FTC proposals will stifle free expression, warns Google

Proposals put forward for discussion at Federal Trade Commission workshops on the future of digital journalism will harm online innovation and free expression, Google has warned.

In a 20-page response to the FTC's  'Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism' document, Google has warned that some of the policy recommendations relating to copyright, hot news and antitrust regulation will "stifle the very innovation that provides hope for its future".

FTC officials began considering proposals to address the challenges within the journalism industry in May last year, producing a discussion document outlining draft government policy proposals in June based on workshop debates.

The draft recommendations focus on stimulating new revenue sources, or more efficient use of current streams.

Proposals include: changes to the law itself surrounding copyright and fair use policies; introducing licensing arrangements through micro-payments; and increasing government funding.

The latter could be achieved by introducing a national fund for local news, or allowing taxpayers money to be dedicated to a specific area of the news, through 'citizenship news vouchers', according to the draft proposals.

While Google accepts many of the recommendations proposed, they voice strong concerns that others will put up "protectionist barriers", rather than promoting creativity.

"We agree that the Internet has posed challenges as well as opportunities for publishers," Google says in the report. “Google works closely with publishers to find business solutions so journalism can thrive online, and we’re optimistic about the news industry's future. But we strongly disagree with a number of policy recommendations set forth in the Staff Discussion Draft, such as the suggestion that Congress enact a federal hot news doctrine -- something that would not only hurt free expression, but also the very profession of journalism that the proponents of hot news say they support."

According to the FTC document, a hot news doctrine would put an end to "free-riding" aggregators, who re-post material without permission from news sites, which "undercuts revenue for those who make investments in journalism and undermines their incentive to do so".

But Google says current challenges faced by the news industry such as this are business problems and should not be solved by changes to the law.

"Facts, hot or cold, cannot be protected by copyright since there is no author of them. Even if one could legislate hot news protection, doing so would actually run counter to the interests of news organizations.  For example, reporters use search engines in their research, and indexing of articles allows stories to be found on the web, which drives users to the news sites."

Other problems raised in Google's response include a lack of acknowledgement given to the the role of search engines in online journalism.

"[The FTC report] instead erroneously suggests that search engines are somehow cannibalizing newspaper advertising revenue rather than serving as an important connection to potential consumers,” says Google's response. "In fact, search engines do not derive a significant amount of revenue from news content (...) This result should not be surprising because it mirrors the experience of newspapers themselves, which have never made much money from news. They have instead made money from special-interest sections on topics such as automotive, travel, and home & garden.”

In relation to other draft recommendations for revenue streams, Google says it supports paywalls but opposes the idea of mandatory micro-payments and licensing of news.

"Consumers will either pay for content or not, depending upon their assessment of whether the content is of sufficient value to them," the Google report says. "Forcing consumers to buy certain content, however – an end result sought by some of the policy proposals recounted in the Discussion Draft – is not only bad policy but it is also bad for the industry itself because it creates a very short-term prospect of additional revenue that has no promise of durability."

The document has already received criticism from other areas of the industry, including media commentator Jeff Jarvis, who claimed it "protects journalism's past" and proposed discussions on a "dangerous" extension of copyright law.

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).