AUSTRALIA VS GOOGLE--WHOM TO SUPPORT
Australia contemplates legislation that Google opposes. The proposed law would require Google to pay news publishers for using their content. Currently, Google uses for free the content generated by these publishers. Google enjoys the revenue, publishers do the work. So, the proposed Australian law says no to this arrangement and requires Google to pay for using what other news providers generate.
Google's reaction was predictable--a tantrum? After all, Google owns its platform. So, Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia if the law passes. This is kind of the corporate equivalent of a little brat saying, "If I don't get my way, I will hold my breath until I turn blue." The Australian Prime Minister has wisely replied, "We don't respond to threats." That is heartening. I would enjoy seeing Google turn a deep shade of bluish-purple--metaphorically speaking, of course.
Let's put this into perspective. Suppose a magazine published the stories of authors but refused to pay them for that right; thus using intellectual property the magazine did not own to generate revenue for itself. Or suppose a service pirated songs, movies, and software for downloading without paying for the right to do so, which is, incidentally, a practice in which China leads the world. Aside from Google and China, who would admit that this practice is fair and equitable. Don't be shy. Let's see the raised hands.
Now, suppose a sovereign nation opposed this practice by proposing a law requiring that authors, artists, and software programmers, be paid for their work. In response, the magazine and the downloading service threaten to suspend operating in that country. What would be the public reaction to this threat? Perhaps, "Good riddance! We'll get along without you."
I suppose that Google sees appropriating the content generated by others as an expression of international understanding, something like a value it can share with one of the most populous and repressive regimes on earth. But Google and China have even more in common. Both also share the desire to control the news and information that people can access. So both may share a lasting and warm embrace. Oh, the joys of international understanding.
So the question is this: whom should we support in this dispute--Google or Australia? Now that is a real poser.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/21/22243468/google-threatens-to-remove-its-search-engine-from-australia-if-new-law-goes-into-effect?utm_content=buffer9e41e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Data Analyst
4 年Google is not pirating content from these news sources. They are linking to it. They are actually providing a service to these news sources by doing so. The news organizations can stop them easily enough by not accepting these redirects. Of course, they would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so. News organizations are hurting, because people aren't willing to pay for subscriptions. Those in Australia are trying to make up for this lost revenue, by essentially staging a train robbery. Google is right to thumb its nose at them. I am not willing to pay for subscriptions, because I'm always concerned that I'm not going to get my money's worth. Plus, if I subscribe to every publication that might have a story I'd like to read once or twice a month, I won't have anything left to eat on. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to pay for content. I just don't like the current model. I might be willing to pay $30 a month for a subscription to a news portal, which gives me unlimited access to a list of news sources I have chosen. If I then want to add a new one a month later, I can either cough up some more money for an additional slot, or drop another that doesn't appear to be carrying its weight.