Open Letter from Google / Youtube. Lib Regs trying to give Newscorpse Another Unfair advantage

There are certainly struggles, but it’s interesting that at one point this year there were three ‘print’ media outlets running in Horsham, one online and two physical.
So the demand for local news still exists.

And I didn’t cancel my subscription to the Hun because online was more convenient, I dropped it because it had turned into utter loonie right wing ■■■■.
So…not a whole lot of sympathy for the consequences of their own actions.

1 Like

If the ‘news’ that Google sources for nothing generates income then it’s only fair that the creators of that content gets a cut. Radio stations pay for the music they broadcast, why should Google be exempt?


Are you suggesting the musicians/journalists should be paid?
I could get on board with that, but I really don’t think that’s what’s being suggested.
It’s the record companies/media companies that will get the money.

Sort of.

I haven’t yet heard a good reason from Google as to why they shouldn’t have to pay for content that makes them literally billions of dollars. And who owns the content is problematic because as you suggest, generally big media, not the journalist(s) individually own the content but the journalist will benefit by extension by presumably still having a job. Same with musical content creators.

I, for one, welcome our new Bing overlords.


Is that the Chinese one?


Old school.

lol come on

google’s news feed makes two fifths of fk all. why do you think they would choose to shut it off rather than have to pay anything to keep it active.

Everything old is new again…

They should still pay for it. Open the books so we can actually see what it makes then charge them a fair rate for it. Pretty sure the Government isn’t asking for Bikie rates.

I know this sounds smartarsey but I think the point needs to be made.
Need to be more careful with the term ‘creators of content’, and also I can’t be having with the trickle down effect Or ‘but you’re paid in exposure.’

You have a good argument for something, but I don’t think it’s this.

Screw bing, I’m going back to altavista

Altavista still around?

Edit: Owned by Yahoo!, shame.

If Netscape comes back, can I have my emails that got lost when they closed their mail system back?

Accurate first match from ol’ Jeeves below:

I get what you’re saying. We all want Rup to make less not more but this isn’t about making News Corp richer, it’s about fairness. If I write a story about my prowess on my recently acquired e-board which gets picked up by Googs because it’s drawing eyeballs which then makes them money then I, as the creator of the content deserve a sling. If Rupert own the content then yes, Rupert deserves a cut, too.

1 Like

it’d be like me asking the mods here for my share of blitz’s ad revenue because of the amazing content i produce that keeps people coming back to the site.

my reliance on the platform that allows everyone to see my amazing content is of far far far far greater value to me than my content is to blitz, who could permanently flick me off tomorrow and it would make almost no difference at all to the a) ad revenue and b) other users’ experience.


I’d miss ya.


Because if you make them for content they will release your entire weird perverted Serena Williams related search history.

Rupert earns money from advertising on his website.
How does the google search engine make money?

Website Design