Australian media to bargain with tech giants for payment if new ACCC mandatory code is adopted
Australian news publishers will be able to bargain with Google and Facebook for fair payment for news content if the mandatory code released today by the industry watchdog is adopted.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)’s draft mandatory code will require the tech giants to take part in negotiations on fair payment for content, with the negotiations to be concluded within three months or else enter arbitration.
Will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I suspect the difference between what the publishers expect and what the platforms may be prepared to pay will end up miles apart. Have the platforms agreed to pay anything substantial to publishers anywhere in the world? (We all know what happened in spain when publishers Insisted on what they felt was fair value for their content – google just switched off google news)
Can someone help explain, as it’s very vague. I don’t understand how we define Google / Facebook as “publishing” news content?
On Facebook, is it news publishers posting content from their own pages? Or users sharing links to news articles with friends? With both scenarios I don’t understand how or why Facebook pays – it may be necessary for them to block the sharing of news links altogether.
With Google search, publishers can use noindex across their website if they don’t want their articles to appear in results which would be terminal for their referral traffic. Or as we saw in Spain, Google can shut down the Google News tab.
Also, if this is about supporting public interest journalism, why shouldn’t ABC and SBS be included? It can be a further supplement to tax payer revenue for better public interest news. Something fishy is going on here with Frydenberg and Rod Sims. It seems to be a handout to Murdoch to ensure the survival of their LNP propaganda which is haemorrhaging on ad revenue.
precisely, Joel. Precisely.
It seems the publishers (and ACCC ) expect the platforms to pay them (handsomely) for the privilege of sending those publishers very significant traffic which they can then monetise. The obvious move is for the platforms to simply block news snippets from the publishers, — something the publishers can easily do themselves if they really feel that the platforms are ‘stealing’ their content.
> The code also lays out guidelines for publishers to be warned and consulted if the tech platforms plan to make changes to their algorithms likely to materially affect referral traffic to news.
Given that algorithms are the principal business model of Google and FB, it seems more likely they would simply delete any seraches for news sites. I’m not sure it’s even legal to require companies to divest trade secrets to competitors.
I’d really appreciate if someone could explain this to me. GG and FB are distribution platforms that publishers voluntarily choose to use to drive more audience to their sites. You cannot view content beyond a small thumbnail and image on the platforms, you have to visit the site to consume the content. Do I have this right? How then are the platforms stealing the content?
It is extraordinary how far this process has come from protecting the future of journalism, towards protecting the commercial interest of large media companies. Even “trusted” journalists at these major media companies have leaped the fence on this issue.
Make no mistake, Google/FB need to be part of the solution for the future of journalism. However, if it were about protecting journalism, there is no way the ABC would have been cut out of the deal.
As it stands, this code is bonkers. Makes no commercial sense, and as other have said, as it is drafted it amounts to regulated theft. Next step will be the US government stepping in to object to what is essentially direct discrimination against two US businesses and contrary to international trade agreements. Will be interesting to see if Rod and Josh relish in the same bold public statements when responding to the US on this issue, or if they retreat behind closed doors?
The ACCC website says:
“The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) covers most areas of the market: the relationships between suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. Its purpose is to enhance the welfare of Australians by promoting fair trading and competition, and through the provision of consumer protections.”
How is this policy promoting competition? I sens a High Court challenge. More public money spend on lawyers but they may be our deliverance.
It looks to me like horseshoe-makers being gifted a tax on those new fangled motor cars. Legacy industries being propped up in the vain hope of continuing fat management salaries and media political power for just a little bit longer.
Google does not display the content of others. It directs attention to such content on their websites. If advertisers are leaving print and are spending money on line, there is a simple explanation: Google delivers advertising in a more targetted way. The fact print can’t compete is print’s problem.
Even The Drum is misguidedly trumpeting the supposed merits of Joshy’s cunning plan to assuage Murdoch. This is an anticompetitive policy from the supposed Competition Watchdog. It deserves to fail.