- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:34:37 -0500
- To: Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Jonathan Zittrain <zittrain@law.harvard.edu>, Daniel Weitzner <weitzner@mit.edu>, Davi Ottenheimer <davi@inrupt.com>, schneier Bruce <schneier@inrupt.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 1/16/21 12:36 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > Has anyone noticed this call > https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-media-bargaining-code > from the Australian government for comments on a plan to force Google and Facebook to pay money to news media businesses for content they display on their services? This is a final call of a proposal whose first versions came out in July. > > The web architecture issue here seems to be the right to link. The code, if it became law, would force Google search and Facebook Newsfeed [specifically] to pay a fee to the owner of the destination content (news publisher) when the link is displayed, not even necessarily followed. > > The architecture of the WWW generally involves the right to link to something with impunity -- is this proposal in direct with that right? > > What do folks, and the TAG, think? I notice that page numbered 5 of the bill (though the 9th page of the PDF) says: "a service makes content available if: . . . a link to the content is provided on the service" and: "a user of a service interacts with content made available by the service if: . . . a link to the content is provided on the service and the user interacts with the link". https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf David Booth
Received on Saturday, 16 January 2021 18:34:53 UTC