As Canada Passes Corrupt Link Tax, Meta Says No More News Links In Canada
www.techdirt.com
Two weeks ago, Canada’s Heritage Minister, Pablo Rodriguez, who has been the main Canadian government official pushing for C-18, the bullshit link tax bill, that is just a corrupt wealth transfer f…

TechDirt’s Mike Masnick gets it exactly right in covering Canada’s C-18 bill:

If you believe in the open web, if you believe that you should never have to pay to link to something, if you believe that no one should have to pay to provide you a benefit, then you should support Meta’s stance here. Yes, it’s self-serving for Meta. Of course it is. But, even if it’s by accident, or a side-effect, it’s helping to defend the open web, against a ridiculous attack from an astoundingly ignorant and foolish set of Canadian politicians.

And just generally points out the huge holes in Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez understanding from the Power & Politics Interview.

  • PowerSeries@lemmy.caEnglish
    32·
    1 year ago

    For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if

    (a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or

    (b) access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content.

    21 An operator must participate in the bargaining process with the eligible news business or group of eligible news businesses that initiated it.

    39 An arbitration panel must dismiss any offer that, in its opinion,

    (b) is not in the public interest because the offer would be highly likely to result in serious detriment to the provision of news content to persons in Canada; or

    © is inconsistent with the purposes of enhancing fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace and contributing to its sustainability.

    Sounds a lot like the named companies aren’t even allowed to say “no I don’t want to display links at that cost anymore.”. And it includes indexing for searching, even if you only included the headline with no preview link, or allowed people to like/upvoat posts with links to news sites in them.

    So you have to negotiate if named, and the news sites reject your offer, you go to arbitration, and of the arbiter doesn’t like your offer (and by the text “I don’t want to show news anymore” MUST be rejected) then it goes to whatever the news corps offer was.

    If it just said “hey, we decided your previews generate too much value and violate copyrights, you need to pay royalties or else show the bare links” well, that would be dumb but fair. But being forced to transact seems bad.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Sounds a lot like the named companies aren’t even allowed to say “no I don’t want to display links at that cost anymore.”

      Are you saying news sites should be able to prevent linking to their site altogether? Seems like that would be giving too much power to the News sites, and then there would be complications if a user on the social media site were to link to their site somehow. What would the penalty be if a social media site linked to a news site that prohibited them from doing so?

      Also doesn’t seem like something a news site would want to do.

      • PowerSeries@lemmy.caEnglish
        21·
        1 year ago

        No the opposite. Those sites (G/FB) will be forced to negotiate with the news sites over how much money they now owe them, and the tech companies can’t say “no I’m out I don’t want to pay X” as that seems to violate the rules passed to the arbiters saying they must reject an offer if it means Canadians get less news.

        So meta pulling links is gonna get contested, and they will be forced to hand over a bag of cash to pay for all the linking they have done.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.caEnglish
          31·
          1 year ago

          If they don’t want to pay, they don’t post news. Which is exactly what facebook is doing right now.

          Same deal as for me and you really. If a news site charges a subscription I either pay the subscription and can see the news. Or I don’t pay it and don’t get the news.

          Even if it’s ad supported, most news sites require me to disable the ad blocker to see the article. I can decide to disable the ad blocker and see the article (and they get paid that way), or I close the tab and not see it (they don’t get paid, but I don’t get the article).

          Why do you think a massive corporation shouldn’t have to pay for the things me and you have to pay for?