It may be that one consequence is that "Google News" is hit, but the main target of such a law might be web sites that lift entire articles and "redescribe them".
So-called "content aggregators" which are parasitic against news web sites.
Google is bound to try and spin this as being a 100% negative. When in fact it's always a good thing to have companies compete, if Google wants in on the news business then start hiring journalists.
How many times? Google don't want to be in the news business. What they are doing is providing a headline, a few lines and a link to the original source of the story. Absolutely nothing 'parasitic' about it.
You didn't read the second half of my post. If you did you'd have seen my argument is this model hurts newspapers who would rather their readers go directly to the news site in question rather than going to Google News where they're shown news from other agencies. I never suggested Google steals the entire article. But the point is The Times would much rather people go directly to www.thetimes.co.uk than end up at The Times due to clicking a link on Google News.
It's like saying Starbucks would be happy for their coffee to be sold in a "Google Coffee Shop" along side Costa coffee and all the other brands as it's "free advertising". For a consumer it would be ideal but for Starbucks or Costa it hurts them commercially because their brand is polluted by being next to rivals. Simply being on Google News means you're next to rival news outlets who piggyback off your story being on the front page and have people clicking their "related to" links instead.
In an industry where loyalty is the key to survival due to pay walls and subscriptions.. Google News works against that model.
Not really. It would be more like Google coffee putting the customer in a taxi paid for by them and sending them to Starbucks.
You didn't read the second half of my post. If you did you'd have seen my argument is this model hurts newspapers who would rather their readers go directly to the news site in question rather than going to Google News where they're shown news from other agencies. I never suggested Google steals the entire article. But the point is The Times would much rather people go directly to www.thetimes.co.uk than end up at The Times due to clicking a link on Google News.
It's like saying Starbucks would be happy for their coffee to be sold in a "Google Coffee Shop" along side Costa coffee and all the other brands as it's "free advertising". For a consumer it would be ideal but for Starbucks or Costa it hurts them commercially because their brand is polluted by being next to rivals. Simply being on Google News means you're next to rival news outlets who piggyback off your story being on the front page and have people clicking their "related to" links instead.
In an industry where loyalty is the key to survival due to pay walls and subscriptions.. Google News works against that model.
This is the key issue. Traditional newspapers are dying off and their outdated business strategies can not compete sufficiently with blogs, apps, and news aggregators (ie. Google). They have yet found a way to successfully monetize the internet.
Wonder is Google will just stop linking to Spanish newspapers? That would really hurt said newspaper sites. If the do the Spanish authorities really will have cut of they newspapers nose to spite their face.
Of course.. they've already threatened to do this. They have the power. It's like Amazon who threaten to stop taking pre-orders on certain books unless publishers cave into their commercial demands.
Not really. It would be more like Google coffee putting the customer in a taxi paid for by them and sending them to Starbucks.
I disagree because by walking into the Google Coffee shop they've already been shown all the other brands (news stories in this instance) and any concept of customer loyalty is lost. What if the customer thinks "Hmm Costa is cheaper, I'll buy that instead" but the only reason they walked into "Google Coffee" was because of the Starbucks news item. I'm mixing terms to illustrate my point.
This is the key issue. Traditional newspapers are dying off and their outdated business strategies can not compete sufficiently with blogs, apps, and news aggregators (ie. Google). They have yet found a way to successfully monetize the internet.
True but the argument from the news companies would be why do they have to roll over and accept it just because Google has such a well established hold over the web and seem to think if content is online it's free for them to put in their news shop window?
I disagree because by walking into the Google Coffee shop they've already been shown all the other brands (news stories in this instance) and any concept of customer loyalty is lost. What if the customer thinks "Hmm Costa is cheaper, I'll buy that instead" but the only reason they walked into "Google Coffee" was because of the Starbucks news item. I'm mixing terms to illustrate my point.
Kind of like a coffee price comparison site. Like the ones insurance companies etc are itching to be on.
True but the argument from the news companies would be why do they have to roll over and accept it just because Google has such a well established hold over the web and seem to think if content is online it's free for them to put in their news shop window?
Because the internet is here and there is no putting that Genie back in the bottle. Protectionism might work in the very short term but in the long term they must adapt or die off. Unless the governments nationalize their media outlets.
I disagree because by walking into the Google Coffee shop they've already been shown all the other brands (news stories in this instance) and any concept of customer loyalty is lost. What if the customer thinks "Hmm Costa is cheaper, I'll buy that instead" but the only reason they walked into "Google Coffee" was because of the Starbucks news item. I'm mixing terms to illustrate my point.
You know what? When I read the news, I want multiple sources on a story. That is the only way to get balanced coverage. This is what the likes of Google and other aggregators provide. There is no reason to effectively tax a company to do this, it is as idiotic as a piracy tax on removable media.
I see no reason why Google shouldn't be taxed. They make $Millions of a week, no doubt $100,000s a day. Google also have a dedicated news section on their site related to news, so rightly so they should be taxed. It's not like pages are just showing in normal search results. Google are benefiting massively from regulary updated web-pages.
I see no reason why Google shouldn't be taxed. They make $Millions of a week, no doubt $100,000s a day. Google also have a dedicated news section on their site related to news, so rightly so they should be taxed. It's not like pages are just showing in normal search results. Google are benefiting massively from regulary updated web-pages.
You didn't read any of the other posts in this thread did you? Because everything you said has been brought up and discussed. Except the taking money from a successful company just because they are a successful company.
I see no reason why Google shouldn't be taxed. They make $Millions of a week, no doubt $100,000s a day. Google also have a dedicated news section on their site related to news, so rightly so they should be taxed. It's not like pages are just showing in normal search results. Google are benefiting massively from regulary updated web-pages.
Why should they be taxed for prvidng news? I guess you're a fan of taxing the air we breathe? How about a tax every time we go.to the loo? Taxing less not more is the way forward.
Comments
How many times? Google don't want to be in the news business. What they are doing is providing a headline, a few lines and a link to the original source of the story. Absolutely nothing 'parasitic' about it.
Not really. It would be more like Google coffee putting the customer in a taxi paid for by them and sending them to Starbucks.
This is the key issue. Traditional newspapers are dying off and their outdated business strategies can not compete sufficiently with blogs, apps, and news aggregators (ie. Google). They have yet found a way to successfully monetize the internet.
Of course.. they've already threatened to do this. They have the power. It's like Amazon who threaten to stop taking pre-orders on certain books unless publishers cave into their commercial demands.
I disagree because by walking into the Google Coffee shop they've already been shown all the other brands (news stories in this instance) and any concept of customer loyalty is lost. What if the customer thinks "Hmm Costa is cheaper, I'll buy that instead" but the only reason they walked into "Google Coffee" was because of the Starbucks news item. I'm mixing terms to illustrate my point.
True but the argument from the news companies would be why do they have to roll over and accept it just because Google has such a well established hold over the web and seem to think if content is online it's free for them to put in their news shop window?
Kind of like a coffee price comparison site. Like the ones insurance companies etc are itching to be on.
Because the internet is here and there is no putting that Genie back in the bottle. Protectionism might work in the very short term but in the long term they must adapt or die off. Unless the governments nationalize their media outlets.
You know what? When I read the news, I want multiple sources on a story. That is the only way to get balanced coverage. This is what the likes of Google and other aggregators provide. There is no reason to effectively tax a company to do this, it is as idiotic as a piracy tax on removable media.
28 in the case of the right to be forgotten.
That's exactly what i'm saying. It's a dedicated platform.
You didn't read any of the other posts in this thread did you? Because everything you said has been brought up and discussed. Except the taking money from a successful company just because they are a successful company.
Why should they be taxed for prvidng news? I guess you're a fan of taxing the air we breathe? How about a tax every time we go.to the loo? Taxing less not more is the way forward.