Search results for query: *

Considering that the original deal was pretty much, "You are mandated to publish our news, to pay us whatever we demand for it, and any disagreement will be settled by mandatory arbitration favoring us", Australia's position was ridiculously biased in the first place. As much as I hate to cheer...

This is why I was jokingly saying the United States should authorize Google to go full EITC. American companies should answer only to the United States government, not foreigners too big for their britches, and any American company should be allowed to protect itself from foreigners with their...

Yeah. What I mean is I'm predicting they will exempt Australian companies in an effort to indirectly subsidize the creation of Australian search engines. No doubt while at the same time crying that Google is "discriminating against Australians".

I'm sure they will exempt Australian companies from the same fees and claim that it's "only fair". This is pure greed from two-bit Australian news companies backed up by an equally rapacious government.

It's not a very constructive response, I know, but I kinda feel like snapping, "No foreign government gets to dictate to an American company like this. Google, you're authorized to go full East India Trading Company."

I said *if* Google is forced to pay for content agggregation by the Australian government, it's reasonable for Google to pass that cost on to Australian customers. Not that the Australian government's proposed course of action is reasonable.

Honestly, Australia is a niche market, so it makes sense that if they are compelled to pay for aggregation, they would at minimum want to silo off Australia so that they can pass those fees on to Australian users while continuing to offer free services to the rest of the world.