I don't think this is an invalid argument. This is arguable how YouTube works. One thing that is very interesting about Meta is that they have side-stepped the need to actually invest in content. There's nothing wrong with saying "my content drove eyeballs to your platform, so give me a cut of the ad revenue".
I think the bigger issue is, we have decided the marginal cost of journalism is nearly 0
It's not that the marginal cost of journalism is a pittance, but that the marginal value to a social network of links to a few news sites is actually zero. I would take a bet that if social networks just up and banned all external links period it would be at worst revenue neutral.
I think this is a distinction without a difference. YouTube paid for content long before they got serious about IP. Similarly, TikTok had to adopt the same mindset with the Creator fund.
More seriously, the reason why Google pays for content is not because they are billion dollar content, it's because the marginal cost for video is greater than 0, and if they didn't pay for it, the content simply wouldn't exist. However, news article pretty much spawn out of thin air. It exists despite the tech giants not paying for it.
Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too.
a) Because the photographer uploaded it, granting a license to display it under the TOS
b) Because someone else uploaded it without permission and Facebook is protected by DMCA safe harbor provisions so long as they remove it upon request
> Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too.
Lots of things are expensive without creating some obligation for an unrelated third party to pay you for it.
And the government did choose to require Facebook to pay for the news. Facebook decided the price wasn't worth it, so now they no longer allow news on their platform. They aren't getting anything for free. Fair and square.
There's no difference between amateur and professional photographers under the law. In both cases it's a photo uploaded to Facebook by someone who owns the copyright on it. When you upload a photo to Facebook you grant them a license to display it when people see your post. They're not Getty, you're not selling your photo to them.
Like I'm not sure where the disconnect it, do you wish Facebook had a monetization scheme like YouTube? Because that's entirely voluntary. For "pirated" content monetization is a voluntary offering that serves as an alternative to issuing a takedown request.
Still no comment on why news corps have to pay for pics and content when FB gets it all for free.