Senator Klobuchar’s Latest Bad Idea: Letting Smaller Journalism Outlets Demand Payments For Links

from the this-is-a-bad,-bad-idea dept

Look, I’m a small journalism outfit. A very small one. So, in theory, a law that effectively lets me demand free cash from Google and Facebook should be a good thing for me. But, it would actually be a disaster. That’s why I spoke out against the idea last year when Senator Amy Klobuchar and Rep. David Cicilline first floated the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA). Earlier this year, we had a guest post from Library Futures explaining why the JCPA would be lose-lose legislation. In short, it’s a link tax bill, similar to the one written in Australia to appease (and enrich) Rupert Murdoch. It basically says that publishers can band together, with an antitrust exemption, to demand fees from bigger, more successful internet companies.

And, of course, Klobuchar (as is her usual method of operation when pushing bills that fundamentally break the internet) has decided to move forward with it anyway. She recently introduced a new version of the JCPA, with the one major change being that it only applies to smaller news orgs — those with under 1,500 employees. This would leave out the Fox Newses of the world, along with the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. At best, you can say that Klobuchar realized the original bill was just about wealth transfers from big internet companies to big media companies, and carved them out of the deal.

Of course, that also seems like a weird way to set up this bill with potentially catastrophic consequences. We’re at a time when hedge funds — most notably Alden Capital — have been buying up newspapers and laying off tons of people while trying to squeeze cash out of the remaining husks. And, this bill basically says “buy up large newspapers and cut them to under 1,500 employees.” Indeed, remember, the head of Alden not that long ago was writing opeds saying that Google and Facebook should just pay him money. And here’s Amy Klobuchar saying “sure, you get free money just as long as you fire enough people first.

That’s crazy. It’s so crazy that even the Newsguild, which has been supportive of this general concept, is like “hey wait a second, this is going to lead to journalists getting fired.”

On top of that, as soon as you get into declaring which organizations are “journalism” organizations, and which ones get this special benefit from the US government, you’ve entered dangerous 1st Amendment territory. We’ve had this issue in the past with other laws that try to carve out “covered” journalism entities. Part of the 1st Amendment is that the government cannot declare who is and who is not a journalist (otherwise it would be way too tempting to carve out journalists most critical of the government). Yet, this bill spends pages declaring who gets to be considered a journalism organization for the purposes of the law. That’s the first big problem.

But, the much bigger problem is that the bill is trying to break the internet and establish the ability to tax links.

The main function of the bill is to allow news orgs to team up, force internet companies that link to them into mandatory arbitration, and force them to pay the journalism organizations for linking to them. For linking to them. Literally for sending them traffic. The bill says that each side submits their proposal for how much the internet companies should pay the news companies, and then the arbitrator picks one side’s proposal.

But, again, let’s go back to what this is — what the internet companies are being forced to pay for. They are being forced to pay to send other websites traffic. This is ludicrous.

News orgs beg these sites for traffic. They hire SEO people to try to get more traffic. Now they’re also getting to FORCE the internet companies to PAY them for that traffic too?

Some of this may feel hidden within the bill, so let me walk you through the key parts. First, it defines a covered “online platform” as any website, mobile app, or internet services that aggregates or directs users to news articles. That is, any online tool that sends traffic to news sites.

ONLINE PLATFORM.—The term ‘‘online platform’’ means a website, online or mobile application, operating system, digital assistant, or online service that aggregates, displays, provides, distributes, or directs users to news articles, works of journalism, or other content, or portions thereof, generated, created, produced, or owned by eligible digital journalism providers.

To be subject to the mandatory arbitration, such an online platform has to have at least 50 million monthly active users and a market cap over $550 billion (hilariously, currently this would exclude Meta/Facebook, since its market cap has dropped a ton in the last few months and now sits well below $500 billion). So, at this point, it basically applies to Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon properties.

Those are the companies that will be forced to pay up under this scheme. Then, it allows media orgs (which meet certain definitions included in the bill, including having fewer than 1,500 employees) to team up with one another to form a “joint negotiation entity.”

IN GENERAL.—An eligible digital journalism provider shall provide public notice to announce the opportunity for other eligible digital journalism providers to join a joint negotiation entity for the purpose of engaging in joint negotiations with a covered platform under this section, regarding the terms and conditions by which the covered platform may access the content of the eligible digital journalism providers that are members of the joint negotiation entity.

Okay, so now you’ve got a joint negotiation entity that can negotiate with the four companies listed above. But what the fuck are you negotiating for? The “terms and conditions by which the covered platform may access the content of the eligible digital journalism providers.” Access? What the hell does “access” mean under this law?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean, it’s not defined anywhere, because why define the most critical part of this bill? The answer is that the drafters know that it’s ridiculous to come out and say that what they really mean is you need to negotiate over how much these companies will pay to link to digital journalism outfits.

But, linking is a fundamental feature and right on the open internet. Setting up any sort of scheme where websites are being forced to pay to link is fundamentally against the nature of the open web. It sets us off down a very dangerous and very slippery slope.

Anyway, once you have this joint negotiation entity, you literally get to demand payment for links (euphemistically called “access”). And if Google or whoever is like “fuck you, it’s a link, we’re sending you traffic already, why should we pay you for already helping you out?” the joint negotiating entity can force the companies into arbitration where each side submits how much they should pay, and the arbitrator has to pick one side (and not anywhere in the middle).

Also, not agreeing to negotiate — again, to pay for something that no one should ever pay for — under this law is deemed as “not conducting negotiations in good faith.”

And how much are the companies supposed to pay for sending you free traffic? The “fair market value” based on “the investment of the digital publisher.” Really.

This whole thing is based on a fundamental lie that you need a license to link. But that’s just not true. Copyright does not cover links. There is no license to link. And yet the bill pretends there is one:

At any point after a notice is sent to the covered platform to initiate joint negotiations under subsection (a)(2), the eligible digital journalism providers that are members of the joint negotiation entity may jointly deny the covered platform access to content licensed or produced by such eligible digital journalism providers.

Deny access? What? That means… deny them the ability to send you traffic? I mean, look, if digital publications don’t want traffic from Google, they can just set that up technically on their site with robots.txt blocking indexing, and then sending any referral traffic from Google into a black hole. But, fundamentally, this bill is just confused about linking. You don’t need a license to link. You don’t need a license for snippets and the headline. That’s fair use.

The really funny thing about this bill is it refuses to admit it’s a copyright bill in disguise. Platforms have fair use rights to post a snippet of news content along with a link, and the link is just a fundamental way in which the internet works. One that this bill is attempting to break.

Also, that section above where, somewhat hilariously, digital publications can magically tell the big online platforms they are denying them “access,” the bill says that the platforms CANNOT JUST REFUSE TO LINK. I only wish I were joking.

No covered platform may retaliate against an eligible digital journalism provider for participating in a negotiation conducted under section 3, or an arbitration conducted under section 4, including by refusing to index content or changing the ranking, identification, modification, branding, or placement of the content of the eligible digital journalism provider on the covered platform.

Congrats, Senator Klobuchar, you’ve just created a must-carry provision for news aggregators. And here’s the best part: the misinfo providers out there can now effectively force their way into Google News by forming one of these joint negotiating entities, and then pointing to this section and saying “Google refuses to index my content.”

Who knew that Amy Klobuchar wanted to force disinfo peddlers into Google News?

Everything — and I do mean everything — about this bill is ridiculous. It’s a bizarre attempt to do an end-run around antitrust law, copyright law, and common carrier law… to force Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft to pay for linking and sending traffic to digital publishers who are too incompetent to figure out how to properly monetize incoming traffic.

I can’t see how anyone thinks this is a good idea. And, again, I run one of the companies that in theory would “benefit” from this nonsense by getting free money.

I used to just think that Senator Klobuchar was ignorant about how the internet worked. But considering how frequently she releases absolutely ridiculous and dangerous bills about the internet, I’m beginning to realize that she is deliberately seeking to destroy it.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

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 “Senator Klobuchar’s Latest Bad Idea: Letting Smaller Journalism Outlets Demand Payments For Links”

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

Time to update the terminology?

Also, not agreeing to negotiate — again, to pay for something that no one should ever pay for — under this law is deemed as “not conducting negotiations in good faith.”

When platforms are literally barred from just refusing to pay out for the traffic they send to publishers, prohibited from just declaring ‘if we have to pay you to give you traffic we’ll just not give you traffic’ I feel that calling it a link tax is grossly underselling it as it’s more along the lines of link extortion at that point.

A tax is applied to something you’re doing, this is forcing platforms to do something and then demanding that they pay for the ‘privilege’ of doing it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

I’m beginning to realize that she is deliberately seeking to destroy it.

The internet is the biggest threat there is to a politician, as it allows people to organize against them, and weakens their power by allowing people to speak for themselves on the countries and world stages.

Koby (profile) says:

Killer Dark Web App

And how much are the companies supposed to pay for sending you free traffic? The “fair market value” based on “the investment of the digital publisher.” Really.

If the major services start dropping links to news sites, perhaps it will allow for dark web news agglomeration sites to flourish. Link pirates here we come!

MightyMetricBatman says:

To be subject to the mandatory arbitration, such an online platform has to have at least 50 million monthly active users and a market cap over $550 million (hilariously, currently this would exclude Meta/Facebook, since its market cap has dropped a ton in the last few months and now sits well below $500 million). So, at this point, it basically applies to Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon properties.

Did you intend to make this billions instead of millions?

Unadulterated Poppycock says:

This is a great example of a “localist” politician, being courted, leveraged and brainwashed by a “globalist” entity, in this case Big Media.

Here’s Klobuchar doing a “sit down” with some garbage media hit piece, attacking her father as an alcoholic, in a subtle leverage scheme reminding her who exactly provides jobs on her sacred home territory, the Iron Range of Minnesota.

Typical politician, typical leverage by massive global-corporate interests. And that, run out of Wayzata, MN, by the descendants of Isadore Blumenfeld aka Kidd Cann, and his spawn Phyllis, a former senator herself.

Here is her statement about a “laser focus on jobs,” begging the international cartels to breath life into her sacred homegrounds. Pathetic.

That woman would sell live babies for organs if it meant “jobs” for her treasured locals.

In lieu of THAT she merely goes along with any/every globalist shill that sends money to that state for chopping childrens dicks off, subsidizing the global Medical Mafia, which is indisputably the biggest game in town in her state.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Ahole Problems says:

Re: Re:

Preaching to the choir, AChole. I am an open internet kind of non-binary identity, unlike yourself and your binary and polarizing schismogenetic Globulists, who stick around here like mildew on poopoo, throwing shit, and contributing ONLY sheit.

And BTW, did you see this, globulist?

Feedback Loops Create Autism

It could be the case that this condition can be clearly evidenced to be a disorder of stress-fuelled and co-reinforcing vicious and virtuous cycles whose components are all the known associated symptomatic traits; which themselves arise initially as a response to external stressors (which can still further promote them); but whose implementation promotes even more stress, thus making them seem more “necessary” to the afflicted individual (a feedback loop).

What we call the Hegelian Dialectic can be transferred to the title Schismogenesis, they are the same mechanic with the latter allowing for a deeper insight into how the priesthood achieves behaviour change, and, the ability of control over the masses.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Preaching to the choir, AChole. I am an open internet kind of non-binary identity, unlike yourself and your binary and polarizing schismogenetic Globulists, who stick around here like mildew on poopoo, throwing shit, and contributing ONLY sheit.

So much projection here I don’t even know where to begin, DBA Phillip K. Dickcheese. As for bullshit you posted about autism, that’s obviously a deliberate misinterpretation of the work of a researcher named Ian Hacking, said misinterpretation probably made by you. Flagged for ableism, among many other reasons.

John85851 (profile) says:

Why??

Why does she think the idea of a link tax will work here when it hasn’t worked in so many countries? Did no one tell her that the media in Spain almost collapsed because Google refused the link tax and stopped linking to any news sites.
So how can she claim the US government can force a private company like Google or Apple to host content or news that it doesn’t like?

nasch (profile) says:

No covered platform may retaliate against an eligible digital journalism provider for participating in a negotiation conducted under section 3, or an arbitration conducted under section 4, including by refusing to index content or changing the ranking, identification, modification, branding, or placement of the content of the eligible digital journalism provider on the covered platform.

Which means if the bill passes, the covered companies will immediately cease linking to all small journalism outlets just in case. Congratulations Klobuchar, you’re killing independent journalism.

Naughty Autie says:

Re:

Which means if the bill passes, the covered companies will immediately cease linking to all small journalism outlets just in case.

If that happened, search engines would be on the hook for refusing to index the sites. Hey, Amy Klobuchar. Why don’t you write into the law a provision where actual clicks are what determines payments so the law doesn’t get destroyed in court as just yet another link tax? (And then everybody just agrees to not click on the links.)

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...
Loading...