Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 181 posts

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#71

Post by dasil003 »

ForHackernews wrote: post #63
notatoad wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most people do need middlemen though. if you require everybody to host their own content on their own websites, you go back to the old days of the internet where the only content was published by nerds. which had a certain charm, but was a lot smaller and less inclusive than today's internet.

Alternatively: You create a market for better tools that make it easier for individuals and companies to self-publish.

Problem is no one wants to be a pipe. Imagine what Twitter could have been if they had accepted this vision instead of turning into yet another media company that sells ads. Even ISPs are trying to be media companies.

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#72

Post by JumpCrisscross »

paol wrote: post #9

I'm a lot less worried about the "link tax" clauses than the copyright liability clause. Not because the link tax is a good idea but because it's a spectacular own goal that is mainly going to hurt the idiots who lobbied for it. Giving companies direct liability for policing copyright in user-uploaded content is a much bigger disaster, on two separate fronts, both highly damaging: 1) Implementing youtube-style conten…

> Are we going back to the point where only a handful of content producers exist and everybody else should be content just consuming it?

YouTube could just block non-local content to users in the EU and charge content providers in the EU an upload fee. The upload fee could be made low enough so as to not be intrusitive (or incubate competition) but high enough to cover a good fraction of the additional costs.

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#73

Post by sigstoat »

notatoad wrote: post #60
wbl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No because you can publish it yourself. We don't need giant middlemen to use the Internet.

most people do need middlemen though. if you require everybody to host their own content on their own websites, you go back to the old days of the internet where the only content was published by nerds. which had a certain charm, but was a lot smaller and less inclusive than today's internet.

it could be even easier than it was.

there's no reason someone couldn't make a small bit of desktop software which, fed AWS/Azure/GCP/DO/github pages/etc credentials, set up every aspect of a website, and automatically synced some local directory of content to the relevant site.

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#74

Post by IanCal »

vorpalhex wrote: post #39
IanCal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) Implementing youtube-style content id will be a huge burden for small companies. There's stuff in every version I've read about the measures required being different due to size so I don't really follow the point here. And people on the other end (the uploaders) must have recourse, there's a mandated appeals process unlike the current situation.

I'm sure you'll be able to fill out a form and get an email a day later, "We're sorry, we've reviewed your case but have decided against you (because we have no reason to ever take any risk)" The DMCA is a shining example of just how well these appeals processes work...

> The measures taken by the online content sharing service providers should be without prejudice to the application of exceptions and limitations to copyright, including in particular those which guarantee the freedom of expression of users. For that purpose the service providers should put in place mechanisms allowing users to complain about the blocking or removal of uploaded content that could benefit from an exception or limitation to copyright. Replies to the users’ complaints should be provided in a timely manner. To make these mechanisms function, cooperation from rightholders is needed, in particular with regard to the assessment of the complaints submitted and justifications for the removal of users’ content.

Emphasis mine.

The section also says member states are free to put in place independent authorities to assess these, although I'm sure somewhere else it in this is a requirement rather than simply a suggestion. I'll update if I can find it.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#75

Post by deckar01 »

nine_k wrote: post #55
ma2rten wrote: post #43

Most news sites have comment sections. I am wondering if someone could post copyrighted material on purpose in the comment section and use the new EU law to sue publishers.

IIRC, according to the new regulations, anything that a user uploads must be pre-screened for copyright violations before being made public.

This makes complete sense to me. There is no reason that posting content to a platform that millions of people could see should be free or instant. Other publishing platforms take responsibility for their content, and it costs them money that Google isn't spending, because it would rather spend it on legal on the back end.

I wonder if any platform has ever created a moderation system that can acheive this scale. I imagine it would require captcha like screening process with multiple tiers of moderator specialization and appeals.

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#76

Post by sarcasmic »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #12

"Traffic of news sites depends heavily on Google." It seems counterintuitive to me, at least for my use case. I rarely search for "news", I have a handful of websites to which I usually go to for them. I might search the name in Google if for whatever reason it doesn't show on the top results when I start typing the name on the search bar, because I'm too lazy to use bookmarks. Do most other people use aggregators or…

Some people use aggregators on purpose, because it gives them a broad-spectrum view. Some use aggregators unintentionally, considering Google-searching text boxes have replaced URL bars in all major browsers and platforms over the last decade.

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#77

Post by AnssiH »

vorpalhex wrote: post #39
IanCal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) Implementing youtube-style content id will be a huge burden for small companies. There's stuff in every version I've read about the measures required being different due to size so I don't really follow the point here. And people on the other end (the uploaders) must have recourse, there's a mandated appeals process unlike the current situation.

I'm sure you'll be able to fill out a form and get an email a day later, "We're sorry, we've reviewed your case but have decided against you (because we have no reason to ever take any risk)" The DMCA is a shining example of just how well these appeals processes work...

I don't think that would satisfy the requirements of the directive:

> Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints.

It also requires Member States to ensure "that users have access to an independent body for the resolution of disputes as well as to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright rules".

(source PDF http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//... )

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#78

Post by teraflop »

jopsen wrote: post #40
whatshisface wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually, people will have to run ads on their own websites, the same as before Youtube. There will be a lot less video content because serving video is a tough thing.

I'm sure there are cloud providers out there offering this rather cheap... And it's only going to be cheaper in the future :)

It won't be so cheap if those cloud providers have to charge you the cost of the liability they're incurring for your potential copyright infringement.

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#79

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tsunamifury wrote: post #4

I think the author has a good grasp of the situation that is more important than the average person understands. Murdoch knows his empire is waning and is attempting to ingratiate himself to government officials by becoming an unofficial mouthpiece of several conservative governments. His coup d'etat would be if he is able to turn that relationship official in some regions, pass laws to make his content mandatory to…

> His coup d'etat would be if he is able to turn that relationship official in some regions

“In Germany, a comparable anti-snippet law was rendered powerless by a group of publishers who did the math and offered their content for free in exchange for the usual stream of clicks sent back to them” [1]. In summary, this law has made having access to Google more valuable.

[1] https://mondaynote.com/the-media-industry-and-the-make-googl...

Re: The Media Industry and the “Make-Google-Pay” Fantasy

#80

Post by drb91 »

milesskorpen wrote: post #50
paol wrote: post #9

I'm a lot less worried about the "link tax" clauses than the copyright liability clause. Not because the link tax is a good idea but because it's a spectacular own goal that is mainly going to hurt the idiots who lobbied for it. Giving companies direct liability for policing copyright in user-uploaded content is a much bigger disaster, on two separate fronts, both highly damaging: 1) Implementing youtube-style conten…

I'd hope (?) that one outcome is 3rd party sass companies which are willing to do this screening (ala Sift Science) and potentially even insure to handle the risk (ala Climate Corp, which offers farmers insurance based on the outcomes of its models). If the EU has these laws, this could be a solid business model.

Yes, this can make jobs, and also some individuals very wealthy, but this is a net loss for the users of the internet: just another channel controlled by profit-seeking corporate motives.
Post reply on HN