> if the snippets alone mean there's no value to clicking through and reading the entire article, then again the problem is on the news providers who apparently provide so little value in their writeups
Incorrect. Copying something can reduce the value of the original - that's why there are copyright laws. The snippet-copying has been shown to reduce the value of the original content. Blaming this degradation of value on the content creator is nonsense.
Here's the Australian bill:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd048#_Toc64377245
I just skimmed it, but I think the bill requires payment (from Google and FB) for "links and snippets". If G & FB were just posting links, the news outlets would appreciate it, but if they post "links and snippets" it can reduce the traffic to the news site because people read the snippet and don't click on the link.
If they're reproducing the content of the news outlet, they should pay for it - this (stated simply like this) isn't very controversial.
Here's the Australian bill:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd048#_Toc64377245
I just skimmed it, but I think the bill requires payment (from Google and FB) for "links and snippets". If G & FB were just posting links, the news outlets would appreciate it, but if they post "links and snippets" it can reduce the traffic to the news site because people read the snippet and don't click on the link.
If they're reproducing the content of the news outlet, they should pay for it - this (stated simply like this) isn't very controversial.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by mikeanderson.
Re: Re: They should pay for content
They should pay for content
Here's the Australian bill: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd048#_Toc64377245 I just skimmed it, but I think the bill requires payment (from Google and FB) for "links and snippets". If G & FB were just posting links, the news outlets would appreciate it, but if they post "links and snippets" it can reduce the traffic to the news site because people read the snippet and don't click on the link. If they're reproducing the content of the news outlet, they should pay for it - this (stated simply like this) isn't very controversial.
They should pay for content
Here's the Australian bill: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd048#_Toc64377245 I just skimmed it, but I think the bill requires payment (from Google and FB) for "links and snippets". If G & FB were just posting links, the news outlets would appreciate it, but if they post "links and snippets" it can reduce the traffic to the news site because people read the snippet and don't click on the link. If they're reproducing the content of the news outlet, they should pay for it - this (stated simply like this) isn't very controversial.