RSS
Belgian Newspapers Agree To Drop Lawsuit Over Google News After Google Promises To Show Them How To Make Money Online
from the baby-steps dept
As we've been reporting, there's been a movement underway in many countries to argue that something like Google News -- which displays headlines, brief snippets and links to full news stories on newspapers' own websites -- somehow violates newspaper copyrights. This makes no sense logically, especially given just how much those same sites likely spend on "search engine optimization" to try to get better ranked in search engines. The only explanation for it that makes sense is the most obvious one: the newspapers are struggling to find ways to make money these days, and they see that Google is making a lot. Hence: come up with a plan to force Google to fork over some of that revenue. Of course, the very first to do this -- years before Germany and France and others got into the game -- was a group of Belgian newspapers who sued Google for sending them traffic. Amazingly, a local court agreed with the newspapers and told Google to pay up. Following this, Google removed those newspapers from its index, leading the newspapers to freak out and demand to be put back in.
The somewhat acrimonious legal dispute continued, until now. Google has announced that the news publishers have agreed to a "settlement," where the terms are somewhat hilarious. Basically, it looks like they've agreed to drop the lawsuit... if Google will teach them how to make money online:
The somewhat acrimonious legal dispute continued, until now. Google has announced that the news publishers have agreed to a "settlement," where the terms are somewhat hilarious. Basically, it looks like they've agreed to drop the lawsuit... if Google will teach them how to make money online:
- Promote both the publishers’ and Google’s services - Google will advertise its services on the publishers’ media, while the publishers will optimise their use of Google’s advertising solutions, in particular AdWords to attract new readers.
- Increase publishers’ revenue - by collaborating on making money with content, both via premium models (paywalls, subscriptions), and via advertising solutions such as the AdSense platform and the AdExchange marketplace;
- Increase reader engagement - by implementing Google+ social tools, including video Hangouts, on news sites, and launching official YouTube channels;
- Increase the accessibility of the publishers’ content - by collaborating on the distribution of the publishers original content on mobile platforms, in particular smartphones and tablets;
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Policy Resources: Data Privacy & Security
I’m looking for research...
Who Are App Developers?
The Growing App Market
I have an idea...
Finding Co-Founders in a Recovering Economy
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just "somehow"
So if Google has to pay for its content, that's just. If it's lumped in under "copyright", that's fine. It's an evolving area.
Google must not be permitted to just waltz in and take whatever it wants, though. Won't be good for one corporation to exercise that power. It'll squeeze its "manufacturers" ever more as its power grows, just as Wal-Mart did, and the result will be bland "Masnicked" News: re-writes long on ad hom and pejoratives until wanders lamely into a question, relying on readers to try and find meaning in it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just "somehow"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just "somehow"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not just "somehow"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just "somehow"
Oh, wait, I think your post might be sarcasm.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just "somehow"
You see, this is a two-way street. Google gives directions to the sites so people can find them, increasing ad eyeballs at the paper. Remove the directions and they fade into online obscurity, hence a drop in revenue.
Like it or not, a snippet of an article or a headline comes under fair dealing, especially where it can be shown that the 'victims' traffic and ultimate revenue increases due to it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just "somehow"
That is the mistake you made,
OOTB didn't get past the first line.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just "somehow"
In its earliest days, the newspaper industry successfully ensured that the BBC could not compete with its monopoly of news services. The Company was forbidden from broadcasting news until 7pm each day. When newspapers ceased to be published during the General Strike of 1926, the public turned to their radios for news.
Just as in those times the newspapers will sooner or later have to face reality.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just "somehow"
Regarding Google squeezing manufacturers. They are not Walmart. If they try to squeeze their clients these can just go to another service for a better price. Since it's the internet, all aggregators have just as much reach as Google.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just "somehow"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just "somehow"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Quit lying, ootb
To evolve, one must change.
Copyright can't change.
Therefore, it is not capable of evolving.
Things that can't change and evolve with the times invariably die off.
Maybe if the copyright holders didn't push so hard to lock it into one position, copyright could have evolved for the modern age.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just "somehow"
Idiot.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, making it publically available is a masterful move. You have to be aware that quite a few politicians have a far greater knowledge of what happens in courtrooms than what happens in the world laws affect and this settlement will certainly make a lot of their desks!
Google is not the big arbiter of freedom and openness anymore, but they are showing how to use these things to your advantage in court and in politics. I would not be surprised if Google went beyond the demands in the law to show what they have been lobbying for and how it is going for them!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
These are the same arguements that the MPAA/RIAA and copyright holders use with regards to websites who have links on there site that they are loosing money etc.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
We used to not feed the trolls
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We used to not feed the trolls
I've noticed this too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We used to not feed the trolls
If it weren't for the piling on to the moron, there'd be nothing to say here other than "I agree" or "well, they finally admitted they don't know what they're doing". Which would be just as boring.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We used to not feed the trolls
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We used to not feed the trolls
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment