French Publishers Want In On German Plan To Force Everyone To Pay To Link To News
from the this-won't-end-well dept
We’ve been following (for years) this ridiculous German proposal to make sites that link to and/or excerpt tidbits from news websites to have to pay for the privilege of sending traffic to the sites. While it’s a spectacularly short-sighted proposal that will lead to significant problems and costs (without much real benefit), it’s no surprise that publishers in other countries are getting jealous and are seeking to get the same sort of deal. Apparently, the fact that this proposal is gaining steam in Germany has emboldened French publishers to start seeking similar rights in France with which they could demand that Google pay newspapers for linking to their stories with a snippet. In other words, these publishers see a chance at a cash cow from actual innovators, right into their pockets, if they can just convince the government that “well, Germany’s doing it!!!”
Filed Under: aggregation, france, germany, links, payment
Comments on “French Publishers Want In On German Plan To Force Everyone To Pay To Link To News”
And Google is in a catch 22
Either they pay these ridiculous fees for sending traffic (thus more Ad revenue)to these sites or they stop indexing those sites and lose traffic as people find more and more often that the news they were looking for is not showing up in the search results.
Re: And Google is in a catch 22
robots.txt already allows them to opt out.
And, it seems to me that most folks forget that in a competitive market, voids tend to be reacted to as opportunities for new or existing players. Given that, I doubt that the amount of news available via search engines will diminish, but simply shift to new and emerging sources.
Re: Re: And Google is in a catch 22
Google even gives out the commands to put in robots.txt so that they won’t index the files.
Didn’t Holland try a court-imposed version of this idea. If I recall correctly, it the newspapers that originally sued Google to exclude them ended up suing Google again demanding that they be let back in after their traffic plummeted.
Re: Re: Re: And Google is in a catch 22
They want to eat their cake and have it, too. That’s what courts are for.
Re: Re: Re: And Google is in a catch 22
It was Belgian newspapers who tried that, and then only from the French speaking part of the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copiepresse
Re: Re: Re:2 And Google is in a catch 22
I just thought that they closed francophone Belgium for maintance and it would be re opened shortly.
If it isn’t on Google it doesn’t exist.
Re: And Google is in a catch 22
I get my news from Google News. If one source stops showing up, I won’t notice and they will lose my traffic, not Google. If I were interested in a particular news service, I’d already be on their website instead of Google.
Re: Re: And Google is in a catch 22
Well it doesn’t matter anyways there’s probably like 15 different sources with the same news anyways. The only affect its really going to have is annoying the German and French people who will have to rely on foreign news sources and won’t have local news.
Re: Re: Re: And Google is in a catch 22
Germany and France are now closed….
“well, Germany’s doing it!!!”
Call it the Vichy Link Plan?
Re: Re:
I was thinking more the Socionazi Plan, but that’s offensive to, well, everyone involved.
Re: Re: Re:
And there goes Godwin’s Law… right on schedule …
A correction to your headline, it should read something like this.
“Old French people who don’t get the Internet want to show they’re just as out of touch with the youth and the Internet age as Old German people”.
They are writing news stories about the world I live in. I demand compensation.
Re: Re:
>>They are writing news stories about the world I live in. I demand compensation.
Actually, this point has been raised before. Should newspapers be required to pay people or companies when the people do something newsworthy and the papers write stories about them? After all, aren’t the newspapers freeloading on action performed by other people? It sounds crazy, but not really much worse that what a lot of the folks in the IP industry try to claim from time to time.
So are they going to try and sue Google when Google removes them from search results?
Re: Re:
Exactly. Already the publisher’s mouthpieces like Christoph Keese of Springer hints at antitrust investigation cause Google alledgedly has a monopoly on search.
Re: Re:
That is exactly what I was thinking. I thought that Google had the upper hand on these sites anyway, so it would be complete suicide for the news media to do this unless they think they have enough users and that they do not need more, like ever. Only way for them to gain attention would be through ads on sites like google and then we are back to expensive industry is expensive thinking.
Google Should Fire a Warning Shot
In the old days (you know, the ones the old folks like to remember) the pirates would fire a warning shot to let the victims know what’s going to happen. Just to shut them up, Google should let them know when and then take them out for a week or two. If they like the reduction in traffic, then Google could just leave them out permanently. It would save a lot of time and money in the courts.
God forbid anyone should actually have to pay for content.
Re: Re:
Lift that rock up, climb the basement stairs and go out and enjoy the world. Of course, if it was up to you, you would have to pay for the content of the sunrise to the person who saw it first.
Re: Re:
so let me get this straight. you want google to pay a newspaper, for sending people TO that newspaper’s website. i get that right?
Re: Re:
Yeah! Those dirty pirates! While we’re at it, do you think you could give $5 for this post?
Re: Re:
One of the things I love about the trolls is their bitching about people getting things for “free” on a commenting system they didn’t pay for. On a website they don’t pay for. Using protocols and server software they didn’t pay for. Using a browser they didn’t pay for. The website most likely being something they found through a link, search engine result or something else they didn’t pay for…
Why, it’s almost as if value can be generated by something that doesn’t need an immediate upfront payment!
Re: Re: Re:
OMG! FREETARD! If you don’t pay me to make posts I will have no reason to post!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wish the trolls would threaten that and follow through, if only they weren’t getting paid by someone else to be shills.
Re: Re:
You give trolls a bad name. You, sir, are just an idiot.
Re: Re:
And when Google simply stops including these sites in their results and then the sites complain about not getting free search indexing, will you still feel that everything should be paid for, including search indexing?
Re: Re:
What are you thinking about? Why not pay for use of the ad-space you used here?
The hypocricy is about to crack your skull!
Re: Re:
What content?
pirate mike supporting big search google stealing from news papers and news site.
Re: Re:
No to mention the stealing of the cookies!
Re: Re: Re:
But what about the Applets?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don’t worry. They’re safe and sound in their garden, protected by the wall…
Re: Re:
Another idiot
Re: Re:
*Hopes fervently this is a satirical anti-troll*
Re: Re:
Stealing what? The content the news sites put on the Internet for free?
lulz french
so, do those using links get any financial reward? do the sites that are linked to get any financial reward? if not, what is the complaint? if yes and the publishers want to be greedy about things and get paid for doing nothing, just like the entertainment industries, i would loose out myself to ensure they got nothing either. after all, we’re talking about links here, not full reporting.
Headline Prediction: 6 months later...
Publishers in France and Germany are facing a crisis as revenues have sunk!
No-one is visiting their websites and consequently viewing their ads or purchasing their goods. New legislation demanded to force websites to link to their content!
They are going to be pretty sad when search engines just delist them as a result.
Re: Re:
No, they’ll be happy, because they’ll sue those search engines for delisting them. Because linking to someone is a crime, and not linking to someone is also a crime. It’s one of those new quantum crimes, you see…
Is the real reason behind this another legacy industry who refuses to adapt trying to force the law to keep them in business?
Exporting our insane IP ideas around the world, demanding payments from successful players who adapt to the new market so the legacy players can forestall having to even consider new ideas for another few decades at the expense of a few upstarts.
I hope they implement this and then Google and Yahoo and Bing can delist them and then they get what they want, just like in Belgium.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/04055115139/newspapers-win-suit-against-google-get-their-wish-to-be-delisted-then-complain.shtml
A dangerous idea
Chargeing for links becomes another excuse to take down content, such a critism that links to what it is critising!
But just referring to news reports would still be legal, right? Since you can’t have a copyright on the true events being reported, just the story as written? So the obvious solution for aggregator sites would be to reference the stories without providing links, keeping all the traffic for themselves and giving none to the original sources.
Keep fighting the good fight, publishers.
R.I.P. Internet.
In related news....
…AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint have recently switched to using unlisted phone numbers for their customer call centers.
You're right, news sites ought to pay for linked in traffic
They got it backwards, the news sites that get the traffic and therefor ad-revenue from redirects to their articles ought to be paying for the benefit.
Always the same
That’s how Switzerland got its patent law. France had it.
“la loi, est enti?rement contraire au progr?s industriel, en ce qu’ell nous empeche de lutter ? armes ?gales avec la Suisse et les pays qui ne reconaissent pas le privil?ge de l’invention” — Boutarel, ca. 1880.