outlets benefit" and that "two of more journalists" constitutes a news organization (ie husband and wife bloggers are a news organization) and so on.
"two of more journalists" constitutes a news organization (ie husband and wife bloggers are a news organization)
Stupid law notwithstanding I don't have a problem with this. How would you define a news organization? I'm actually surprised they didn't go with "Anyone the CBC and Trudeau agree deserve the title."
Some kind of minimum reach. More than 10,000 views a year or something like that.
As it is, Google has to negotiate a legal contract with you because you post once a year about your neighbor leaving his trash cans out too long? That's a welfare program for lawyers.
This only applies to Google/Facebook because has a cutoff over how much market share companies have so that it's not onerous on small upstart competitors, same principle should apply on the other end as well.
It's a can't live with them, can't live without them situation.
Google shows a detailed summary that 95% of people only read, so Canadian news companies miss out on the lion's share of ad revenue. But without Google doing this they miss out on the 5% that click through.
Google is the predator here. In a just world, Google would give the news companies a share of the search revenue (like Bing does with Microsoft Rewards).
The real unfortunate thing here is the bill is absolute dogshit that Google must "ensure a significant portion of Indigenous news outlets benefit" and that "two of more journalists" constitutes a news organization (ie husband and wife bloggers are a news organization) and so on.
Stupid law notwithstanding I don't have a problem with this. How would you define a news organization? I'm actually surprised they didn't go with "Anyone the CBC and Trudeau agree deserve the title."
Some kind of minimum reach. More than 10,000 views a year or something like that.
As it is, Google has to negotiate a legal contract with you because you post once a year about your neighbor leaving his trash cans out too long? That's a welfare program for lawyers.
This only applies to Google/Facebook because has a cutoff over how much market share companies have so that it's not onerous on small upstart competitors, same principle should apply on the other end as well.