They could have blocked Google and Facebook at any time. They didn't because they know the value is important if not existential.
What they want is for Facebook and Google to be forced to list them, but also forced to pay for the privilege. If they failed to craft or pay for legislation to that end, it was nothing more than a mistake.
> What they want is for Facebook and Google to be forced to list them, but also forced to pay for the privilege. If they failed to craft or pay for legislation to that end, it was nothing more than a mistake.
Such legislation is impossible given that Google/Facebook are not Australian companies. At the end of the day, if the legislation makes their involvement in those countries a net negative for their bottom lines, they can and will take their ball and go home.
How would you craft legislation that force Google and Facebook to do business with you under terms that you dictate? Ultimately how can you prevent said companies from pulling out of your country entirely if that's the better option for them?
Australia and Facebook did exactly what you described in your "impossible" hypothetical. I suspect the government's thinking was the Australia is too big a market for the victim companies to drop, i.e. they thought this was a deal they could not refuse.
No they didn't. Google isn't being forced to operate there; there's simply an additional cost of doing business being imposed. Clearly it's not in excess of income from Australia if they're continuing to choose to do business in the country.
I couldn't; I believe I originally thought you were suggesting these companies can't be expected to exert political will/make consequential decisions for some bizarre reason
Traditional media companies have been cutting off their noses to spite their faces for a long time now. I dont see why this will be any different.
Besides, this is obviously a good deal if facebook folds. Publishers seem to be overestimating their position so fb is calling their bluff. Both sides have stuff to lose, but im pretty sure the publishers have a lot more than fb does.
You understand that publishers control the distribution of their content, right? Facebook users merely pass around links. Publishers can block page loads from Facebook or put up a paywall anytime they want to. Some (like WSJ) chose to do so and others do not. This is basically a decision as to whether they receive more in value from those links than they do from blocking the links.
Thus the publishers have already revealed whether they benefit or not, by choosing to allow or disallow the traffic. There is no rational argument that they were being "hurt" by the traffic.
Of course Tech is now politically unpopular, and if you are Australian then it is foreign tech -- even more unpopular -- so why not use this political environment to try to extract some cash payments? Everyone wants to receive cash payments, and I can understand why a for-profit Industry would want cash payments, but what is harder to understand is why the public would view them as victims if they didn't get those payments, as they have already made it clear that they are benefitting from the tech traffic by allowing it and by setting up marketing accounts in Facebook and promoting/ sharing links to their stories there. Yet in addition to that they want to receive cash from Facebook. Well, that's a bit of a fantasy, now, isn't it?
I am not Australian or defending this move. I am just saying that these large corporations won’t shoot themselves on the foot without doing some analysis.
Demanding a law requiring negotiations merely gives them more options and legal leverage to try to demand cash payments. It doesn't shoot them in the foot. In the worst case, they can "grant" a free license to the tech companies and we have status quo ante. But the threat of making it illegal for the tech companies to operate unless they give some money to them certainly gives them more bargaining power. This requires zero analysis (except of the political climate).
