undefined | Better HN

0 pointspeyton2y ago0 comments

> It is that they have to pay new sources for copyrighted content that they display on Meta sites. In other words, if Meta displayed a CBC article, they would have to pay the CBC for the content. Meta decided that they didn't want to pay for other people's work.

This is not correct AFAIK. Google lays out some of the problems with the law as written here: https://blog.google/intl/en-ca/company-news/outreach-initiat...

0 comments

dghlsakjg2y ago

This is a lobbying piece written by a VP of one of the affected companies 8 months before the final version of the bill passed.

peytonOP2y ago

Do you disagree with any of the specific language?

dghlsakjg2y ago

There’s not much to disagree with… or agree with.

The post doesn’t really explain what bill c-18 is doing. All I can tell is that google is very much against it, and they didn’t like it when Australia did it either.

peytonOP2y ago

The post has three images that each detail a specific problem and propose a fix.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dghlsakjg2y ago

This is a lobbying piece written by a VP of one of the affected companies 8 months before the final version of the bill passed.

peytonOP2y ago

Do you disagree with any of the specific language?

dghlsakjg2y ago

There’s not much to disagree with… or agree with.

The post doesn’t really explain what bill c-18 is doing. All I can tell is that google is very much against it, and they didn’t like it when Australia did it either.

peytonOP2y ago

The post has three images that each detail a specific problem and propose a fix.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse