Sam Zell, vor kurzem Eigentümer einer Reihe großer US-Tageszeitungen geworden, hat mit einer kleinen Bemerkung für große Erregung gesorgt:
„If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?“ Zell said during the question period after his speech. „Not very.“
Dagegen ist leicht eingewendet, dass Google News nur Überschriften und Textauszüge verwendet und ansonsten direkte Links zur Quelle setzt. Von Diebstahl keine Rede.
Aber: Wenn Google tatsächlich das Betriebssystem der Werbung baut (und das hat Eric Schmidt nun bestätigt), dann muss die Frage vielleicht etwas anders gestellt werden:
It could be that Zell is brilliant, and is saying something that simplifies the truth to make a bigger point, and he doesn’t mind if you think he’s inept if some people get the bigger picture — which is he thinks of the Internet and Google as being the same thing, and you know what — I bet a lot of other people do too, and they have a point. Like the public radio stations, maybe we’re fooling ourselves if we think we’re not writing for Google, as they are fooling themselves into thinking they’re not creating for NPR. We want to cling to our theory that each of us is independent of the others, but what if he’s right, and it’s us vs them.
„Für wen schreiben wir? Und warum?“, fragt Doc Searls:
All kinds of deals may be possible between news organizations and Google. Some conceivably could alter the simple matter of who we’re writing for. It might not just be ourselves.
If Web = Google comes to look like a fact for a critical mass of people and organizations, then we will all become part of the same commercial ecosystem: one controlled by a single company.
