| >The news model: journalists discover "news facts" which they make into "news stories" that can hold reader attention. >If Google collects all "news facts" in one place with their own ads, they are benefiting from journalists while undercutting the newspapers. If "news facts" is the framework for the proposed logic of compensation, it is being applied inconsistently. Consider the final result of 2 professional soccer teams playing a game: FC Barcelona beats Real Madrid 2-1. The "facts" were generated by the players + the referee + the official scorekeeper, etc. A French newspaper reports on it:
https://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/direct-suivez-le-c... Using first principles of "facts generation", should the French newspaper be required by Spain to share a portion of the ad revenue to each soccer team and La Liga league? If no, why is that not hypocritical? Same as Ryanair announces a new airline route and French newspapers report it. It doesn't mean French publishers should pay some of their ad money to Ryanair. Likewise, if Google issues a press release saying the next "Pixel 7 phone will be available October 2021" and French newspapers report that fact, it doesn't mean they should owe Google money just because Google produced that headline. Newspapers have traditionally benefited from headlines being generated by the entire world and they get ad money for it without paying the sources of those headlines. If Google did include article snippets beyond the headlines, that seemed like a reasonable threshold to pay license fees to French newspapers. Otherwise, a pure headline display is a symbiotic relationship similar to the symbioses newspapers enjoyed with sports reporting, Hollywood celebrities, corporate press release announcements, etc. The newspapers want Google to pay for something the newspapers themselves don't want to pay for. |