Australia set to enact bill making Facebook, Google pay for news
The proposal to require Facebook and other big tech firms to pay for news, has passed its last major parliamentary hurdle in Australia, and is now expected to become law.
Australia's Senate has passed the proposal that would see big tech companies pay for news, or be subject to binding arbitration if they cannot reach a deal with publishers. The upper chamber voted to accept the bill with the amendments agreed on following Facebook's banning of news pages in protest.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the bill will now return to the Australian parliament's lower chamber, the House of Representatives. This body previously passed the unamended version, so it is expected to agree to this edition.
The House of Representatives may vote on the bill as soon as Thursday, February 25. If passed, it will then become law once it is signed by Australia's governor-general.
Facebook agreed to resume access to news pages in the region after the government agreed to certain amendments. These included specifying a two-month period for negotiations before an arbitration process begins.
It also allows for the Australian government to effectively make an exemption for Facebook, if the social media giant can demonstrate that it has made a "significant contribution" to local journalism.
While the bill, and the controversy around it, has appeared to chiefly concentrate on Facebook and Google, it's expected to apply to all large tech firms. And it may prove to be a model that other countries and states will adopt.
Australia's Senate has passed the proposal that would see big tech companies pay for news, or be subject to binding arbitration if they cannot reach a deal with publishers. The upper chamber voted to accept the bill with the amendments agreed on following Facebook's banning of news pages in protest.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the bill will now return to the Australian parliament's lower chamber, the House of Representatives. This body previously passed the unamended version, so it is expected to agree to this edition.
The House of Representatives may vote on the bill as soon as Thursday, February 25. If passed, it will then become law once it is signed by Australia's governor-general.
Facebook agreed to resume access to news pages in the region after the government agreed to certain amendments. These included specifying a two-month period for negotiations before an arbitration process begins.
It also allows for the Australian government to effectively make an exemption for Facebook, if the social media giant can demonstrate that it has made a "significant contribution" to local journalism.
While the bill, and the controversy around it, has appeared to chiefly concentrate on Facebook and Google, it's expected to apply to all large tech firms. And it may prove to be a model that other countries and states will adopt.
Comments
I think it would be fair to mention in the subject and at least in the article that the law makes Facebook and Google pay for *links to news*.
The law also forces them to show these links in search results (Google) or in the timeline as people post links (Facebook).
And Facebook has to pay even if journalists share their own work there. Probably also in the case newspapers themselves post the links.
Just wondering when everybody must pay if you link to someone else’s work. That’s kinda the purpose of the World Wide Web.
(yes Facebook especially sucks, but it doesn’t make this law right)
Sure, if you want to get the law changed to require that. If one of you proposes such a law, I will consider it. The only problem I foresee with the idea is that it legitimizes Facebook's approach, and I don't want it legalized. Legalizing things that are bad for people is usually a bad idea. Would you legalize hard drugs by taxing them?
I live in aus - this law makes no sense...until you realise the hold Fairfax and New Corp have over the countries Politicians and just how poorly these two media "giants" are doing - esp. their news media
This is a money grab for them via their manipulation of our "elected" representatives (because you wont get elected in Aus without nice friendly articles in the main stream press - basically because the avg australian makes the avg yank look like a genius)
Funnily enough, it's a similar set of problems for legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco.
For now, the only evidence we have regarding the impact of "legalizing" hard drugs is Portugal, where the drugs are still illegal but possession and use is viewed as a health risk problem and not a criminal problem. For a quick overview: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-overdosing-10301780.html
Again, it's not simple, but in general terms legalizing things that are bad for you and taxing them will lead to reduced consumption. The taxes reduce the net economic burden of the other mitigation activities pursued.
Back to the article discussion, I am very worried that this law is being passed without due consideration for the long-term consequences. Similar laws will be enacted world-wide, probably with even less discussion and review because of the precedent being set here. I remain convinced that the ACCC has defensible motivations for following this through, but like others I see the hand of entrenched private interests steering the outcome. What has the world come to when I agree with Jacqui Lambie???