Re: "... pay publishers for linking to news content on their platforms"
It doesn't matter whether linking was the "issue". (It wasn't; attempting to shore up a failed business model was the issue.1) That's what the law, as written, governs. Masnick's discussions on Techdirt went into the actual language of the law in some detail. Under the law, linking with no quoting or summarizing would still have accrued charges; and what's more, a site such as Facebook couldn't choose which of the applicable news organizations to link to. It had to be all or none.
The whole thing was entirely without merit and an affront to the concept of the World Wide Web. Australia has not "won" anything. They've made yet another mess through their own short-sighted stupidity.
1Don't blame me. I like newspapers. My wife and I still buy and read the excellent local weekly paper, and we often read some of the national papers online. (I don't much like reading newspapers online, but getting these in print isn't an option where we are.) But as others have pointed out, advertisement, and particularly classified ads, were the critical revenue streams supporting the traditional newspaper business, and they're gone now. Attempting to ruin the web by seeking rents won't fix that.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
