Offline
CBC News is reporting that Google and the Federal government have reached an agreement regarding the on line news act...
Offline
this reeks of government oversight and an attempt to control the narratives rather than encouraging free speech and conversations
Offline
I heard a guest on Alex Pierson's show call this "an accidental win," noting it was a bad law that may still work out for the media outlets. But who gets those millions is still up in the air. Experts, like Prof. Michael Geist, have warned that this kind of potential settlement will help places like the CBC and Rogers - and not the little guy who runs a small newsroom in, say, Shediac, New Brunswick. They'll never see almost any of that money.
It was outlined in a previous (and now slightly dated) Financial Post article I linked to in a post this morning. (Fortunately, I don't have to pay for that link!)
The solution reached here puts a specific amount on how much Google will have to pay, which as I understand it, was one of their major concerns. Whether Meta (aka Facebook) ever returns remains to be seen. But you won't be able to read about it on Facebook if it doesn't!
Offline
If this agreement with Google does get finalized, it puts renewed pressure on Meta and the government to also come to a deal.
Offline
paterson1 wrote:
If this agreement with Google does get finalized, it puts renewed pressure on Meta and the government to also come to a deal.
Indeed.
Offline
Meta has said they're de-emphasizing news everywhere anyway, as doing so improves overall user experience and keeps people from clicking away from their platforms sooner.
Offline
dmcjeff wrote:
this reeks of government oversight and an attempt to control the narratives rather than encouraging free speech and conversations
Nonsense, it's an attempt to get internet giants who profit by scraping other people's content to pay something for the intellectual property they appropriate. The news industry has been pummelled because Google etc now get the advertising revenue that news outlets used to get and they've gotten a lot of it by using those same news outlets' content without putting in any investment for creating that content.
Offline
Hansa wrote:
dmcjeff wrote:
this reeks of government oversight and an attempt to control the narratives rather than encouraging free speech and conversations
Nonsense, it's an attempt to get internet giants who profit by scraping other people's content to pay something for the intellectual property they appropriate.
They don't do that.
Offline
Facebook and Google don't generate advertising from the news content they carry? Really?
Offline
Hansa wrote:
Facebook and Google don't generate advertising from the news content they carry? Really?
They don't carry content.
In the case of Facebook, news orgs post links to their content and Facebook users then share those links.
Offline
Go to Google News and tell me you don't see ads for content that google is displaying... Meta is very different and is exactly as RadioAaron points out. There will not be a one size fits all deal in the works.
Offline
Granted not all users see the same thing, but I'm not seeing content or ads here
Offline
Probably doesn't help where it needs to in the long term:
Offline
Longtime industry watcher Prof. Michael Geist also weighs in, noting this was a big waste of time that could have been put to rest months ago, because Google essentially has offered the same settlement it did when the negotiations began. Which he says makes the government's "victory lap" very hollow.
"While this is a far better outcome than the blocked links, this is hardly an example of good government policy.
First, the loss of Meta from the system not only dropped the estimated benefits of Bill C-18 by $50 million, but the lost links and deals means that there are actual losses that run into the tens of millions of dollars. Indeed, it was only a few months ago that the government said it estimated Google’s contribution alone at $170 million.
"There was some sense that the extra $70 million was designed to offset the Meta losses, but that was something Google unsurprisingly was unwilling to cover."
Salvaging Bill C-18: Government Upends Legislation To Bring Google Onside the Online News Act
Offline
It was interesting on CBC's Power and Politics and host David Cochran this afternoon posing the question various times if CBC/Radio Canada should be eligible for any of the $100 million. He seemed to be on the side that the public broadcaster should not be eligible for any of the money.
Cochran asked the Heritage Minister about this and Pascal St-Onge agreed that CBC/Radio Canada are not in the same financial situation of many small news organizations and private companies. So we could also speculate that possibly the public broadcaster may not be eligible for funds even though on paper they qualify. Ultimately Google will be making the deals with the news organizations and not the government.
Offline
paterson1 wrote:
Ultimately Google will be making the deals with the news organizations and not the government.
No they won't. The specifically wanted no part in that.
It turns out the way to salvage the bill was essentially to start over by tossing aside most of the core elements in the bill in favour of a single payment by Google negotiated by the government on behalf of the news sector. What is left is a $100 million payment into what amounts to a fund to be managed by the news sector itself. Google has agreed to pay $100 million to a single collective (there will be a battle over which collective will represent the news sector) and the collective tasked with allocating the money based in large measure on forthcoming regulations.
Offline
What Google did here was to un-couple the payments from any specific action or entity; essentially turning them into a tax. This approach minimizes the potential of paying for links to become a precedent.
Offline
Hmm...The CBC won't like this. The Minister in charge says she's leaning towards limiting how much of the Google money the Corp. gets. It stands to make the maximum out of the agreement, since it employs the most journalists. But it also gets taxpayer money, which has some other outlets - and members of the Opposition - crying foul.
"After a careful calculation I arrived to a huge zero," (Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François) Blanchet said after he was asked how much CBC/Radio-Canada should receive from the Google deal.
"I think this money should be kept for private media in order to support, strengthen and improve the coverage and representation of local and original news throughout Quebec and Canada."
Heritage minister hints at adjusting funds CBC could get under Google deal
Offline
As mentioned yesterday the host of CBC's Power & Politics questioned whether CBC/Radio Canada should or would receive any of this money. He said that the public broadcaster is not under the same financial pressure as small news organizations and private media companies. He brought this up with the Heritage Minister and she agreed.
Offline
Depending whether or not the CBC gets included, broadcast stands to get 75% of this with print getting 25%, or $25M. With the Toronto Star alone reportedly losing $1M a week, this isn't going to make a dent - especially with the loss of revenue from Facebook links.
Offline
Now that the feds have managed an agreement with Google, you'd think they might want to play nice with Meta, hoping to arrange a similar settlement.
But apparently, that's not the case. Instead they seem to be doubling down, threatening that Meta (Facebook and Instagram) could still be forced to pay millions because users are finding clever ways around the Canadian news link ban - and therefore Bill C-18 still applies to them, even through they're blocking the content.
This doesn't seem to me to be the way to try to reach a settlement in this long running dispute and while I'm not really a Facebook user, millions of Canadians are. And I fear that Meta may just shut this country out for good, if it's going to cost them millions and millions of dollars with very little return.
The fact that Google caved doesn't negate the fact that Bill C-18 is a flawed law and should never have been passed in its present form in the first place. So stay tuned, This one ain't over yet. The new law officially starts December 19th, just a few weeks away.
As news is still shared on Facebook, Instagram, Meta may yet be regulated
Offline
I will say it again, anyone who relies on any Meta run entity for their news is not being properly informed in the first place. Every news source in business has their own internet site.
Offline
I agree, I used to be involved in helping at festivals and parades and the city advised that we would have to pay a fee to SOCAN to cover royalty fees for the music being paid at the events.
My question is, if the music is freely available through Youtube and social media sites why should I have to pay for the content.
Offline
I found this commentary in the Globe & Mail extremely interesting. It's a rare commentary in which a newspaper columnist actually goes against the idea of Bill C-18, which most in the newspaper business entirely favour because it will benefit them. I think he makes some good points, but you can decide for yourself.
Here's a taste:
"That some of the advertising revenues that now go to Google and Facebook used to go to us is irrelevant. They didn’t take it from us. They simply offered advertisers a better service. You might as well order Toyota to compensate General Motors for building better cars."
With Google’s agreement to pay off the Canadian media, the shakedown in C-18 is made explicit
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
Now that the feds have managed an agreement with Google, you'd think they might want to play nice with Meta, hoping to arrange a similar settlement.
But apparently, that's not the case. Instead they seem to be doubling down, threatening that Meta (Facebook and Instagram) could still be forced to pay millions because users are finding clever ways around the Canadian news link ban - and therefore Bill C-18 still applies to them, even through they're blocking the content.
This doesn't seem to me to be the way to try to reach a settlement in this long running dispute and while I'm not really a Facebook user, millions of Canadians are. And I fear that Meta may just shut this country out for good, if it's going to cost them millions and millions of dollars with very little return.
The fact that Google caved doesn't negate the fact that Bill C-18 is a flawed law and should never have been passed in its present form in the first place. So stay tuned, This one ain't over yet. The new law officially starts December 19th, just a few weeks away.
As news is still shared on Facebook, Instagram, Meta may yet be regulated
The goal-posts keep getting moved.
Users have also found other ways to share news stories on Facebook and Instagram, by direct messaging news links, sharing screenshots of articles and shortening news links so they can appear on stories, which are photos and videos that disappear after 24 hours.
And this is a problem, why? It's exactly what the news orgs want to happen. They literally encourage it at the top of every article.
Last edited by RadioAaron (December 6, 2023 11:52 am)