Newspapers want monetization. There are three ways linking to stories equal monetization:
* Newspapers get enough ad money through these link. This mostly doesn't work.
* Newspapers cut their costs and deliver shitty clickbait.
* Newspapers get funded by "philantropy". This ranges from newspapers independently funded by trust funds to newspapers being bought by magnates.
Overall, we can see that linking is far from enough for most newspapers to publish independent, quality work.
> To receive a link is to benefit, everyone knows this except the government.
This appears to no longer be true. Groups benefiting from internet are mostly eyeball brokers, not content distributors.
I personally believe reader support is the only viable option going forward.
In general, the costs of running a journalistic organization (one which discovers news for itself, not just repackaging news from other media) far outweigh what people are willing to pay for this. Remember that newspapers, even in the times before radio was widespread, were always dirt cheap.
Not to mention, there is a problem of competition. Facts can't be copyrighted, so nothing can stop me from buying a subscription to NYT and reporting everything they write, in my own words, charging much less if I want to. Sure, I don't have their reputation, but if their subscription were high enough to cover their costs alone, plenty of people would chose to trust me.
For that specific example, science publications don't create any content, nor do they have paid staff curating collected content. That kind of helps their bottom line.
These organizations are closer in their model to Google than they are to news organizations (ie they gatekeep a specific type of resource that content producers need).
From what little I know from business press, in my business area they also get a significant share of their content for free, although it is much less predatory than science publications.
Not anymore - I used to buy the New York Post to read in a bar from time to time, and it was 25 cents (and arguably overpriced then). It’s how 1-1.50USD depending on day, if you can even find a copy.
The idea that big tech would pay the appropriate amount of tax to the appropriate country is laughable.
So, if big companies and small companies are being treated differently, the governments are not doing their jobs and have to be replaced by someone who will do it.
The problem is media companies have been pushing this exact blueprint for d years. decades. It is a terrible, terrible template.
If countries want to tax big tech and give the money to media organizations, they should be honest about it. Laws like this distort reality.
>the current balance between news organizations and internet brokers isn't up to the task.
This doesn't make sense. Newspapers want links to their stories. I've even seen media organization paying "internet brokers" to advertise stories.
The law has the economics of the internet backwards. To receive a link is to benefit, everyone knows this except the government.