RSS
Twitter
Google Pays AP To Help Put The F(U) In AFP
from the playing-nice dept
The AFP news agency, for some reason, felt really hard done by Google, and decided to sue the company for having the audacity to link to its stories. While AFP's customers are understandably upset, since Google removed AFP from Google News, taking away a significant source of traffic. Google has now muddied the waters a little bit by announcing a deal to pay the AP, another news agency for the use of its stories and photographs. While at first glance, this might appear to bolster AFP's case, Google is quick to add the deal has to do with a new product that will complement Google News, not for its linking to AP stories within the News product. This announcement really doesn't change anything in regards to the AFP case -- Google News is still nothing more than a search engine, falling well within fair use boundaries. And the real fact of the matter hasn't changed -- that Google News drives traffic to news providers' sites, where they're free to monetize that traffic however they see fit, or attempt to monetize it, anyway. AFP had other options than to sue Google and get itself removed from Google News. Even if it prevails in the case and gets the $17.5 million in damages, or even a bit more, it won't be ahead in the long run. For too long, traditional news organizations have resisted adapting to the internet. They need to understand they've got more to gain by working with the likes of Google to help craft win-win scenarios, rather than resisting innovation and technology.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
hard to read
Grammar-check, please.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Will fail
They will lose the lawsuit and they will lose traffic - seems lose - lose to me - they should have gone w/ the flow and added some ads.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: hard to read
F(U)
Fuck You
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
why sue
why sue? haven't they ever heard of a robots.txt file denying Google. it's a 10 second fix.
I also fail to see how traffic on a news site can ever be a bad thing... If you don't want people to see it, don't put it out there.
There needs to be some sort of check on these lawsuits so they don't even go to court.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Same old...
Yup...adapt or die.
Nature does it, who/what sets this example better than nature itself?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Heh, gotta love Google's solution though, don like us linking? FU, pull the links and be done. Google should back out of the new deal and let it stay as is. Let AFP find it's own traffic.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: why sue
Suing sets precedents, they (news agencies) possibly, deliberately sue to change laws in their favor. If they change the law they no longer have to worry about it and they can further live happily ever after in the "Land of the Lost"...sleestacks and all...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
My god...
$17.5 million in damages? Exactly what would these damages be that are worth $17.5 million? Emotional scarring from increased network traffic? Since I highly doubt bandwidth fees come anywhere that number...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: why sue
Don't forget the indirect publicity; AFP and other news agencies are all in a transition phase because people aren't reading papers anymore, but now AFP gets headlines and folks start going there on their own.
Wouldn't Marshal, Will, and Holly love the world we created for them?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: why sue
I think the Land of the LOST reference is extremely appropo when talking about newspapers--can't think of any other organization thats more threatened by extinction.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: why sue
Ryan is correct, it's a 10 second fix that would prevent Google's crawler from scouring their sites. I can't believe that Google had the audacity to send more traffic to those news sites. Isn't that what everyone wants? Less traffic to their sites? I get sick of Google doing that. Have you also heard that Google is directing traffic to OTHER types of sites as well that aren't news sites?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: hard to read
hard to read by ? on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 9:08am
Grammar-check, please.
Be glad too...
"Grammars check, please."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
secondly
People, quit bitching about grammar. No one is going to deem you the manifestation of wisdom for pointing out a simple typo.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: hard to read
How so? Bad grammer doesn't mean less readability or understandability. I understood it fine.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i didn't notice a thing, granted i am reading from the internet. You kinda learn to ignore it.
/me wonders if the i's will get auto capped like in word?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
GRAMMAR...
It is a problem...
No it's not...
It is a problem...
No it's not...
It is a problem...
No it's not...
It is a problem...
No it's not...
It is a problem...
No it's not...
It is a problem...
No it's not...
GET THE PICTURE?
To each his own... LET IT GO...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: hard to read
Bad grammer exactly means hard to read.
Grammer, Syntax, structure, style are all part and parcel of well-written or not good writing, it tells on the author and makes the subject hard to delve.
Just as programming languages can veil the true operation in hard to grasp variables and odd structure, so too can the grammer of written word also hide the intent of the writer.
I could be more clear but then I would be transparent.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: hard to read
You are an illiterate little baby. "Grammar check, please" Do you need someone to hold your hand as you walk down the street? Grow the F*CK UP. Do something on your own other than cry.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
GRAMMAR...
O.K.
So grammar has it's place...
But not on a public blog with an immeasurable audience that is actually trying to discuss "Google Pays AP To Help Put The F(U) In AFP."
So yeah, it's important but not important...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Um, I fail to understand why a news company would sue a search engine for linking to them. If I were running that company, that's what I would WANT to happen. Why did they sue Google for doing so? Because they wanted Google to pay them for access to their content? Sheesh, can this world get any greedier? Build a good website that generates its own revenue and then let everybody link to it. Quit being lazy, thieving morons.
And btw, I will say this one time. The Internet is NOT an excuse to forget how to use the English language. Grow up and learn your grammar and spelling, and quit being lazy too, because it makes you look like the idiot you probably are.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Spell check, please
If you're going to discuss "grammar," at least spell it correctly.
Dang.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Robot insurance
I'd like to offer AFP a chance to purchase Robot Insurance from Fidelity-Mutual-Underwriters Farm State Corp. of Delaware. For just pennies a day, we can protect them from the evil robots. No more will they hae to worry about mechanical or electronic home (or homepage) invasions by robots, real or imagined.
With our coverage, AFPs children never have to worry about a robotic traffic accident. Their loved ones will be well taken care of.
If they act right now, I can offer them 10, 15, and 17.5 million dollar policies. Again, for only pennies a day.
For more information, call 1.800.5537.8008
or write to:
Fidelity-Mutual-Underwriters Farm State Insurance
C/O Avery Minette Asukrisborn
Box 335-A
Quahog, Delaware
55378-008
(Any mispellings or bad grammar were completely intentional. Any resemblance to real persons or events....Oh wait! That's for fictional wokls)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: hard to read
if you want information badly enough, you’ll find it, regardless of format or grammar standards including any lack thereof...just because the sign to the bathroom is misspelled doesn't mean that you benefit less from the information, i'd worry more if there were no sign...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google should just stop linking any site that decided to sue them, after a couple cases people will start to learn that it doesnt help your business much if youre sueing free advertisements. Google is undoubtedly one of the most popular search engine on this planet and being linked to by them for free is obviously a great help to drive more people to your site, so why would you sue them?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: why sue
So, google should be suing themselves, cuz if you google "search engines", they list 4 sites above theirs, and a whole lot more underneath....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: GRAMMAR...
THANK YOU!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: secondly
Here here. I am one handec and type my best and damnall if I am backing up to correct every nugget for some OCD nut and there high horse!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why don't they throw some my way???
What's all this about my grandma?? hehe... Google seems to be shelling out a lot lately all of this suing nonsense must come to and one day surely, seems damn stupid to me.....but what do i know, i'm broke :( ...not from being sued though... How much is Google worth can someone please enlighten me...I'd look for myself but i don't think i can afford the lawsuit....i need money for beer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google is not being consistent
The fact that Google is now paying AP shows that Google will pay for content, exactly what these publishers are demanding they do for them. Google's inconsistency is problematic in the court of law. You can't claim you don't pay for content which means you place a monetary value on it while paying for content.
What has to be done now, is to determine the monetary value of the headlines the publishers have. I believe it's over for Google now that they've started to pay.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment