> There have been 52 registered meetings with Ministers, MPs, and senior officials or roughly one meeting every four days since election day nearly 8 months ago. This represents an astonishing level of access and may help explain why the concerns of independent media and the broader public are missing from the bill. [1]
[1]: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/04/how-did-news-media-canad...
News media wants to get paid for the content they pay to create.
Who’s rent seeking again?
no, i wont consider posting the article to be work.
> rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work
which if it weren’t information about disasters, most people wouldn’t care about too much.
posting or hosting, once the article is written, it’s all rent seeking.
That almost makes sense in a non-digitized world. I.e. It’s not rent seeking to sell newspapers, because each newspaper costs money and takes work to make - but in a digitized world, you’re essentially saying any profiting off content is “rent seeking”. Like if I make a video course teaching a skill and I try to sell it, that’s rent seeking? Seems like that waters the concept of rent seeking down to the point of uselessness.
if you wish to carry this further from the initial point, you do so without me.
So it’s rent seeking for the original creator to post it for free and sell ads against it?
And what’s with this “original creator” language? Does that only apply to the author, or can the company that paid the author to create it sell it without being rent-seekers?
My point is: you called fb and news producers both rent seekers, and i don’t believe they both are unless you use a overly broad to the point of useless definition of rent-seeking.
It is a rent that secures the production aspect, but we could also have patronage models that fund the creation separately. If your game is kickstarted or you get a monthly donation to produce a video there is no need to profit from creating artificial scarcity in the distribution.
In this instance, if I understand correctly, Facebook is supposed to pay news companies whenever someone posts a link to their news site. That's ridiculous. Hacker News also falls under this law, so does X, Reddit, Mastodon,... Since when it became ok to charge for your users sharing links on your "link sharing" website?
1. Defines a negotiation framework between news creators and online sharing sites. So not a specific fee, just forcing sites to come the table. Which means flat rates (not per share) or percentage based arrangements (like spotify does with artists) are totally possible.
2. only applies when there is a significant power imbalance between the news creator and sharing site. This bit i think means it wouldn’t apply to hn or a mastodon instance. Twitter i’d guess it would apply to. reddit idk, they’re smaller than you’d think.