The Facebook Fiasco

[old man emu]

15 minutes ago, octave said:

I don't have time to read it today but others can check it out.

I just skimmed through it. It seems to be legislative gobble-de-gook, but what struck me is that it all seems to be on the side of the media. 

 

On 20 April 2020, the Australian Government asked the ACCC to develop a mandatory code of conduct to address the bargaining power imbalance between Australian news media businesses and digital platforms, specifically Google and Facebook. The ACCC released a draft code for public consultation on 31 July 2020.

 

ScoMo went to the USA and met with Trump in September 2019. Who knows which of Trump's nefarious plans were fed to ScoMo during their meetings? Or was this idea the work of the real political puppet master - Murdoch? Murdoch's holding company, News Corp, owns The New York Post, The Times of London, and The Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Company, among many other assets. Murdoch, now 88 years old, currently spends his days at the helm of another News Corp property, Fox News. The media mogul also reportedly has a close personal relationship with President Trump and calls him frequently in the Oval Office, according to The Times.

[Bruce Tuncks]

What a fun thing to try and see who the news really belongs to. For example, if you rob a bank, do you own copyright on the story? Why not?

Ok, so you can't benefit financially from a crime you have committed. What if the story was not about a crime? For example, if you had just flown your Jab across the pacific?

 If the perp or main character is cut out of ownership of the story, who the hell does own it?

[spacesailor]

MURDOCK 

spacesailor

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

if you rob a bank, do you own copyright on the story

Copyright is the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc. Works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 70 years after his or her death.”

 

Modern copyright law has been influenced by an array of older legal rights that have been recognized throughout history, including the moral rights of the author who created a work, the economic rights of a benefactor who paid to have a copy made, the property rights of the individual owner of a copy, and a sovereign's right to censor and to regulate the printing industry. 

 

The story of the robbery only gains copyright protection once it is committed to a permanent form, either in writing, picture, or physical capturing of sound. If you made a permanent record of the robbery from your perspective, then you have created copyright. I could make a permanent record of the same event, using my observations; the results of my research into it, and maybe even an interview with you. I would hold the copyright to that permanent record. So two or more people might produce works relating to the same subject, but copyright is not breached. If however, I copied slabs of material from your work and did not have your permission to do so, then I have breached your copyright.

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

you can't benefit financially from a crime you have committed

If we are still talking about your story of how you carried out the robbery, it depends on how the recounting of the robbery fits in with the complete work. If you were a notorious criminal and wrote a book based on your life of crime, then the recounting of one robbery, maybe the most infamous of your capers, would be an essential part of the book, and could make the book " the sum of its parts". The right to include it in your book would depend on the tone of the book. If you spent the whole book bragging about your exploits, then the story would probably be deemed to be profiting from crime. If, however it was a simple retelling of your life's events, then it would be OK to include it and to profit from the whole book.

[spacesailor]

NOW, 

Our own photo's have a " Properties box " in it we can put  "our name ", If said photo gets used by industry.

Are we being robbed ?.

And, how many  of us Bother.

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

The legislation is definitely weighted to the media.. again, for the wrong reasons, but at this stage, foreseeably for the right outcomes. Facebook this week flexed its muscle, but it didn't take out just the media outlets covered by the legislation, it took out the "news" from volunteer groups, emergency services, et al. Farcebook and Gargoyle particularly have disproportionate power - and is an example of why pure capitalism doesn't work. It is also a worry that society acquiesces to these parasites. Also, just read that Farcebook have resumed negotiating.

 

The press is complicit in a way. Many news stories just regurgitate uneducated and unqualified tweets in response to events, rather than do the investigate stuff required. I have yet to see or hear anyone refer disgruntled farcebook users to alternatives, such as minds.com (note, I just searched it, started the joining process and gave up as it wanted too much data for my liking. However, I have access to it…and guess what.,.. for £5/month I can get access to the mind+ content, which is probably why it is not a viable alternative – but if it doesn’t sell your info, it has to keep the lights on). Whatsapp is now going to share data with its parent. It beggar’s belief that people tie themselves to one platform for all their information and news needs and an increasingly major component of their interaction with society.  To be honest, it is just another example of how people are sheep... like those who blindly support Trump or are religious zealots.

 

I can tell you from experience, I have indirectly worked alongside one of the major tech firms and they are as ruthless as they come. They will extract every penny and every ounce of blood from you, and will try and make you then pay for the privilege.  So, yes, weighted in favour of the press... who are no virtues of purity and integrity (well, except for Auntie, of course ;-)). But compared to these fellas, they are in the grey, rather than red or black zone.

 

OK.. to this:

On 20/02/2021 at 12:58 AM, Bruce Tuncks said:

What a fun thing to try and see who the news really belongs to. For example, if you rob a bank, do you own copyright on the story? Why not?

Ok, so you can't benefit financially from a crime you have committed. What if the story was not about a crime? For example, if you had just flown your Jab across the pacific?

 If the perp or main character is cut out of ownership of the story, who the hell does own it?

A very good question, sir. And OME is pretty spot on in his copyright answer, as I understand the law. However, remember, I studied it quite a few years ago. The key to copyright is that it has to be original work. It can reference existing work, as long as it is appropriately credited and the original works don't make up the meat of the new "original" work. Otherwise, there would be no book, TV, or film reviews, as an example. Also, every academic essay from about year 8 through to Phd level would also be plagiarism (sort of)...

 

So, when we talk about, for example, flying his Jab across the pacific, say Bruce posted a detailed synopsis of the flight on recAviation... And I read it, I decided I would do a write up on it for Aussie Flying, of which I would get paid, say, $500..My only reference is Bruce's write up on RecAviation - I don't bother interviewing him; I don't bother looking at flightradar, or checking recordings on liveATC, etc. Have I breached copyright? Well, the answer may surprise you. As long as I have not copied Bruce's work, but written my own version of Bruce's story, I have NOT, generally, breached Bruce's copyright. It's hard to believe, but it is true.

The latest European rules on Copyright are not universal, whereas, virtually every country reciprocates a common set of rules on it. However, Bruce may be able to claim under copyright if I have not differentiated my wording against his enough - If I have merely replicated what he has said in different words, I can be found in breach of copyright. I may have to add something of my own - for example - an opinion. Say, due to low cloud, Bruce was literally skimming the tops of the waves, but said nothing more about it, I could add, it was incredibly dangerous, he was lucky to get away with his life and he must have balls of steel - and that would be enough to get me around copyright provided the article was my wording and sufficiently different. I would, of course, have to cite any direct quotes and if I were to use Bruce's photos, I would breach copyright, but my understanding is even then, if I modify the photo sufficiently (say it was a hazy photo and I cleared it up, put in a red sunset, maybe added a couple of ships on the horizon), it is an original work. Although the latter I am going on hearsay (or is it heresy) ...

 

Going to Spacey's question - well sort of . Let's say, Spacey was sitting in his Hummelbird with the garage/hangar door open and it was relatively close to the street. and a passer-by snapped a photo of it and sold it for $1,000 and the local rag ran a (now online) article about a man crazy enough to try flying his aircraft out of his garage. Apart from the libel, could Spacey sue the photographer for say, $1,000 for breach of copyright because Spacey was doing the sitting in the Hummelbird and therefore he owns the intellectual property?

 

Well.. no.. he can't.. because the photo is the original work of the photographer, not of Spacey (sorry, Spacey!). But Spacey is pi$$ed off.. He was rehearsing for a photo-shoot that he engaged Favio from Paprazzi international to do, in which they were going to sell the photos and Spacey's tell all fight with RAA/CASA expose (expozay) to The Daily Wail for $100K. What can Spacey do?

 

Well, it comes to the law of privacy. This actually has its foundations in common law, and it is quite simple. There is no general right to privacy. The basic rule is if you can see it, hear it, or find it from a publicly accessible location, no one can claim privacy over it. So, if you're walking on the footpath and see your neighbours at it, snap away and sell it to the local website of ill-repute - nothing they can do.

 

That is the general rule, but over the years (in England and Wales), the law has been narrowing it somewhat. There were famous cases where paparazzi would use increasingly sophisticated methods and technology to get their shots, so there were more and more restrictions placed on it. As I understand, a seminal case developed where photos taken with advanced equipment deemed commercial in nature or where the is a prior manifest expression of privacy, then taking photos of subjects on private land from publicly accessible places will be deemed a breach of privacy.

 

In Naomi Campbell's case, she went to great lengths to ensure her wedding was not able to be photographed from outside of the grounds of wherever she was married as she had arranged to exclusively sell the photos to a celebrity magazine for a vast sum of money. A paparazzi photographer used some serious kit to snap the photos. She sued for breach of privacy and won her case. Note, publicly accessible includes private property and generally this includes the path from your front gate to your front door (as a general licence). Within private property that is publicly accessible, the private property owner can assert privacy by erecting signs such as prohibiting photography or recordings (common for concerts). The EU General Data Protection Regulation doesn't really cover Spacey's situation....

 

Believe it or not, all privacy law in common law jurisdictions still have that basic tenet at heart. If it's on display, it’s up for grabs. So, if Spacey you are going to rehearse for the photo shoot with Favio, make sure you do it behind closed doors!

 

Sorry for the essay chaps. Avoiding a literally crappy job I have do to...

 

[old man emu]

10 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Sorry for the essay chaps. Avoiding a literally crappy job I have do to...

I'm reading your essay to avoid a literally crappy job I have to do .....

[onetrack]

The law regarding privacy in W.A. has been tightened to reflect the general view, that if your private activity is "presumed to be private" (i.e., you took steps to ensure people can't see you, without taking additional steps to do so), then anyone snapping photos of you, is invading your privacy.

Of course, there has to be a specific aim by the perpetrator to invade another persons privacy, an accidental discovery of someone carrying out an activity they thought was in private, cannot be regarded as invasion of privacy.

 

The bottom line with Farcebook is that every decision it takes or makes is directly related to the question, "how much is this decision going to affect our profitability?"

As with all global corporations, they have no social mores, virtually no ethics or morals, and care not one wit about the effect their website is having on society - it's all about Farcebook profit.

 

Someone asked the highly relevant question the other day. "Why are we letting some faceless global corporation have so much impact on our society, our relationships, and our politics?"

 

The answer, of course, is because they can, thanks to our lack of laws controlling them. They need a strong moderator, just like good forums have.

Our regulatory authorities are p***-weak when it comes to controlling these outsiders who wield so much power, that they should never ever have been allowed to have..

[old man emu]

I wonder what the rules are for use of images posted on Farcebook. If I take a picture of an subject I own the copyright to the picture. If I publish it on a social media site, do I tacitly give up my copyright to the picture? I guess I do.

 

From Farcebook Terms of Service:

Permission to use content that you create and share:

 Some content that you share or upload, such as photos or videos, may be protected by intellectual property laws. You own the intellectual property rights (things such as copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content.  You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. However, to provide our services, we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a ‘licence') to use this content. This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above.

 

Specifically, when you share, post or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free and worldwide licence to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Facebook Products you use. This licence will end when your content is deleted from our systems.

 

Basically, you post it, we can use it.

[facthunter]

Remember if Murdoch likes what is happening you aren't going to read much balance on the matter in HIS Papers. The first 5 pages of the Terrorgraph were on it , the other day, bagging  Zuckerberg.. The Coalition have made 2 donations direct to Murdoch totalling about $80 mill lately and a case for $880 million of tax  due was not proceeded with by the ATO and that money was given back  to News Corpse. The IPA want  to sell or give  the ABC  to him as well as close SBS..The IPA virtually dictate Liberal Party policy.. That Murdoch is in financial strife is common knowledge. Nev

[octave]

This is not a subject that I am particular passionate about but here are a few observations and things I don't get.

 

I don't really understand why the outcry about FB removing news and links to news, why is this a big deal?   My view of this is that FB is a business providing a service.   Any business will analyze its areas of operation and sometimes take on new areas or cease some areas.    If I was a cabinet maker I might make my living building kitchens, bathrooms and wardrobes.  Perhaps the market changes in some way and I decide to stop working on bathroom furniture.  Should this be cause for outrage amongst the public or should people just source their bathroom cabinetry from someone willing to provide that service.   I understand that in this case FB is a large business and I guess virtually a monopoly and its withdrawal from news is meant as an ultimatum but it is only an ultimatum if we believe that the only way we can get news.  

 

I am bemused when people proclaim that face book sells my data to advertisers, they make money off my data they should pay me.    It is easy to believe that everything  on the net should be provided to us for free.     The fact is you are being paid for your data, you are being paid by the provision of FB, this is the deal.   No one is going to set up banks of computers and provide software to enable mass communication for nothing.   An alternative model could be a paid subscription service or it could be partly or wholly funded by advertising such as the free to air TV and radio model.

 

I would have no problem with FB getting out of the news business altogether and returning to it's roots as a communications service for friends and family.  

 

I read that as of the 10th of Feb 25 media companies had done deals with Google, I could not find a list of those 25 organizations (didn't spend long looking though).    Whilst I understand and strongly support copyright I do think it is crucial that any news organization should be able to make a deal on an equal footing with the other perhaps more powerful media organizations. I am not saying this is not the case but  surely it is an important point.

 

Copyright is a complex area.    Does anyone remember  Men at work being  successfully sued for the flute solo in down under  for copying Kookaburra?  A musician friend of mine gave evidence in that case.  The thing is most of us are guilty of copyright breaches.   As a music teacher I copied sheet music for students with great care but I still had some exposure.   I used to have access the the ANU School of music library,   This library had a fantastic collection of sheet music and a bank of photocopiers.   The copiers were located behind a screen so as not to be visible from the desk. I think they wanted to be able to deny knowledge of copyright breaches.   Above each copier was a sign that said "is your copying legal?    There was also an extremely complex flow chart which I would eventually give up on and just copy anyway.    Some of the issue were "does your copy exceed 10% of the total work"?  Is the sheet music available at a reasonable price and in a reasonable time?  (these things were never quantified)

 

Whether or not the new system applies to links or not, FB has made it impossible to post links to news stories,  this is how it stands at the moment.    For the most part I do not rely on FB links to get my news although I do often read articles from the Guardian that are from FB links.  The Guardian has an app which I have downloaded so I still get there articles but straight from the source, this suits me.  

   

 

  

 

 

[facthunter]

I've never done Facebook and life goes on. Nev

[spacesailor]

I use it, as it is Much cheaper than the telephone, plus, the Plus of Video chatting.

Before Facebook I was charged $ 80 for a few minutes on My Telstra phone, thereafter used the public " gold phone " , never payed more than $ 25 for Longer calls. ( in the late 60is )

Telstra's reply to my excessive charges was " pay this bill Or we cut you off and take you to court ".

 And what news is missing, I haven't noticed any difference

 Blooody monopoly. 

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

@octave - I agree with you in that  it is a case of microeconomics and if something is not economic, a firm will reallocate resources elsewhere..  And quite frankly, if people are dumb enough to provide all this info to Farcebook or anyone else for that metter to use their services for free (or more accurately, non-monetary payment), well, too bad if they have more advetisements in their feeds, etc. In fact, I don't mind trackers if they send me ads that are relevant to the sites I visit - as hopefully they wil linform me of better things than I know of and avail myself to increasing enjoyment of my pastimes - I don't have to buy and it is not as if it is a pressuring salesperson.

