Australia and Facebook....
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
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.
My argument is that companies and individuals should pay for the IP they use. 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.
FB are free to do whatever they want. No one is forcing them to use content that they don't want to use, your point is absurd.
Strangely FB seem to have realised that paying for stuff instead of insisting they have the right to just take it without agreement might be the way forward.
Pretty s
tty behaviour for one of the most profitable companies on the planet. Dont you think ?AlvinSultana said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
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.
My argument is that companies and individuals should pay for the IP they use. 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.
FB are free to do whatever they want. No one is forcing them to use content that they don't want to use, your point is absurd.
AlvinSultana said:
Strangely FB seem to have realised that paying for stuff instead of insisting they have the right to just take it without agreement might be the way forward.
Pretty stty behaviour for one of the most profitable companies on the planet. Dont you think ?
No, because you seem to have your head in the sand to the fact that most of the companies involved are happy to have FB use their IP, because it benefits them.Pretty s
tty behaviour for one of the most profitable companies on the planet. Dont you think ? And I'm not sure FB have reached the conclusion re paying that you say they have.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, because you seem to have your head in the sand to the fact that most of the companies involved are happy to have FB use their IP, because it benefits them.
So you are arguing against my point ( the IP should be paid for by FB ) by saying that everyone except FB is already paying for it ?So everyone is paying except FB, and this is why FB is in the right and entitled to spit out its dummy ?
That's your argument ?
AlvinSultana said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, because you seem to have your head in the sand to the fact that most of the companies involved are happy to have FB use their IP, because it benefits them.
So you are arguing against my point ( the IP should be paid for by FB ) by saying that everyone except FB is already paying for it ?So everyone is paying except FB, and this is why FB is in the right and entitled to spit out its dummy ?
That's your argument ?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
AlvinSultana said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, because you seem to have your head in the sand to the fact that most of the companies involved are happy to have FB use their IP, because it benefits them.
So you are arguing against my point ( the IP should be paid for by FB ) by saying that everyone except FB is already paying for it ?So everyone is paying except FB, and this is why FB is in the right and entitled to spit out its dummy ?
That's your argument ?
The large operations like News Corp and Seven News will be geared up for this as they will have teams of lawyers. Like the google negotiations, the exact terms of the deal May be hard to find out.
The smaller news outlets may fare less well, although many of the benefit from the reach that Facebook has so probably won’t care.
It’s also going to be interesting to see if these deals will impact the way that Facebook’s algorithms prioritise the various content, news and non-news, based on advertising revenue.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My argument is I'm pretty sure the worlds top footballers don't pay Nike, Adidas or whoever to wear their boots. They get the property of Nike & Adidas free, because those 2 firms sell more football boots off the back of it. Yes, it's costing Nike to give 50 pairs of boots to Harry Kane or whoever at the start of the season, but they will then sell 5 million pairs of boots to cloggers like me who think if I wear the same boots as Harry Kane, I'll play like Harry Kane when I turn out for the Dog & Duck on Sunday.
Not really relevant though.Sports clothing manufacturers sponsor footballers to encourage the general public to buy their goods.
News companies pay journalists to produce news content so that they can sell newspapers / TV subscriptions / and advertising.
The footballers dont remove the branding from the boots and replace it with their own brands and resell that space directly to other manufacturers. Which is what tech companies have historically done.
If I take a piece of IP knowing that lots of people will want to see / watch / listen to it, and then a stick it on a web page with a ton of ads, unless I have agreement from the IP owner I am depriving the owner of their legitimate earnings.
Its that simple.
AlvinSultana said:
Indeed. So, exactly as I said days ago, the end result is that the Australian Government have supported the transfer of a relatively small amount of money from one tax dodging corporate (Facebook) to another (Newscorm + a couple of other smaller but still large corps). Any smaller players are at best no better off, possibly worse - as depending on terms of the news Corp deal, Facebook may choose to activity promote their stuff over smaller / local outlets.
survivalist said:
Indeed. So, exactly as I said days ago, the end result is that the Australian Government have supported the transfer of a relatively small amount of money from one tax dodging corporate (Facebook) to another (Newscorm + a couple of other smaller but still large corps).
Any smaller players are at best no better off, possibly worse - as depending on terms of the news Corp deal, Facebook may choose to activity promote their stuff over smaller / local outlets.
No nothing to do with anything you said.Any smaller players are at best no better off, possibly worse - as depending on terms of the news Corp deal, Facebook may choose to activity promote their stuff over smaller / local outlets.
An amusing skit on the banal pointlessness of the power politics.
You however missed the point on every single level.
But good luck thinking you is like well informed.
AlvinSultana said:
survivalist said:
Indeed. So, exactly as I said days ago, the end result is that the Australian Government have supported the transfer of a relatively small amount of money from one tax dodging corporate (Facebook) to another (Newscorm + a couple of other smaller but still large corps).
Any smaller players are at best no better off, possibly worse - as depending on terms of the news Corp deal, Facebook may choose to activity promote their stuff over smaller / local outlets.
No nothing to do with anything you said.Any smaller players are at best no better off, possibly worse - as depending on terms of the news Corp deal, Facebook may choose to activity promote their stuff over smaller / local outlets.
An amusing skit on the banal pointlessness of the power politics.
You however missed the point on every single level.
But good luck thinking you is like well informed.
For anyone wanting to see greater regulation and / or oversight of the Facebook and large technology companies, this is a backwards step. The vast majority of the public will now feel that justice has been done and allows the large corporates to kick the cab down the road for a decade or so.
FFs you dont really do comprehension do you ?
I did not compare FB to Spotify.
I used Spotify as an example of how a tech co builds market dominance by giving away other peoples IP, then when the market dominance dictates that you have to be on Spotify the IP holders have no choice in the matter. Thus Spotify and its apologist’s claim a symbiotic relationship, when in fact it is nothing of the sort.
The youtube clip was a humorous take on the ridiculousness of the whole situation. But you missed that as well.
A ) Murdoch is a tt.
B ) But that does not mean FB have behaved very poorly.
C ) Governments rarely have the testicles or the knowledge to tame the internet.
D ) Intellectual property should be respected, whether on line or in the real world.
I did not compare FB to Spotify.
I used Spotify as an example of how a tech co builds market dominance by giving away other peoples IP, then when the market dominance dictates that you have to be on Spotify the IP holders have no choice in the matter. Thus Spotify and its apologist’s claim a symbiotic relationship, when in fact it is nothing of the sort.
The youtube clip was a humorous take on the ridiculousness of the whole situation. But you missed that as well.
A ) Murdoch is a t
t.B ) But that does not mean FB have behaved very poorly.
C ) Governments rarely have the testicles or the knowledge to tame the internet.
D ) Intellectual property should be respected, whether on line or in the real world.
AlvinSultana said:
FFs you dont really do comprehension do you ?
I did not compare FB to Spotify.
I used Spotify as an example of how a tech co builds market dominance by giving away other peoples IP, then when the market dominance dictates that you have to be on Spotify the IP holders have no choice in the matter. Thus Spotify and its apologist’s claim a symbiotic relationship, when in fact it is nothing of the sort.
The youtube clip was a humorous take on the ridiculousness of the whole situation. But you missed that as well.
A ) Murdoch is a tt.
B ) But that does not mean FB have behaved very poorly.
C ) Governments rarely have the testicles or the knowledge to tame the internet.
D ) Intellectual property should be respected, whether on line or in the real world.
Spotify don’t give away people’s IP. I did not compare FB to Spotify.
I used Spotify as an example of how a tech co builds market dominance by giving away other peoples IP, then when the market dominance dictates that you have to be on Spotify the IP holders have no choice in the matter. Thus Spotify and its apologist’s claim a symbiotic relationship, when in fact it is nothing of the sort.
The youtube clip was a humorous take on the ridiculousness of the whole situation. But you missed that as well.
A ) Murdoch is a t
t.B ) But that does not mean FB have behaved very poorly.
C ) Governments rarely have the testicles or the knowledge to tame the internet.
D ) Intellectual property should be respected, whether on line or in the real world.
They pay them a market rate for it. However, the advent of a massively more efficient delivery mechanism (steaming, compare to having to manufacture, warehouse, distribute and retail physical media) means that the market rate has reduced significantly.
Journalism has suffered from the internet because the barrier to entry is now tiny. Anyone can publish their analysis, opinions because they no longer need to have a contact with a publisher.
A. Murdoch is a capitalist who owns a large corporate. He is acting in his own interest. Part of this incident spending a significant amount of time and money encouraging the Australian government to act in a way that benefits him. Supporting the ‘pay to play’ model said government was seeking to impose supports his interests, whether people like it or not.
B. Facebook have behaved like another large corporate; hardly surprising as that’s what they are. Even if you take the stance that their scraping of 3rd part content was unethical, this stopped when they banned news from their platform. In an ethical world that should be the end of the matter. In reality, Murdoch and his government puppets aren’t happy with this, because they ultimately want Facebook to continue generating advertising revue so that can get a small percentage of it.
C. Indeed they don’t. However your argument throughout this thread has been based around what is right and moral (the main one being that organisations should pay people for their IP). Does that not apply when something becomes hard.
D. What does respected mean? Some IP has no value. Some people provide IP to Facebook but receive more value (traffic, links) from being on Facebook than Facebook receives I return.
The YouTube clip is a statistical video pointing to the futility of the current situation.
Edited by survivalist on Saturday 27th February 21:33
survivalist said:
Spotify don’t give away people’s IP.
They pay them a market rate for it. However, the advent of a massively more efficient delivery mechanism (steaming, compare to having to manufacture, warehouse, distribute and retail physical media) means that the market rate has reduced significantly.
Journalism has suffered from the internet because the barrier to entry is now tiny. Anyone can publish their analysis, opinions because they no longer need to have a contact with a publisher.
A. Murdoch is a capitalist who owns a large corporate. He is acting in his own interest. Part of this incident spending a significant amount of time and money encouraging the Australian government to act in a way that benefits him. Supporting the ‘pay to play’ model said government was seeking to impose supports his interests, whether people like it or not.
B. Facebook have behaved like another large corporate; hardly surprising as that’s what they are. Even if you take the stance that their scraping of 3rd part content was unethical, this stopped when they banned news from their platform. In an ethical world that should be the end of the matter. In reality, Murdoch and his government puppets aren’t happy with this, because they ultimately want Facebook to continue generating advertising revue so that can get a small percentage of it.
C. Indeed they don’t. However your argument throughout this thread has been based around what is right and moral (the main one being that organisations should pay people for their IP). Does that not apply when something becomes hard.
D. What does respected mean? Some IP has no value. Some people provide IP to Facebook but receive more value (traffic, links) from being on Facebook than Facebook receives I return.
The YouTube clip is a statistical video pointing to the futility of the current situation.
A) educate yourself on the history of spotify.They pay them a market rate for it. However, the advent of a massively more efficient delivery mechanism (steaming, compare to having to manufacture, warehouse, distribute and retail physical media) means that the market rate has reduced significantly.
Journalism has suffered from the internet because the barrier to entry is now tiny. Anyone can publish their analysis, opinions because they no longer need to have a contact with a publisher.
A. Murdoch is a capitalist who owns a large corporate. He is acting in his own interest. Part of this incident spending a significant amount of time and money encouraging the Australian government to act in a way that benefits him. Supporting the ‘pay to play’ model said government was seeking to impose supports his interests, whether people like it or not.
B. Facebook have behaved like another large corporate; hardly surprising as that’s what they are. Even if you take the stance that their scraping of 3rd part content was unethical, this stopped when they banned news from their platform. In an ethical world that should be the end of the matter. In reality, Murdoch and his government puppets aren’t happy with this, because they ultimately want Facebook to continue generating advertising revue so that can get a small percentage of it.
C. Indeed they don’t. However your argument throughout this thread has been based around what is right and moral (the main one being that organisations should pay people for their IP). Does that not apply when something becomes hard.
D. What does respected mean? Some IP has no value. Some people provide IP to Facebook but receive more value (traffic, links) from being on Facebook than Facebook receives I return.
The YouTube clip is a statistical video pointing to the futility of the current situation.
Edited by survivalist on Saturday 27th February 21:33
B) what is a statistical video.
AlvinSultana said:
survivalist said:
Spotify don’t give away people’s IP.
They pay them a market rate for it. However, the advent of a massively more efficient delivery mechanism (steaming, compare to having to manufacture, warehouse, distribute and retail physical media) means that the market rate has reduced significantly.
Journalism has suffered from the internet because the barrier to entry is now tiny. Anyone can publish their analysis, opinions because they no longer need to have a contact with a publisher.
A. Murdoch is a capitalist who owns a large corporate. He is acting in his own interest. Part of this incident spending a significant amount of time and money encouraging the Australian government to act in a way that benefits him. Supporting the ‘pay to play’ model said government was seeking to impose supports his interests, whether people like it or not.
B. Facebook have behaved like another large corporate; hardly surprising as that’s what they are. Even if you take the stance that their scraping of 3rd part content was unethical, this stopped when they banned news from their platform. In an ethical world that should be the end of the matter. In reality, Murdoch and his government puppets aren’t happy with this, because they ultimately want Facebook to continue generating advertising revue so that can get a small percentage of it.
C. Indeed they don’t. However your argument throughout this thread has been based around what is right and moral (the main one being that organisations should pay people for their IP). Does that not apply when something becomes hard.
D. What does respected mean? Some IP has no value. Some people provide IP to Facebook but receive more value (traffic, links) from being on Facebook than Facebook receives I return.
The YouTube clip is a statistical video pointing to the futility of the current situation.
A) educate yourself on the history of spotify.They pay them a market rate for it. However, the advent of a massively more efficient delivery mechanism (steaming, compare to having to manufacture, warehouse, distribute and retail physical media) means that the market rate has reduced significantly.
Journalism has suffered from the internet because the barrier to entry is now tiny. Anyone can publish their analysis, opinions because they no longer need to have a contact with a publisher.
A. Murdoch is a capitalist who owns a large corporate. He is acting in his own interest. Part of this incident spending a significant amount of time and money encouraging the Australian government to act in a way that benefits him. Supporting the ‘pay to play’ model said government was seeking to impose supports his interests, whether people like it or not.
B. Facebook have behaved like another large corporate; hardly surprising as that’s what they are. Even if you take the stance that their scraping of 3rd part content was unethical, this stopped when they banned news from their platform. In an ethical world that should be the end of the matter. In reality, Murdoch and his government puppets aren’t happy with this, because they ultimately want Facebook to continue generating advertising revue so that can get a small percentage of it.
C. Indeed they don’t. However your argument throughout this thread has been based around what is right and moral (the main one being that organisations should pay people for their IP). Does that not apply when something becomes hard.
D. What does respected mean? Some IP has no value. Some people provide IP to Facebook but receive more value (traffic, links) from being on Facebook than Facebook receives I return.
The YouTube clip is a statistical video pointing to the futility of the current situation.
Edited by survivalist on Saturday 27th February 21:33
B) what is a statistical video.
You don’t seem to be able to articulate what is so bad about Spotify, which might lead one to suggest that you educate yourself to the point where you can.
The main criticism of Spotify that I have seen has been from artists who believe that they are not gaining enough revenue from their music on Spotify.
Artists who control their own rights can remove their music from Spotify.
Artists who don’t probably shouldn’t have signed their rights over to a publisher who has agreed to said music being published on Spotify.
A number of platinum selling artists have withdrawn their catalogue from Spotify (as is their right) but, tellingly, have returned.
Competitors such as Apple Music and Deezer, and the decline in physical media, seem to suggest that streaming is a popular business model.
B.
Autocorrect. Satirical. Would have thought most people could have worked that out for themselves.
AlvinSultana said:
I’m aware of the criticism and the points above are made with it in mind.Like many industries, the internet has fundamentally changed how we consume certain things. Music probably more than most.
Streaming is just a natural part of that, Spotify were just the first to get really big and as a result got the bulk of the criticism.
Most of the criticisms are just the same objections that can be observed whenever there is progress/change. The reality is that the market for purchasing music is now tiny compared to steaming music. Same for TV and Film.
The other criticisms just seems to be based on a rose tinted view of how the music industry used to operate. Spotify getting paid to promote certain artists on their playlist is just a modern version of Record Labels paying retailers like HMV and Tesco to promote albums and artists using preferential in store placement.
I remember the same arguments when iTunes started selling music. Same again when they started selling individual songs.
Finally, Thom Yorke (one of the most outspoken critics of Spotify) seems to be delusional. He thinks that Spotify and music publishers should just ‘get out of the way’ and constantly bangs on about how Radiohead released their ‘In Rainbows’ album independently.
Firstly, anyone can do that right now. I can record a bunch of music (with my own fortune that I made while under contract to a major music publisher) and then publish it on my own website.
Secondly, while anyone can do it, it’s likely they will need to garner enough interest generate a fan base big enough to sell said downloads. They can, of course, boycott Spotify when they do this. They could use Instagram, Facebook and YouTube to do this who will pay them sweet FA unless they generate some ad revenue.
In reality, it’s mainly the record companies who are upset with Spotify, as they have removed their ability to sell a CD Album for £15 or a Single for £4.
It’s a cautionary tale of trying to resist change rather than embrace it and be one of the innovators. In the late 90’s the writing was on the wall. Napster and Limewire were growing and distributing copyrighted content illegally. The record companies could have banded together then to ‘own’ the music streaming market. Instead they tried to stamp it out with lawsuits, which was always going to futile.
It seems Facebook actually are prepared to pay for news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-5641033...
Suggests that it actually IS quite an important part of their model. I hope the son of the poster who is happy to pay Facebook to scrape his content sees more value for his future work.
I think this is pretty good news for journalism.
Suggests that it actually IS quite an important part of their model. I hope the son of the poster who is happy to pay Facebook to scrape his content sees more value for his future work.
I think this is pretty good news for journalism.
Disastrous said:
It seems Facebook actually are prepared to pay for news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-5641033...
Suggests that it actually IS quite an important part of their model. I hope the son of the poster who is happy to pay Facebook to scrape his content sees more value for his future work.
I think this is pretty good news for journalism.
Actually it's terrible news, for more than just journalism. Suggests that it actually IS quite an important part of their model. I hope the son of the poster who is happy to pay Facebook to scrape his content sees more value for his future work.
I think this is pretty good news for journalism.
It means that Murdoch gets to act like a standover man demanding payment for nothing (it's like McVitties demanding that Tesco pay them for stocking their biscuits... It's actually the other way around and stores get paid for prime shelf space).
It will actually lead to a decrease in the standard of journalism (yes, even worse than Newscorps current low standards) as they will start to interfere with what content is shown, I.E. prioritise these stories or we'll charge you more for the stuff people want to read.
Also... That article doesn't say they were willing, it said they were forced to... And that alone sets a terrible precedent. Murdoch's empire is failing, this won't be the last time he seeks rent.
Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 16th March 08:15
captain_cynic said:
Disastrous said:
It seems Facebook actually are prepared to pay for news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-5641033...
Suggests that it actually IS quite an important part of their model. I hope the son of the poster who is happy to pay Facebook to scrape his content sees more value for his future work.
I think this is pretty good news for journalism.
Actually it's terrible news, for more than just journalism. Suggests that it actually IS quite an important part of their model. I hope the son of the poster who is happy to pay Facebook to scrape his content sees more value for his future work.
I think this is pretty good news for journalism.
It means that Murdoch gets to act like a standover man demanding payment for nothing (it's like McVitties demanding that Tesco pay them for stocking their biscuits... It's actually the other way around and stores get paid for prime shelf space).
It will actually lead to a decrease in the standard of journalism (yes, even worse than Newscorps current low standards) as they will start to interfere with what content is shown, I.E. prioritise these stories or we'll charge you more for the stuff people want to read.
Also... That article doesn't say they were willing, it said they were forced to... And that alone sets a terrible precedent. Murdoch's empire is failing, this won't be the last time he seeks rent.
Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 16th March 08:15
My (limited) understanding from reading this thread was that the Aussie Gov said “pay, if you want to use it, but work out a deal yourselves” so Facebook switched off news and now some weeks later has decided it’s worth paying for. Is that not the case?
I can see your concern about Murdoch essentially getting to decide what becomes news and for how much but in general, I think the model of massive tech companies scraping content isn’t a good one.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff