Australia and Facebook....
Discussion
AlvinSultana said:
Says who ?
You ?
Or FB ?
Because the victim of the theft does not agree with you.
You have completely failed to justify the theft of intellectual property. At any level. Let alone the massively profitable corporate giant taking whatever it wants and telling its victims to get with the program.
FB would be absolutely incensed if YOU or anyone else stole it’s IP.
Right ?
Or do you really good ol’Zuckers would say hey, knock your self out kid, take whatever you want, this is the internet right !
There is no IP theft. IP theft does not need new legislation - it is already illegal in Australia and can be prosecuted under existing laws. If the "victim" believes that FB are committing IP theft then let them push for a prosecution. But they won't because they would then have to explain why the "victim" voluntarily uploads its content for free at the moment.You ?
Or FB ?
Because the victim of the theft does not agree with you.
You have completely failed to justify the theft of intellectual property. At any level. Let alone the massively profitable corporate giant taking whatever it wants and telling its victims to get with the program.
FB would be absolutely incensed if YOU or anyone else stole it’s IP.
Right ?
Or do you really good ol’Zuckers would say hey, knock your self out kid, take whatever you want, this is the internet right !
You can keep calling it IP theft it but it doesn't make it so.
AlvinSultana said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If that's true (which is actually isn't), let's go with your utterly daft analogy. The head teacher confronts the bully and says "stop bullying the weaker kid, or pay compensation". So the bully decides to stop. And the head teacher says "this is a declaration of war, who do you think you are, how dare you". 
In my utterly daft analogy the teacher is the govt, and the govt decides it does not want to see the bully taking the weaker kids dinner money.Right ?
Or is there some other point to your post ?
k this and goes home, taking his ball with him.Not all that’s left is Rupert and Scott standing around without a ball.
i4got said:
There is no IP theft. IP theft does not need new legislation - it is already illegal in Australia and can be prosecuted under existing laws. If the "victim" believes that FB are committing IP theft then let them push for a prosecution. But they won't because they would then have to explain why the "victim" voluntarily uploads its content for free at the moment.
You can keep calling it IP theft it but it doesn't make it so.
Again you miss the point.You can keep calling it IP theft it but it doesn't make it so.
The news producers should have the right to either sell their content via their own platforms, or sell their content to third parties.
The reality is that they tried to sell their own content on their own platforms, but the third parties take whatever they like and re publish it without permission. Because this is the f
king internet right ?FB is spitting its dummy out because the content producer wants to retain the rights to its own content, and not have FB and Google et al scraping it because they can. I am yet to see a reasonable justification for this abuse.
Again I would refer to the rampant hypocrisy in this thread, not one of you would be happy having your hard work stolen by a massively profitable company and then republished so that they can make more money ?
Not one of you.
survivalist said:
A better analogy would that that Rupert and Mark and playing one on one basketball in the playground. Rupert gets annoyed because Mark is doing well, so gets Scott to join his team. Mark says fk this and goes home, taking his ball with him.
Not all that’s left is Rupert and Scott standing around without a ball.
I sincerely detest Murdoch.k this and goes home, taking his ball with him.Not all that’s left is Rupert and Scott standing around without a ball.
But on this he is correct.
The content creator should be able to dictate what happens to his IP.
You can bet your house that Zuckerberg will defend his IP using the full weight of his legal might.
AlvinSultana said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As my son says, "not only do we not expect Facebook to pay to use our content, we're very happy they don't charge us, because with the reach they provide, we'd willingly pay them decent money."
I will use Spotify to illustrate.
Spotify sets up a free streaming service.
Unlimited free streamed music.
The cool kids cannot get enough of it.
The content producers say WTF they are stealing our content - but this is the internet right ?
Time passes.
Spotify becomes the dominant force in music streaming because it is free to the end user - the content producers need to get their music onto Spotify because the cool kids have abandoned buying music because its free on Spotify.
Spotify declares this to be a symbiotic relationship.
Spotify tells parliament that it cannot pay the content producers more than a pittance because that would cut into their profits and they would have to put their prices up again.
The content producers say WTF ?
Spotify is a music streaming service - their very existence is based on providing their users with music either by charging a subscription or by using advertising to fund the provision of music.
The value proposition of their platform is based entirely on the provision of music. Remove the music from Spotify and their platform loses all of their users ,regardless of whether they are funded by a subscription fee or by advertisements.
Facebook’s value provision isn’t the provision of news. Remove their news content and the overwhelming majority of their users will continue to use the platform.
survivalist said:
Another poor analogy.
Spotify is a music streaming service - their very existence is based on providing their users with music either by charging a subscription or by using advertising to fund the provision of music.
The value proposition of their platform is based entirely on the provision of music. Remove the music from Spotify and their platform loses all of their users ,regardless of whether they are funded by a subscription fee or by advertisements.
Facebook’s value provision isn’t the provision of news. Remove their news content and the overwhelming majority of their users will continue to use the platform.
Whatever.Spotify is a music streaming service - their very existence is based on providing their users with music either by charging a subscription or by using advertising to fund the provision of music.
The value proposition of their platform is based entirely on the provision of music. Remove the music from Spotify and their platform loses all of their users ,regardless of whether they are funded by a subscription fee or by advertisements.
Facebook’s value provision isn’t the provision of news. Remove their news content and the overwhelming majority of their users will continue to use the platform.
I think content theft is wrong. You are an apologist for it.
Perhaps Karma will change your mind.
AlvinSultana said:
survivalist said:
A better analogy would that that Rupert and Mark and playing one on one basketball in the playground. Rupert gets annoyed because Mark is doing well, so gets Scott to join his team. Mark says fk this and goes home, taking his ball with him.
Not all that’s left is Rupert and Scott standing around without a ball.
I sincerely detest Murdoch.k this and goes home, taking his ball with him.Not all that’s left is Rupert and Scott standing around without a ball.
But on this he is correct.
The content creator should be able to dictate what happens to his IP.
You can bet your house that Zuckerberg will defend his IP using the full weight of his legal might.
That is precisely what happened when Facebook blocked Mr Murdoch’s content from its platform. It was only after this happened that both the Australian government, under pressure from News Corp, started publicly criticising Facebook for censorship, bullying etc
Why? Because they know that Facebook captivates more users than news companies (including News Corp) and are responsible for driving large amounts of traffic to the news websites.
Otherwise they would have welcomed the removal of links to news headlines on the Facebook platform.
AlvinSultana said:
survivalist said:
Another poor analogy.
Spotify is a music streaming service - their very existence is based on providing their users with music either by charging a subscription or by using advertising to fund the provision of music.
The value proposition of their platform is based entirely on the provision of music. Remove the music from Spotify and their platform loses all of their users ,regardless of whether they are funded by a subscription fee or by advertisements.
Facebook’s value provision isn’t the provision of news. Remove their news content and the overwhelming majority of their users will continue to use the platform.
Whatever.Spotify is a music streaming service - their very existence is based on providing their users with music either by charging a subscription or by using advertising to fund the provision of music.
The value proposition of their platform is based entirely on the provision of music. Remove the music from Spotify and their platform loses all of their users ,regardless of whether they are funded by a subscription fee or by advertisements.
Facebook’s value provision isn’t the provision of news. Remove their news content and the overwhelming majority of their users will continue to use the platform.
I think content theft is wrong. You are an apologist for it.
Perhaps Karma will change your mind.
Comparing Facebook to Spotify is a very obvious example of this.
You keep making the point about IP theft, but miss the real issue - significantly more people want to use Facebook than news providers. That’s why companies pay them large amount of money to advertise their products.
As a result, Facebook will optimise their platform to ensure users spend as much time as possible on that platform, purely because it means that people are spending less time on other platforms.
News is a small part of that and Facebook could quote happily survive without it.
The fact that the Australian government are so keen to prevent that from happening, as illustrated by their immediate willingness to dilute their own legislation, speaks volumes about where them power really sits.
Karma has nothing to do with it.
AlvinSultana said:
Again you miss the point.
The news producers should have the right to either sell their content via their own platforms, or sell their content to third parties.
The reality is that they tried to sell their own content on their own platforms, but the third parties take whatever they like and re publish it without permission. Because this is the fking internet right ?
FB is spitting its dummy out because the content producer wants to retain the rights to its own content, and not have FB and Google et al scraping it because they can. I am yet to see a reasonable justification for this abuse.
Again I would refer to the rampant hypocrisy in this thread, not one of you would be happy having your hard work stolen by a massively profitable company and then republished so that they can make more money ?
Not one of you.
No you miss the point. And you keep missing it.The news producers should have the right to either sell their content via their own platforms, or sell their content to third parties.
The reality is that they tried to sell their own content on their own platforms, but the third parties take whatever they like and re publish it without permission. Because this is the f
king internet right ?FB is spitting its dummy out because the content producer wants to retain the rights to its own content, and not have FB and Google et al scraping it because they can. I am yet to see a reasonable justification for this abuse.
Again I would refer to the rampant hypocrisy in this thread, not one of you would be happy having your hard work stolen by a massively profitable company and then republished so that they can make more money ?
Not one of you.
The issue is not IP theft. The issue is not FB scraping news sites against their will.
You have made up a situation in your head and are objecting to it when it has nothing to do with the reality.
We are talking about;
a) FB users uploading and sharing news and news links.
b) News organisations uploading and sharing news and news links.
If you doubt this, then have a look at how FB reacted to the proposal. They stopped users and news organisations uploading and linking to news stories.
No-one is talking about FB stealing or scraping data except you.
You understand I hope that if any news organisation paywalled its content then it would not be available to FB.
Have a look at the Times FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/timesandsundaytimes
Pick any story (uploaded by the Times themselves) - it will take you to the Times website. This is paywalled so you can only read the first paragraph. Their hope is that the FB clickbait will induce people to subscribe. Why should FB pay for that.
FWIW if, and it's a big if, the situation was as you describe and FB were scraping the data against the wishes of the IP owner then I and most people on this thread would agree with you.
AlvinSultana said:
So your point is that FB is ok stealing Ip because its only 5% of it’s content ?
Right ?
And its ok because it can survive without it.
Right ?
Thats your justification for a massively profitable business refusing to pay for one of its basic raw materials.
Got it.
Nope. Again.Right ?
And its ok because it can survive without it.
Right ?
Thats your justification for a massively profitable business refusing to pay for one of its basic raw materials.
Got it.
The IP theft you assert stopped the moment they stopped hosting news content. It was then that those very content providers moved to being them back to the table.
The point is that the news orgs need Facebook more than Facebook need them - they captivate the users.
If you want to blame someone for the erosion of the value of news media IP then blame the internet.
i4got said:
No you miss the point. And you keep missing it.
The issue is not IP theft. The issue is not FB scraping news sites against their will.
You have made up a situation in your head and are objecting to it when it has nothing to do with the reality.
We are talking about;
a) FB users uploading and sharing news and news links.
b) News organisations uploading and sharing news and news links.
If you doubt this, then have a look at how FB reacted to the proposal. They stopped users and news organisations uploading and linking to news stories.
No-one is talking about FB stealing or scraping data except you.
You understand I hope that if any news organisation paywalled its content then it would not be available to FB.
Have a look at the Times FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/timesandsundaytimes
Pick any story (uploaded by the Times themselves) - it will take you to the Times website. This is paywalled so you can only read the first paragraph. Their hope is that the FB clickbait will induce people to subscribe. Why should FB pay for that.
FWIW if, and it's a big if, the situation was as you describe and FB were scraping the data against the wishes of the IP owner then I and most people on this thread would agree with you.
FB was asked to pay for the news articles it uses to entertain and cajole its customer base into further discussion.The issue is not IP theft. The issue is not FB scraping news sites against their will.
You have made up a situation in your head and are objecting to it when it has nothing to do with the reality.
We are talking about;
a) FB users uploading and sharing news and news links.
b) News organisations uploading and sharing news and news links.
If you doubt this, then have a look at how FB reacted to the proposal. They stopped users and news organisations uploading and linking to news stories.
No-one is talking about FB stealing or scraping data except you.
You understand I hope that if any news organisation paywalled its content then it would not be available to FB.
Have a look at the Times FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/timesandsundaytimes
Pick any story (uploaded by the Times themselves) - it will take you to the Times website. This is paywalled so you can only read the first paragraph. Their hope is that the FB clickbait will induce people to subscribe. Why should FB pay for that.
FWIW if, and it's a big if, the situation was as you describe and FB were scraping the data against the wishes of the IP owner then I and most people on this thread would agree with you.
It decided that is was above such vulgar discussion and manipulated its user base by blocking uploading of news by said users.
Now FB has seen that this was something of a PR own goal. It has entered into discussion regarding paying for the content. Obviously Zuckerberg will be bankrupted. Sell FB stock asap.
I have no time for Murdoch. But it really is time that “its the internet” stopped being an excuse for s
tty behaviour.survivalist said:
Nope. Again.
The IP theft you assert stopped the moment they stopped hosting news content. It was then that those very content providers moved to being them back to the table.
The point is that the news orgs need Facebook more than Facebook need them - they captivate the users.
If you want to blame someone for the erosion of the value of news media IP then blame the internet.
I think you will find both parties are back at the table. Massive PR faux pas given their financial might.The IP theft you assert stopped the moment they stopped hosting news content. It was then that those very content providers moved to being them back to the table.
The point is that the news orgs need Facebook more than Facebook need them - they captivate the users.
If you want to blame someone for the erosion of the value of news media IP then blame the internet.
I dont blame FB for anything other than its reluctance to pay for its content. ( and its reluctance to pay corp taxes where appropriate)
Again, and I note you ignore this point. Zuckerberg would have a fit if you started scraping his content. Right ?
AlvinSultana said:
i4got said:
No you miss the point. And you keep missing it.
The issue is not IP theft. The issue is not FB scraping news sites against their will.
You have made up a situation in your head and are objecting to it when it has nothing to do with the reality.
We are talking about;
a) FB users uploading and sharing news and news links.
b) News organisations uploading and sharing news and news links.
If you doubt this, then have a look at how FB reacted to the proposal. They stopped users and news organisations uploading and linking to news stories.
No-one is talking about FB stealing or scraping data except you.
You understand I hope that if any news organisation paywalled its content then it would not be available to FB.
Have a look at the Times FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/timesandsundaytimes
Pick any story (uploaded by the Times themselves) - it will take you to the Times website. This is paywalled so you can only read the first paragraph. Their hope is that the FB clickbait will induce people to subscribe. Why should FB pay for that.
FWIW if, and it's a big if, the situation was as you describe and FB were scraping the data against the wishes of the IP owner then I and most people on this thread would agree with you.
FB was asked to pay for the news articles it uses to entertain and cajole its customer base into further discussion.The issue is not IP theft. The issue is not FB scraping news sites against their will.
You have made up a situation in your head and are objecting to it when it has nothing to do with the reality.
We are talking about;
a) FB users uploading and sharing news and news links.
b) News organisations uploading and sharing news and news links.
If you doubt this, then have a look at how FB reacted to the proposal. They stopped users and news organisations uploading and linking to news stories.
No-one is talking about FB stealing or scraping data except you.
You understand I hope that if any news organisation paywalled its content then it would not be available to FB.
Have a look at the Times FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/timesandsundaytimes
Pick any story (uploaded by the Times themselves) - it will take you to the Times website. This is paywalled so you can only read the first paragraph. Their hope is that the FB clickbait will induce people to subscribe. Why should FB pay for that.
FWIW if, and it's a big if, the situation was as you describe and FB were scraping the data against the wishes of the IP owner then I and most people on this thread would agree with you.
It decided that is was above such vulgar discussion and manipulated its user base by blocking uploading of news by said users.
Now FB has seen that this was something of a PR own goal. It has entered into discussion regarding paying for the content. Obviously Zuckerberg will be bankrupted. Sell FB stock asap.
I have no time for Murdoch. But it really is time that “its the internet” stopped being an excuse for s
tty behaviour.If you do actually have ‘no time for Murdoch’ then maybe stop supporting the stance of the Australian government until they change it to something resembling regulation rather than just a tax on Facebook order to backfill the profits of the crumbling and increasingly irrelevant News Corp.
Still, it’s a bit like Spotify
survivalist said:
Facebook has caused the proposed legislation to be diluted to the point of irrelevance.
If you do actually have ‘no time for Murdoch’ then maybe stop supporting the stance of the Australian government until they change it to something resembling regulation rather than just a tax on Facebook order to backfill the profits of the crumbling and increasingly irrelevant News Corp.
Still, it’s a bit like Spotify
I am not supporting anyones stance. I just think FB should pay for the IP that they use. As should everybody.If you do actually have ‘no time for Murdoch’ then maybe stop supporting the stance of the Australian government until they change it to something resembling regulation rather than just a tax on Facebook order to backfill the profits of the crumbling and increasingly irrelevant News Corp.
Still, it’s a bit like Spotify
I have no time for Murdoch. But he is correct on this.
You are ok with other entities using IP without permission, unless of course it belongs to you. Which of course means you have something in common with Mr Zuckerberg.
I support your right to be ill informed and hypocritical on this point.
Edited by AlvinSultana on Thursday 25th February 04:26
AlvinSultana said:
survivalist said:
Facebook has caused the proposed legislation to be diluted to the point of irrelevance.
If you do actually have ‘no time for Murdoch’ then maybe stop supporting the stance of the Australian government until they change it to something resembling regulation rather than just a tax on Facebook order to backfill the profits of the crumbling and increasingly irrelevant News Corp.
Still, it’s a bit like Spotify
I am not supporting anyones stance. I just think FB should pay for the IP that they use. As should everybody.If you do actually have ‘no time for Murdoch’ then maybe stop supporting the stance of the Australian government until they change it to something resembling regulation rather than just a tax on Facebook order to backfill the profits of the crumbling and increasingly irrelevant News Corp.
Still, it’s a bit like Spotify
I have no time for Murdoch. But he is correct on this.
You are ok with other entities using IP without permission, unless of course it belongs to you. Which of course means you have something in common with Mr Zuckerberg.
I support your right to be ill informed and hypocritical on this point.
Edited by AlvinSultana on Thursday 25th February 04:26
You seem to be unable to understand the complexities of the value exchange between the news corporations and Facebook and instead believe the Facebook = Bad.
AlvinSultana said:
You can bet your house that Zuckerberg will defend his IP using the full weight of his legal might.
Facebook to pay news industry $1 billion over 3 yearsFacebook announced Wednesday it plans to invest $1 billion to "support the news industry" over the next three years and admits it "erred on the side of over-enforcement" by banning news links in Australia.
Facebook is following in Google's footsteps, after last October the company pledged to pay publishers over $1 billion during the next three years to create and curate high-quality journalism for its Google News Showcase.
https://www.axios.com/facebook-pay-news-industry-1...
Byker28i said:
AlvinSultana said:
You can bet your house that Zuckerberg will defend his IP using the full weight of his legal might.
Facebook to pay news industry $1 billion over 3 yearsFacebook announced Wednesday it plans to invest $1 billion to "support the news industry" over the next three years and admits it "erred on the side of over-enforcement" by banning news links in Australia.
Facebook is following in Google's footsteps, after last October the company pledged to pay publishers over $1 billion during the next three years to create and curate high-quality journalism for its Google News Showcase.
https://www.axios.com/facebook-pay-news-industry-1...
In reality the goalposts have been shifted from a government mandated levy, to private negotiations with an arbitration process. Will be interesting to see who the winners and losers are.
AlvinSultana said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If that's true (which is actually isn't), let's go with your utterly daft analogy. The head teacher confronts the bully and says "stop bullying the weaker kid, or pay compensation". So the bully decides to stop. And the head teacher says "this is a declaration of war, who do you think you are, how dare you".
In my utterly daft analogy the teacher is the govt, and the govt decides it does not want to see the bully taking the weaker kids dinner money.Right ?
Or is there some other point to your post ?
AlvinSultana said:
I am not supporting anyones stance. I just think FB should pay for the IP that they use. As should everybody.
I have no time for Murdoch. But he is correct on this.
If you think FB should pay for the IP they use, that's fine. But surely FB should have the right not to use the IP and not pay. I have no time for Murdoch. But he is correct on this.
That's where your entire argument falls down. Because that's what FB have done, and that's the last thing Murdoch wants. What he basically wants, backed by his lapdogs in the Oz govt, is for FB to be forced to use and pay for his IP. That cannot be right. Tesco can make me pay for the food I buy in Tesco, but they can't make me shop in Tesco. Or buy food at all, I could just grow my own.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff