While Google, Facebook and other social media giants would be the last to admit it, they owe much of their "overnight success" to so-called legacy media.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
This is the reality that underpins the Federal government's welcome decision to mandate a code of conduct and system of payments from online behemoths to media organisations.
If these companies hadn't been able to cherry pick from the millions of stories posted online by newspapers, news websites, radio stations and television conglomerates around the world, and then share them for their own commercial gain, they would not have grown nearly as fast or as big.
Facebook, Google, and the like are not news content creators.
Facebook, Google and the like may be innovators in many ways, including how news and information is presented, but they are not news organisations. They don't hire the reporters who keep communities like this one on top of local, national and world events.
Despite this they are the leading source of news for millions of people in Australia, and billions more across the globe.
Prior to the rise of the big tech giants, the convention was for media companies to respect the intellectual property of their competitors. That went out the window with the advent of the internet.
Operating under the specious argument they are merely facilitators, big tech companies, most famously Facebook, have sidestepped issues of liability over slander, libel, fake news and breach of copyright for years.
To the public their everyone's-friend status as a "free" service that connected the world began to crack when it was revealed how much they were making off the metadata of their own users five years ago. As one commentator observed: "If you're not paying for the product then you are the product".
The most immediate victims of the online giants' approach to the use of the work of others have been "legacy media" platforms committed to factual accuracy, and accountability.
While the cost of news gathering is as high as ever, revenues have plummeted as print media sales dried up and advertisers switched to the new platforms.
Many mastheads and media brands are staring down the barrel of existential crisis, dramatically exacerbated by the economic impact of coronavirus.
Unless something is done, and done quickly, the geese that have been laying the golden eggs will be killed.
In recognition of that fact, Google and Facebook have in recent times sponsored journalism projects, including some accessed by the company that publishes this newspaper.
But the price they've paid to support journalism projects is nothing on the long-term benefit they've drawn from media content created by others.
That's why the Australian government's decision, to tackle this problem head on, is of international significance.
Were a system of payments to media organisations be successfully put in place, it would become a precedent other countries, also committed to the preservation of quality journalism, would be quick to follow.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has gone down this path because of the unlikelihood of any voluntary scheme reaching agreement. Similar actions have been stymied in France and Spain.
The ACCC has until July to come up with a legally binding proposal to "support a sustainable Australian media landscape in the digital age".
If it fails the biggest losers are going to be the Australian public. More reputable and independent sources of news and information will likely disappear forever.