 

The problem is when in the provision of an information service, that service becomes a cornerstone of information through society - and they are recomepensed more handsomely for it than most. Do they retain the right to acting purely in the interests of the shareholders with as minimal compliance with the law; or do they transition to some form of corporate/social responsibility. I know banks in Aus are stll under fire, but banks in Europe and the USA have very active corporate environmental, social and governance cultures now.. They aren't perfect and profit is still king, but from the inside, they are very wary of doing stupid things, anymore.

 

Facebook and its ilk, through dominant market positions, concentration of the "market" and the control of the flow of information (privacy based as well as public). This puts them in a position power and, importantly, trust. Put it another way, while it is accepted that FB and its ilk should be able to make money out its activities, should it be able to engage in the relentless pursuit of profit at any expense, as long as it is within the veil of legal. As an example, chemists/pharmacists are in a position of trust. In Victoria, if a chemist suspects people are purchasing excessive psuedoeffedrin (sp?) such as Sudafed, they are supposed to report it to the authorities, because it can be made to use one of the more lethal narcotics, Ice, I think. There have been stories where a Chemist on a suspcion had reported customers even though they only purchased a couple of packerts, which led to drugs busts. The chemist could go on selling small quantities and not do anything because it wouldn't normally give rise to a reasonable suspicion, so should they just shake it off so they could sell more?

 

You can take this analagy to companies like FB. They are in a position of trust. They can sell their wares, but they have to do it ethically. Unfortunately, FB has been hauled up in front of select and parliamentary committees too many times. Its partnership with Cambridge Analytica sold data to CA well beyond the terms of the agreement, and CA with some political campaign company used the data to pinpoint people's individual habits and send messages (not ads, so appearing to be personal engagement rather than paid advertising) aimed at getting them to vote Brexit and the conservatives. Yes, it is all legal, but the blind pursuit of profits does not excuse powerful companies from the unethical.

 

The spat with Australia serves to highlight it. FB turning off not only the news feeds, but other organisations (and personal) accounts "news" feeds does not sound like a simple mistake. Even the most junior data scientist would have been able to implement the software to differentiate the two, and only discontinue the news companies' feeds so they didn't have to pay for them. This smells more like a threat or strong-arm tactic to deny many more people the information dissemination they rely on to pressure the government to water-down its stand. Quite why the government haven't hauled FB in front of a senate committee or similar to explain how such a simple mistake could be madeis beyond me (unless, of course they have or plan to).

 

I don't use FB... I joined once and without making a post, my account was shut down for breaching posting rules. The only friend I had on the site was my partner's. The amount of personal data they wanted to reinstate my account was unimaginable. So I never did.

 

This is why I have a problem not onlyu with GB, but all their ilk. The EU GDPR has been enaced to try and control the unbridled power they have..

 

[octave]

Jerry I agree with a lot of what you say however my point is a little more specific.   I do understand that FB is restricting news in order to place pressure on the government but I don't see why we cant just say to FB OK now you are getting out of the news business, as long as you respect copyright then we have no problem.    I just cant see that a private company should be obliged to provide a service it no longer wishes to supply.    The bigger problem in my mind is the fact that we have started to see FB as a news source. This comes with a few problems in that links to news stories are curated for us individually.   For example I do not get links to Fox news stories or other right wing news sources.   This can give me a skewed view and I wonder if this could be part of the reason society has become polarized.   I believe I read that something like only 3% of FB content is news, perhaps it is time for FB to move back to it's roots.

 

Having said that I do use FB a reasonable amount.     I am aware that FB uses my data and I am fine with that.    I take the view that anything I type into my PC and then press send on is no longer private and therefore the collecting of this information as far as I can see is not a big deal.   I do not have any problem with targeted advertising in fact I find it useful.   I do recognize that large tech companies will try to get away with what they can an do need to be monitored.   Using FB for me is about cost and benefit.

 

My son lives overseas and is not really the type to sit down and write a letter (nor are we)  Likewise using the phone is not so likely but I can see and discuss pictures of his latest motor sport event or his sailing adventures and likewise he can see and discuss what we are doing.   Most importantly just about everyday a live message will pop up from him   Yesterday he messaged about a piece of music he heard, he is not a musician but has a great ear and will often ask me what a tune is based on or why it sounds like it does.    The interaction is amazingly valuable to me and I don't really see any other way of having this style of communication.

 

Throughout my working life I have worked with some very talented young people who are working overseas and are doing interesting things.  We are not so close that we would write or phone but we would share the occasional interaction.  I am still in touch with the people in the RAAF that I worked with for 12 years.

 

These are the practical benefits for me, I am not so sure what the practical costs are.

 

I would be happy for FB and especially twitter to get out of the news business, I don't think it adds much to public discourse.  Perhaps in the way that we tend to frown upon a newspaper buying a television station, maybe we should also be wary of social media platform curating and publishing news.

 

[spacesailor]

WHAT NEWS

I have used FB for many years !,

Were do l find that news thats so probmatic ?.

spacesailor

[octave]

21 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

WHAT NEWS

I have used FB for many years !,

Were do l find that news thats so probmatic ?.

spacesailor

 I don't think FB does news as in reproducing whole articles. On my FB page I get links to news articles  posted by friends. I also  get links from pages I follow such as the Guardian or New Scientist.  These are never whole news stories but they are links that send me to the news organizations FB page or to their website where I can either read the article for free or I am invited to pay to read the article.

 

Now these have been blocked I simple subscribe to these news organizations directly and the same link is to delivered to my in an email. Again it may be free are they may ask me to pay bit I can decide whether the article is worth either a direct payment or a subscription.  Some news organizations will offer me a number of free articles per month.

 

Strangely you cant post a news link on FB but you can on Twitter.  

 

 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, octave said:

On my FB page I get links to news articles  posted by friends

What's the difference between posting a link on your FB page to a newspaper article and posting the same link here?  The recipient still has the choice of following the link or once there choosing to read the story.

 

I still smell a rat about the whole thing. ScoMo visits Trump. Trump is mates with Murdoch. Murdoch doesn't like FB. Murdoch makes money from setting the political agenda in Australia. With only 25 million people, Australia is not a bad place for a small skirmish between Murdoch and FB, and the troops Murdoch has are sitting on the Government Benches.

 

Did the Australian people call out for this law? Not bloody likely. Does this new law benefit the majority of FB users? Not bloody likely. Does this law benefit Murdoch? Bloody oath it does.

[spacesailor]

I see !,

SO murdoc,s got the political clout to USE all Australian F B users, to get a ' one up ' on Zuckerberg.

IT DOES STINK !.

I think we F B user,s of Australia, should make a stand against these titan companies, & Stop using murdoc,s wares.

I think l should also post it on F B.

 

spacesailor

[pmccarthy]

If they really wanted to hurt Farcebook they would make them pay compensation to chefs for the photos of food posted by women who lunch together.

[octave]

Just now, pmccarthy said:

If they really wanted to hurt Farcebook they would make them pay compensation to chefs for the photos of food posted by women who lunch together.

Or perhaps the Chefs should pay for the free advert

[octave]

Just a few random thoughts after much reading today,

 

I do accept that the big tech companies wield an enormous amount of power and we do need to regulate that power.    The internet has been a big disrupter to many areas of enterprise.   By  way of an example, we don't see any Blockbuster stores any more.  I do remember a time when we subscribed to netflix which back then meant ordering a dvd online which was then posted to us with a return envelope.  This now seems laughable.   Certainly there would be people who invested their life savings in buying into a Blockbusters franchise.   We do need to ensure that new ways of doing things don't kill off the very product they are dealing in.  For example it was not that long ago that everyone was downloading music and movies from peer to peer sights thus depriving the content provider payment for their labour.    Without content the internet is nothing.

 

I am a big believer in people paying content providers for their work (although my sheet music collection is a bit dubious). Whilst I am still on the fence about this particular arrangement I accept a lot it of but I am still troubled by some aspects.

 

I totally accept that using a news story to increase traffic should probably incur a cost, I am less certain about a link constituting use of content.   Having read a lot (but not all of the  enquiry)   it seems that links will need to be paid for although it is acknowledged that a link may also constitute some value for the news organization and that this could be considered in the bargaining.  I do worry that it may set a precedent.   Such a cost would not apply to links posted in this site because there is a minimum turnover required to come under this system.  The bar on this is set quite high, I cant remember exactly but in the millions.   

 

Partly I get a little irritated by businesses whose business model is under threat by newer ways of operating complaining and wanting to preserve the old ways through legal means rather than through adapting to new ways.     

 

It is quite confusing that news organizations have Facebook sites.   They must consider that it is worth having a FB site.  I am assuming they believe that the site is good for their business.   The proposition is that links to a news story have a monetary value and this may be true.   In most transactions we go into a shop and we say to the owner "how much for that widget"   "$10 mate" "sold" or "nah not interested".    If links to news articles are valuable then they should be marketed and sold like any other goods or services.    I am assuming that some news sites would still be behind a paywall and this surely would be double dipping.  

 

I do think that it is crucial to have a healthy media and I also think that the big tech companies have a role to play and lets face it they can afford it. I do worry that the idea of individually negotiating with companies could have a distorting effect.   When it was put to the head of the ACCC that small companies could be at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating his answer was  that "small companies could band together to form a group with more power."  My worry is that small media may find it harder and news corp will cleanup. 

 

In short it is probably well meaning but I am not convinced that this is the best solution.

 

AND  I think FB should drop news permanently, other than keeping it more politics free it may just encourage people to actually go straight to the source (which of course involves google or bing etc)    

 

 

[Yenn]

I get a lot of my news from the ABC and the AB spends a lot of annoying time advertising itself and saying go to our website and gives us the address to go to. I cannot see why Facebook or Google or anyone else should be expected to pay the ABC for providing a link to the ABC site. That is what the ABC wants and I assume the same applies to other news agencies,

This is all just a storm in a teacup to make SB Morrison look good.

[spacesailor]

I agree, F B should drop All news, It's not, what was intended in the beginning, and the Internet, Was given quite Freely for All peoples to come together.

Thank you.

"  We do need to ensure that new ways of doing things don't kill off the very product they are dealing in. " Just like the Postal service's putting the rates out of our price range, so Killing that Golden Goose !.

EG Christmas calendar, $4 for a good calendar, $4 envelope, BUT $5 postage. SO No Christmas calendar's any more.

For that matter No more letters as well. 

Good job the Internet came to their rescue, with Lots of online goods.

spacesailor

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

They way I read the regulation, it does not apply to individuals postiung a link; it relates to the curating and feeding of links or news.. So, anyone positing a link as part of their post, whether here, or on FB, it will not be caught.

 

@octave, I agree with your earlier point, if a company wants to exit a business, it is in their gift to do so. However, this legislation, although driven by the wrong reasons, IMHO are heading to the right outcome - a levelling up of the bargaining positions. It doesn't really have anything to do with copyright...  In FB's case, if they want to get out of news, let them.. I agree... Someone else will fill the void.

 

The law is not perfect - no way.. But it is a line in the sand that will (hopefully) over time move to me more perfect... It does what a lot of other laws do - impose requirements on marlet participants - these come with a cost - and the participants can determine if they want to stay or not. My gripe with FB is it's disproportionate commercial power, the industry it is in which can weild even moreinfluence over society (e.g. bias right wing news outlets), and the evidence it is all too willing weild that power, and to complicitly allow its sources to be abused by its partners.