Asia-Pacific Google (and Facebook) Threatens to Remove Its Service From Australia

ParadiseLost said:
There aren't any remotely equivalent search engines headquartered in Australia. Not that I've heard of.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Last edited:
Yeah, my sympathy is fairly, limited for most of the listed parties. Maybe Google's buisness model does need to die, though this sounds like it might be a very retarded way to go about it, though the devil is in the details.
 
Related and possibly connected situation, considering the timing:
www.worldipreview.com

Google agrees to pay French publishers for online re-use

Members of an association of French publishers will receive remuneration from Google when their content is re-used, according to an agreement announced on Google France’s blog on Thursday, January 21.
www.worldipreview.com www.worldipreview.com
The EU is not the only jurisdiction seeking to protect publishers’ neighbouring rights; last month, Australia announced plans to introduce a landmark law which will force Google and Facebook to pay publishers for news content.
Click to expand...
Blood in the water?
 
Wait is this for a Google News Showcase thing? Because if the publishers asked Google to pay for literally using their article in another site instead of just links to the site showing up in searches I can understand.

Its not too clear what they mean by reuse. Do links to the original articles count as something Google has to pay for or is it just if they show the articles in their own news app?
 
Abhishekm said:
Wait is this for a Google News Showcase thing? Because if the publishers asked Google to pay for literally using their article in another site instead of just links to the site showing up in searches I can understand.

Its not too clear what they mean by reuse. Do links to the original articles count as something Google has to pay for or is it just if they show the articles in their own news app?
Click to expand...
According to the article, its both. Snippets in google search are specifically mentioned. Google tried to remove the snippets from its searched, but France said it won't do.
 
Marduk said:
According to the article, its both. Snippets in google search are specifically mentioned. Google tried to remove the snippets from its searched, but France said it won't do.
Click to expand...
How's that though? I can understand mirroring even non-paywall content as something they can be charged for. Given how most of those make money through ad revenue from site traffic and having their content shown in googles news app wouldnt give them any revenue otherwise.

Summaries are a bit of a grey area I guess. They are technically separate commentary for the article but being machine generated from the actual content would make them sorta copy righted content use. But what's the justification for charging for search engine links even if they removed the summaries?
 
Last edited:
Abhishekm said:
How's that though? I can understand mirroring even non-paywall content as something they can be charged for. Given how most of those make money through ad revenue from site traffic and having their content shown in googles news app wouldnt give them any revenue otherwise.

Summaries are a bit of a grey area I guess. They are technically separate commentary for the article but being machine generated from the actual content would make them sorta copy righted content use. But what's the justification for charging for search engine links even if they removed the summaries?
Click to expand...
www.itwire.com

iTWire - Google signs French deal to pay newspapers for snippets

French authorities have signed an agreement with Google for the search company to pay publishers for the use of news snippets in search results. Back in April last year, the company agreed to comply with a ruling that it must pay publishing companies and news agencies for re-using content they...
www.itwire.com www.itwire.com

Apparently new EU copyright directive. And when Google offered to remove the snippet, but that in turn would apparently constitute abuse of monopoly. Somehow.
 
Marduk said:
Apparently new EU copyright directive. And when Google offered to remove the snippet, but that in turn would apparently constitute abuse of monopoly. Somehow.
Click to expand...
So a "you have to pay us to link to our content or else!...but you can't not link to our content either or else!!!" situation huh? Heh.

These people do realize after a certain point the News section in Google itself will become unprofitable if it isn't already for these location now right?
 
Abhishekm said:
So a "you have to pay us to link to our content or else!...but you can't not link to our content either or else!!!" situation huh? Heh.

These people do realize after a certain point the News section in Google itself will become unprofitable if it isn't already for these location now right?
Click to expand...
The point is to remind Google that they are a company not a government. Google certainly bent over enough for the Chinese government, other countries are asking why not them.
 
Wargamer08 said:
The point is to remind Google that they are a company not a government. Google certainly bent over enough for the Chinese government, other countries are asking why not them.
Click to expand...

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 own Second Amendment protected in-house military capabilities.

(I reiterate that I'm kidding. Mostly.)
 
ShadowArxxy said:
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 own Second Amendment protected in-house military capabilities.

(I reiterate that I'm kidding. Mostly.)
Click to expand...
Huh, very all Chinese businesses belong to China of you. On this though I gotta disagree, if your going to be a global business you face each nations rules yourself especially if you advocate for not being bound to your home countries laws for your branches in others.
 
ShadowArxxy said:
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 own Second Amendment protected in-house military capabilities.

(I reiterate that I'm kidding. Mostly.)
Click to expand...
Cyberpunk future when? XD
 
Found this article via the Bing News Aggregate... :p

apnews.com

Australian prime minister says Bing could replace Google

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia's prime minister said on Monday that Microsoft is confident it can fill the void if Google carries out its threat to remove its search engine from Australia.
apnews.com apnews.com

Australia's PM has been talking with Microsoft about Bing replacing Google as the primary search engine. Microsoft's Bing Search Engine is the second largest search provider in Australia... providing 3.6% of the countries searches, second only to Google's 95% market share.
 
Husky_Khan said:
Found this article via the Bing News Aggregate... :p

apnews.com

Australian prime minister says Bing could replace Google

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia's prime minister said on Monday that Microsoft is confident it can fill the void if Google carries out its threat to remove its search engine from Australia.
apnews.com apnews.com

Australia's PM has been talking with Microsoft about Bing replacing Google as the primary search engine. Microsoft's Bing Search Engine is the second largest search provider in Australia... providing 3.6% of the countries searches, second only to Google's 95% market share.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no.

The more likely course of events if Google pulled out of the country is that VPN usage skyrockets in Australia.
 
Husky_Khan said:
Found this article via the Bing News Aggregate... :p

apnews.com

Australian prime minister says Bing could replace Google

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia's prime minister said on Monday that Microsoft is confident it can fill the void if Google carries out its threat to remove its search engine from Australia.
apnews.com apnews.com

Australia's PM has been talking with Microsoft about Bing replacing Google as the primary search engine. Microsoft's Bing Search Engine is the second largest search provider in Australia... providing 3.6% of the countries searches, second only to Google's 95% market share.
Click to expand...

95%....yeah thats way too much power for any company to have in a market.
 
Cherico said:
95%....yeah thats way too much power for any company to have in a market.
Click to expand...
Not really. See, Google isn't in the search engine market, not really, as people using search aren't google customers, as we don't pay Google anything. Google is in the advertisement market, which is much more equally distributed.
 
Abhorsen said:
Not really. See, Google isn't in the search engine market, not really, as people using search aren't google customers, as we don't pay Google anything. Google is in the advertisement market, which is much more equally distributed.
Click to expand...
Really? Because as far as I'm aware, Google has a monopoly on that market as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top