Irrelevant.
That's not the payment transaction. You are not paying for content with ad views. You're paying when you buy products and services which advertise online.
Why would you care?
Because unlimited recourse to view, then withdraw payment, torpedoes the system.
You've also got the matter that under a syndication system, all views are retail views, regardless of source. Where advertising promotes piracy schemes benefitting publishers at the expense of authors, a Syndication scheme would fairly benefit both.
A "net traffic" based system would eliminate this concern: it simply doesn't matter where your work is served from, so long1as it's served. And no, it's not necessary to measure via privacy-invading mechanisms:
1. Zipf power functions mean that a small number of major sites are the bulk of traffic. You monitor these.
2. You're concerned with served traffic volumes. Other than eliminating suspect traffic, it doesn't matter who is accessing content, only how many. Yes, you've got a views-inflation issue to deal with, there are methods for mitigating that.
3. Sampled traffic estimates are used to model total traffic. That's apportioned across total funds for apportionment.
There's probably going to be some level of bundling, and it may be that specific creators market through specific syndicates, rather than directly. But in general, you're going to end up with payment based on actual access and funded through an indirect, general, tax or fee.
Google and Amazon serve only specific markets. There are large parts of the world with some Internet access but limited payment or finance systems. Credit card fraud is a thing, $11.3 billion worldwide in 2012, up 15% from prior year, and breaches of credit and payment data details are running to the hundreds of millions if not billions[1]. Individually transactionalised online payments are a considerable risk. Ecommerce for all its touted benefits remains a modest fraction of total retail, favoured strongly in B2B space, that is, established relationships and regular transactions.
Also noted that you've failed to address access issues for the poor, children, researchers, and creatives themselves, all of which a general fee would cover.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Notes:
1. "Skimming off the top" http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21596547...
