Australian Official Admits That Of Course Murdoch Came Up With Link Tax, But Insists The Bill Is Not A Favor To News Corp.

from the did-he-just-say-that-out-loud? dept

Earlier this year, we wrote a lot about the ridiculous anti-open internet Australian link tax that is now being pushed elsewhere around the globe. Anyone paying attention to the details knew that it was extreme crony capitalism at work, with the government forcing one set of massive companies (namely, Facebook and Google) to pay another set of massive companies, led by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and Nine. For all the talk of how big tech companies are “monopolies,” if you look at Australia’s news companies, it’s considered among the most concentrated in the world, and has been quite profitable for the likes of Murodch.

And while defenders of the bill insist (incorrectly) that the bill is not a link tax, but is merely a “competition bill” to help those few giant newspaper companies “better negotiate” with the giant internet companies, that’s bullshit for two reasons. First, it’s a “negotiation” to pay for links, and no one should ever have to pay to link to some other site. That’s just fundamentally against the concept of an open internet. Second, it’s no real negotiation because if Facebook and Google fail to agree to a deal that satisfies the Aussie media bosses, the government can step in and force an agreement on them.

Lots of people — including those in Australia — noted that this all seemed like a scheme to make Rupert Murdoch richer. And now the Australian competition official, Rod Sims, who “oversaw drafting of the law” has flat out admitted that the whole thing was Murdoch’s idea in the first place, though he insists it’s “extremely strange” that anyone thinks it’s a favor to Murdoch.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) chair Rod Sims, who oversaw drafting of the law, acknowledged the negotiating system was proposed by the Rupert Murdoch-controlled publisher but said all major media operators in the country supported it.

I mean, yeah, of course they supported it. Because it’s the government forcing other companies to give them free money in response to their own failures to innovate. Why wouldn’t they support it?

It is true that Google and Facebook are bigger than News Corp., which is the point that Sims really really wants to focus on. But that doesn’t even touch on whether or not it’s appropriate to force one set of companies to pay for something that should be free (linking), to another set of companies that are still making a shit ton of money on their own.

“News Corp is 1% the size of Google. News Corp is one of four main media companies (in Australia). It’s very likely not the one with the biggest reach. I just think this is a line put out by Google,” Sims added.

“There were many people giving us ideas. News Corp was but one. This whole notion that this is about News Corp is extremely strange.”

You literally just admitted that the idea came from News Corp! It wasn’t “a line put out by Google.” It was you, who just admitted what was obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention to Murdoch for years. After all, Murdoch has been publishing op-eds (in his own company’s publications, of course), demanding Facebook and Google pay him for years. It’s not like he made it a secret.

Can you make an argument that Google and Facebook are too powerful? Sure, absolutely. But, can you then make the argument that these companies which found a way to build internet services billions of people like… should be forced to pay for Murdoch’s brand of propaganda, despite there being no fundamental reason that he deserves any of that money? Not unless you want people to think you’re in Murdoch’s pocket.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: facebook, google, news corp, nine

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Australian Official Admits That Of Course Murdoch Came Up With Link Tax, But Insists The Bill Is Not A Favor To News Corp.”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Link tax

Assuming it wasn’t changed since then they saw that coming from when other countries tried this little extortion trick and Google just delisted them by making it so that if the companies include any links to news sources they are required to include and pay for links to australian sources.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'... I don't see it'

‘Sure it was proposed by him, and will result in a whole bunch of money being funneled to him with no effort on his part, and it’s set up so that if his demands aren’t met the government will step in and bring the hammer down and force the other side to pay him, but that doesn’t mean it’s the government favoring him or anything!’

ECA (profile) says:

English as a second language

"but is merely a "competition bill" to help those few giant newspaper companies "better negotiate" with the giant internet companies,"

Negotiation, is generally based on 2 agencies with the same thing OR Both sides giving Something to have Both advance/improve.
Competition? Where? Google and others are GIVING this away FREE of charge.
He owns TONS in Australia. And this person doesnt understand that??

Anyone get the idea that Murdoch, is abit upset, and Cant buy up the Internet service in Australia.
Or is it the idea that Anyone using A ISP/net service in Australia, would have a way to COMMENT AGAINST HIM?

ECA (profile) says:

Re: English as a second language

Found something: is a news aggregator[1] owned by News Corporation.[2] The content is produced by in-house human editors and IT specialists working alongside News Corp’s Storyful subsidiary. The site also makes use of artificial intelligence algorithms.[3]

News Corp says the site will include news "from the widest variety of sources, free of filter bubbles and narrow-minded nonsense." The launch day press release indicates that Knewz sources its stories from over 400 publishers, mostly in the United States.

He dont want the competition.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

They can’t get elected without Rupert’s support, and Rupert was in danger of losing the ability to influence elections on their behalf as his old media empire shrinks and becomes less profitable, so one hand washed the other. Look for this being repeated in the UK and the US, next time america suffers a stroke and fills the hall of power with republicans.

Anonymous Coward says:

Google should have a Google news site with just a list of random news website with no story’s but I think the law is designed to force them to make a deal with news orgs
So it worked
Australia also has extreme laws eg all apps must provide data
to the police to enable full acess to messages and users private info
This includes business data not just private users
So there’s no guarantee of privacy for any company or user of the Internet in Australia no matter what service they usr

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...