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

Kim Holburn kim at holburn.net
Fri Jun 18 09:51:14 AEST 2021


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210616/14553347005/australian-official-admits-that-course-murdoch-came-up-with-link-tax-insists-bill-is-not-favor-to-news-corp.shtml

> Australian Official Admits That Of Course Murdoch Came Up With Link Tax, But Insists The Bill Is Not A Favor To News Corp.
>
> Earlier this year, we wrote a lot about the ridiculous anti-open internet Australian link tax 
> <https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=link+tax> that is now being pushed elsewhere around the globe. Anyone paying attention to the 
> details knew that it was extreme crony capitalism 
> <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210226/11062646326/best-summary-australias-news-link-tax-bargaining-code.shtml> 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 
> <https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2020/nov/13/australia-newspaper-ownership-is-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 
> <https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/australia-antitrust-boss-rejects-claim-big-tech-law-is-favour-news-corp-2021-06-10/>, 
> 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 
> <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180125/09164639083/rupert-murdoch-admits-once-again-he-cant-make-money-online-begs-facebook-to-just-give-him-money.shtml> 
> 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.
>

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
+61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request




More information about the Link mailing list