Why whould Google not just delist problematic sites like they did in Germany, as they tried to implement something similar there AFAIK?
Google got a free license in Germany while Yahoo did not. Even if they ban the free license (which is a whole nother set of even bigger problems) Google can just not list them at all. It's not like they care about Google News all that much.
The problem is, what revenue? News aggregation is not a huge profit center to begin with. Then you take that already-small amount of money and split it between thousands of independent news organizations, each of which requires its own transaction costs, and the transaction costs sink the whole enterprise.
They own the most, but it's not 80% (perhaps they cover 80% of listening markets). They own about 850 stations[1] out of roughly 10,000 commercial stations[2]. However, your point does stand as the second largest owner, Cumulus Media at 455 stations also filed for bankruptcy[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHeartMedia [2] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/business/media/iheartmedi...
and than, should they force google to pay instead of cutting these publishers off? in no way would that be legal. you can't force somebody to pay something, by forcing them to obey.
That's the expected (and fair) outcome. To be fair, why should a multinational be entitled to profit from unauthirized access and distribution of third-party content while the content creators are left with the bill of creating it?
Why should news organizations be entitled to profit from unauthorized access and distribution of third-party content while the creators are left with the bill of creating it? Shouldn't they be paying the celebrities they gossip about for doing all the "noteworthy" things they do and giving them something to drive readership with?
The obvious flaw is that it's a symbiotic relationship. News organizations want traffic from Google in the way that celebrities and companies and politicians want news coverage (in the "no such thing as bad press" sense). They see Google's market cap and think they're making all this money, but the money isn't from news aggregation. That's peanuts. And if you're making a dime and they're making a nickel and you demand a dollar more, you don't get a dollar more, you get a dime less.
That's a good question, and it seems to me that's the whole point of this legislation.
Currently there is a mega-multinational company which posts record profits for services that consist of scraping and unauthorized distribution of third-party content, and in a manner that even eliminates any traffic from the content creator's site.
So in the current state of affairs only the scraper gets paid, and the content creators are left with the bill.
How is that fair?
> Why should news organizations be entitled to profit from unauthorized access and distribution of third-party content while the creators are left with the bill of creating it?
For some reason you've invented this silly idea that researching and developing a newspiece is, somehow, the same as scraping websites.
I'm sure that we can agree that journalism and web scraping have nothing in common, just like xeroxing a book is not the same thing as writing a novel.
Googlebot respects robots.txt. Anyone who doesn't want to be indexed, isn't. For some reason they still seem to want to be.
> I'm sure that we can agree that journalism and web scraping have nothing in common, just like xeroxing a book is not the same thing as writing a novel.
What do you mean? It's basically the same thing. When a reporter interviews some guy, they put his words in their story -- without compensation. How is that fair?
Not true at all. They actually increase traffic. https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-r...
And you seem to have developed your own silly idea that quoting one or two sentences of a news piece is the same as xeroxing it.
I'm quite convinced that people wanting micropayments to be solved are pretty much like friends who say they would give you money if they won the lottery. In other words, these are people who just don't want to do anything for you, but don't want to admit to that. So they latch onto some implausible scenario and enthusiastically swear up and down that should lightening strike, they will absolutely do X, knowing the odds are very long against that happening.
Are you referring to wholesale reproduction of the content?
Or hyperlinks and short excerpts?
How exactly is it "unauthorized"?