The HN tax? FTC mulls taxing online news aggregators

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/ftc-floats-drudge-tax/

by joe_bleau • 16 years ago

34 27 16 years ago

kiba• 16 years ago

Look like not every news agencies is involved in some sort of conspiracy to create a news cartel supported by government tax dollars.

px4• 16 years ago

I wonder if the Washington Times editorial board even bothered reading the FTC document:

http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-d...

There is no question that this is a newsworthy topic. But it is ironic that journalism of such poor quality is being used to defend the current journalistic system.

I think the editorial is a bit of an over-reaction. Consider the following statements from the FTC document-

We note that this draft does not represent final conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of discussion, in particular at FTC roundtable discussions to be held on June 15, 2010, at the National Press Club.

-and-

We anticipate that different participants in the roundtables at which this document will be discussed will criticize some or all proposals, improve others, and add ideas of their own. The purpose of this document is precisely to encourage such additional analyses and brainstorming.

aaronsw• 16 years ago

If you read the actual report they're quoting (http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-d...) you'll see, as usual, that the _Washington Times_ is being totally dishonest.

First, the report is simply a list of proposals news industry people have made about how to save their businesses, not new FTC proposals.

Second, it isn't a tax -- it's simply talking about news providers providing licenses for their content to news aggregators.

Third, the FTC isn't even talking about changing the law to create new legal rights against news aggregators. What they're actually talking about is removing antitrust barriers to news providers getting together and starting a joint licensing scheme.

In short, this is less than nothing.

alexyim• 16 years ago

"In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place."

Maybe this article isn't that well written or I'm not reading correctly, but I did get the impression that they are trying to charge for something

px4• 16 years ago

The editorial is definitely written that way. It doesn't exactly reflect what is in the FTC document, though.

roboneal4• 16 years ago

Straight out of the source document -- "Nonetheless, a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct."

A tax by any other name is still a tax -- and if these ideas are enacted there would be an effective "news aggregrator" tax.

px4• 16 years ago

Regardless, the opening paragraphs of the source document make it clear that these are NOT formal policy recommendations.

hristov4• 16 years ago

Did you actually read what the document said, or did you just do a search for the word "tax"?

The compulsory license idea was not a proposal of the commission but a proposal of "one workshop participant." The commission's report just mentions as something that was mentioned in the round table discussions and then mostly criticises it. That is very far from the title of "FTC mulls taxing news agregators". Also the compulsory license would not be applied to news agregators but directly to ISPs.

gojomo• 16 years ago

As the 'discussion draft' itself notes in its own words, "a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct".

Several of the proposals listed involve creating broader IP rights ('hot news'; statutory truncations of traditional 'fair use'; a new statutory licensing scheme), or antitrust exemptions, all to allow favored traditional newsgathers the ability to demand payment from aggregators. In common parlance, that's enough like a 'tax' to make the description accurate in a popular account.

(The Washington Times didn't even highlight one of the most egregious ideas listed -- a $5-$7 fee per subscriber on all ISPs, collected and distributed by the federal Copyright Office.)

The least honest part of the WT coverage is calling the document a "draft proposal". As you note, it's just a laundry list of ideas. (In the document's own subheading, "potential policy recommendations to support the reinvention of journalism".)

But it's fair of the WT to suggest these ideas are being considered, and to alert those who might find them disconcerting before the proposals become any more concrete. And the ideas are heavy on new taxes, new licensing fees, new IP rights for old-line industries, and new government subsidies -- as should be expected from an agency looking for something to do.

anamax6• 16 years ago

> First, the report is simply a list of proposals news industry people have made about how to save their businesses, not new FTC proposals.

The report says that the proposals come from FTC staff and as potential policy. I'll quote.

"In May 2009, the Federal Trade Commission announced a project to consider the challenges faced by journalism in the Internet age. Now, one year later, staff responsible for this project present this draft for discussion of 1) the tentative conclusions outlined here about the current and likely future environments for news gathering and reporting, and 2) potential policy recommendations to address the issues raised during this proceeding. We note that this draft does not represent final conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of discussion, in particular at FTC roundtable discussions to be held on June 15, 2010, at the National Press Club."

brolewis• 16 years ago

As a listener to NPR, I don't agree that there is a bias toward government spending programs. This, to me, gives more credance to the poor writing in the article. If the writer believes there is a bias, then provide reference to some articles that support their statement.

peteforde• 16 years ago

The Washington Times... not to be confused with The Washington Post, folks.

hristov4• 16 years ago

It should not be confused with a newspaper in general.

anamax6• 16 years ago

As the discussion at http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/05/29/ftc-protects-journalis... points out, the FTC folks didn't listen to the folks who they asked to comment. In particular, that document contains a number of false statements about what various news biz.

"Yes, the omission of reporting and facts from the FTC is downright shocking. I sat in their hearing room and told them we found news sites making a sustainable living. Others who were doing it were there."

"There was no doubt about what I said: The Batavian is advertiser supported and its profitable and growing (heck, we’ve doubled revenue since I was in DC with the FTC)."

roboneal4• 16 years ago

The fact that the FTC feels that journalism NEEDS "reinventing" indicates a bias.

Journalism is reinventing itself with market forces alone and doesn't NEED the Federal government to "fix" it.

hristov4• 16 years ago

The problem is that all media, including some of the biggest proponents of the free market (News Corp) are clamoring for the FTC to somehow save their asses. So the FTC figures they have to do something.

It may be a good idea for some people like you to send in comments to the effect that the FTC does not need to do anything. The problem with roundtables and public comments often is that people that need to scratch an itch are more likely to go to them, which means that they may result in skewed conclusions.

The HN tax? FTC mulls taxing online news aggregators

Related Stories