Google
September 23, 2006 11:52 AM Subscribe
Google Belgium Prints the entire court ruling on their front page. Some how I doubt this is something they're doing just to be snarky. (They got sued by a newspaper for linking to them in google news. Here is an in depth article about the situation.)
This post was deleted for the following reason: posted a couple days ago.
If I were Google, I'd put that up on my front page for google.be, and nothing else. No more searches for google.be. Then dump all of .be from the index (or at least the search results). Close up the offices in Belgium, if there are any.
I don't think they'd do it, for a second. They're still busy helping China out, if I recall.
Still, it'd be nice if they took a stand and see how Belgium reacted.
posted by adipocere at 12:08 PM on September 23, 2006
I don't think they'd do it, for a second. They're still busy helping China out, if I recall.
Still, it'd be nice if they took a stand and see how Belgium reacted.
posted by adipocere at 12:08 PM on September 23, 2006
My understanding was that the court initially ordered Google to print the ruling on their front-page, but Google.be intially resisted. Understandably.
Previous post here.
posted by vhsiv at 12:09 PM on September 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
Previous post here.
posted by vhsiv at 12:09 PM on September 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
belgium got this far quite nicely, i'm sure they'd struggle along without google somehow.
posted by quonsar at 12:24 PM on September 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by quonsar at 12:24 PM on September 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
Send all .be searches to Big & Betsy. Good PR for the country.
posted by pracowity at 12:38 PM on September 23, 2006
posted by pracowity at 12:38 PM on September 23, 2006
"belgium got this far quite nicely, i'm sure they'd struggle along without google somehow."
how true. Google avoided placing the front page ruling because many people are watching and they must be worried that others will start to want a slice of the huge revenue made on the backs of others content. My thoughts are this is only the first of many suits to follow in the same vein.
Google may be the biggest fish in a growing pond, but different models and more competition is coming their way.
posted by Funmonkey1 at 12:47 PM on September 23, 2006
how true. Google avoided placing the front page ruling because many people are watching and they must be worried that others will start to want a slice of the huge revenue made on the backs of others content. My thoughts are this is only the first of many suits to follow in the same vein.
Google may be the biggest fish in a growing pond, but different models and more competition is coming their way.
posted by Funmonkey1 at 12:47 PM on September 23, 2006
What an eminently sensible suggestion, adipocere. I'm quite sure a chairmanship awaits you at their Mountain View HQ.
If, instead of behaving like sociopaths, corporations could be persuaded to behave like spoilt children we would live in a truly wonderful world.
posted by econous at 12:48 PM on September 23, 2006 [2 favorites]
If, instead of behaving like sociopaths, corporations could be persuaded to behave like spoilt children we would live in a truly wonderful world.
posted by econous at 12:48 PM on September 23, 2006 [2 favorites]
But – and apologies if this has been said in the other thread – the court's ruling is nonsense. As the publisher of those various sites, Copiepresse has control of whether or not those pages get indexed by spiders or not, simply by placing a spiders.txt on all of their servers or 'no-cache' meta-tags on all of their pages.
If Copiepresse's HTML developers aren't knowledgeable about the internet's Standards and Practices, Google shouldn't have to pay for their ignorance.
That judgement ought to have been thrown out.
posted by vhsiv at 12:52 PM on September 23, 2006
If Copiepresse's HTML developers aren't knowledgeable about the internet's Standards and Practices, Google shouldn't have to pay for their ignorance.
That judgement ought to have been thrown out.
posted by vhsiv at 12:52 PM on September 23, 2006
vshiv: As the publisher of those various sites, Copiepresse has control of whether or not those pages get indexed by spiders or not, simply by placing a spiders.txt on all of their servers or 'no-cache' meta-tags on all of their pages.
I don't think that the issue is whether the pages got spidered or not, but rather copyright infringement. The newspapers say that their copyrights on news articles are infringed, because Google recreates them on its GoogleNews site.
Your argument is a little bit like arguing that someone who publishes a book needs to include a statement saying that he does not want this book copied and that otherwise it can be assumed to be donated to the public domain and freely copied. But this is not how copyright law works. Even though most books are copyright statements (like the "c" in a circle), these do not *establish* the copyright but are merely declarative. You have a copyright on your books even without them. Similarly, the content of a website falls under copyright protection regardless of whether you include tags any that exclude them from being spidered.
I'm also siding with Google on this one, but for a different reason, namely that Google only presents teasers that fall under fair use.
posted by sour cream at 3:03 PM on September 23, 2006
I don't think that the issue is whether the pages got spidered or not, but rather copyright infringement. The newspapers say that their copyrights on news articles are infringed, because Google recreates them on its GoogleNews site.
Your argument is a little bit like arguing that someone who publishes a book needs to include a statement saying that he does not want this book copied and that otherwise it can be assumed to be donated to the public domain and freely copied. But this is not how copyright law works. Even though most books are copyright statements (like the "c" in a circle), these do not *establish* the copyright but are merely declarative. You have a copyright on your books even without them. Similarly, the content of a website falls under copyright protection regardless of whether you include tags any that exclude them from being spidered.
I'm also siding with Google on this one, but for a different reason, namely that Google only presents teasers that fall under fair use.
posted by sour cream at 3:03 PM on September 23, 2006
Or they want money. From the linked article:
"Our purpose is not to be excluded. Of course, we want to be in the system, but on a legal basis," said Boribon. "We want to be remunerated."
posted by ClarissaWAM at 3:10 PM on September 23, 2006
"Our purpose is not to be excluded. Of course, we want to be in the system, but on a legal basis," said Boribon. "We want to be remunerated."
posted by ClarissaWAM at 3:10 PM on September 23, 2006
But book publishers aren't making their content available to anyone who clicks on it, either. The web publishers are PUBLISHING their information; they are saying to the world, 'you can read this'. And they're trying to tell Google, 'you don't have the same rights we gave to everyone else, and we're going to try to extract as much of that large cash hoard of yours as we can'. It's really about a money grab, since they could easily tell Google to go away. They choose not to, and sue instead, because they want that money.
What they don't realize is that it is a symbiotic relationship; Google's indexing sends them traffic. If people don't know the content is on the site, they won't read it. If they don't read it, they don't see ads and they don't subscribe. Most sites are happy to have the indexing service, because it makes them money. It's symbiotic, not parasitic. Both parties make money. But the Belgians seem to think they deserve a bigger share than everyone else, that their content is just a little more special.
But Google does not need them to survive and prosper, and has now removed their sites entirely from its index. I would not be surprised if the Belgian papers sue AGAIN for 'loss of business'. They got exactly what they asked for, but it wasn't really what they wanted.
"Shoot us in the foot!" they screamed. "We demand that Google shoot us in the foot!" They seem to have been under the mistaken impression that Google would rather pay them than shoot them. The hole in their foot demonstrates this was an incorrect assumption.
I wonder how long the papers will take to notice they're bleeding?
posted by Malor at 3:22 PM on September 23, 2006
What they don't realize is that it is a symbiotic relationship; Google's indexing sends them traffic. If people don't know the content is on the site, they won't read it. If they don't read it, they don't see ads and they don't subscribe. Most sites are happy to have the indexing service, because it makes them money. It's symbiotic, not parasitic. Both parties make money. But the Belgians seem to think they deserve a bigger share than everyone else, that their content is just a little more special.
But Google does not need them to survive and prosper, and has now removed their sites entirely from its index. I would not be surprised if the Belgian papers sue AGAIN for 'loss of business'. They got exactly what they asked for, but it wasn't really what they wanted.
"Shoot us in the foot!" they screamed. "We demand that Google shoot us in the foot!" They seem to have been under the mistaken impression that Google would rather pay them than shoot them. The hole in their foot demonstrates this was an incorrect assumption.
I wonder how long the papers will take to notice they're bleeding?
posted by Malor at 3:22 PM on September 23, 2006
Malor, you may be right about this being a symbiotic relationship and the newspapers making a go at google's money. But all this is of no significance to a court passing judgment on whether a law (in this case copyright law) was broken.
In this case, the court decided that copyrights were infringed. I believe that they were mistaken, but for different reasons; in other words, the power balance between google and the newspapers or the newspapers' motives have nothing to do with the legal question whether a copyright infringement actually ocurred or not.
posted by sour cream at 3:38 PM on September 23, 2006
In this case, the court decided that copyrights were infringed. I believe that they were mistaken, but for different reasons; in other words, the power balance between google and the newspapers or the newspapers' motives have nothing to do with the legal question whether a copyright infringement actually ocurred or not.
posted by sour cream at 3:38 PM on September 23, 2006
Spoiled children still beat sociopaths. In any case, it's not this particular issue that matters. It's the fact that it is one of the first. If they back down on this one ...
Google.de comes first, removing searches for "Scientology" and "Xenu." Google.fr, let's get those pesky searches for Nazi war propaganda out of the way.
Fast forward a few years later, the RIAA finally convinces the US Supreme Court that linking to (and indexing) web pages that provide ways to circumvent DRM violate the DMCA. Google has to hook up to an RSS feed from the RIAA, constantly pulling the names of any kind of copy-cracking software that arises.
Remember how Fahrenheit 451 got started? One day, everyone went into the libraries and ripped out a page that offended them.
I'm not a huge fan of Google, nor am I much of a libertarian. In this case, they should take their ball and go home. It's what you do to remind people they they've taken something free for granted, and are now being jerks about it.
I'm sure Belgium will get along fine, but I suspect that, given the choice between "hey that nice Google we were getting for free" and "nothing at all," the folks in Belgium might place a little pressure on the courts to back down.
posted by adipocere at 3:51 PM on September 23, 2006
Google.de comes first, removing searches for "Scientology" and "Xenu." Google.fr, let's get those pesky searches for Nazi war propaganda out of the way.
Fast forward a few years later, the RIAA finally convinces the US Supreme Court that linking to (and indexing) web pages that provide ways to circumvent DRM violate the DMCA. Google has to hook up to an RSS feed from the RIAA, constantly pulling the names of any kind of copy-cracking software that arises.
Remember how Fahrenheit 451 got started? One day, everyone went into the libraries and ripped out a page that offended them.
I'm not a huge fan of Google, nor am I much of a libertarian. In this case, they should take their ball and go home. It's what you do to remind people they they've taken something free for granted, and are now being jerks about it.
I'm sure Belgium will get along fine, but I suspect that, given the choice between "hey that nice Google we were getting for free" and "nothing at all," the folks in Belgium might place a little pressure on the courts to back down.
posted by adipocere at 3:51 PM on September 23, 2006
adipocere living in Belgium, I somehow prefer to have an independent, if sometimes boneheaded, judiciary protecting my rights (and copyrights), than a corporation, even one with "do not be evil" as its motto. And even if I'm a heavy, and rather proficient user of Google, I think could live without it. After all, I already used Altavista when Google was still a twinkle in Sergei Brin's eye
Apart from that, Copiepresse is neither a publisher, nor does it run those newspapers' sites. It is a copyright management company, administering those newspapers' IP. It's a small, but important detail: those people do not know of robots.txt, nor do they need to know, as it isn't their work. Maybe the publishers would have been wiser to hold them back and take technical measures instead, but that was not Copiepresse's decision to take.
Finally, the smallness of the market involved also means that the newspapers are unlikely to suffer much from being expurged from Google, just as Google News isn't going to miss them much either: there are basically three significant newspapers in French in Belgium, Le Soir, for centre-left readers, La Libre Belgique, for centre-right readers, and La Dernière Heure, for those who can't read too long words. Every potential reader in their market knows the three options and doesn't really need Google News to find them...
posted by Skeptic at 4:11 PM on September 23, 2006
Apart from that, Copiepresse is neither a publisher, nor does it run those newspapers' sites. It is a copyright management company, administering those newspapers' IP. It's a small, but important detail: those people do not know of robots.txt, nor do they need to know, as it isn't their work. Maybe the publishers would have been wiser to hold them back and take technical measures instead, but that was not Copiepresse's decision to take.
Finally, the smallness of the market involved also means that the newspapers are unlikely to suffer much from being expurged from Google, just as Google News isn't going to miss them much either: there are basically three significant newspapers in French in Belgium, Le Soir, for centre-left readers, La Libre Belgique, for centre-right readers, and La Dernière Heure, for those who can't read too long words. Every potential reader in their market knows the three options and doesn't really need Google News to find them...
posted by Skeptic at 4:11 PM on September 23, 2006
adipocere writes "It's what you do to remind people they they've taken something free for granted, and are now being jerks about it. "
I think you have misunderstood the objectives of companies. Companies exist to make money. They do not exist to remind people that they've done bad things.
posted by Bugbread at 4:15 PM on September 23, 2006
I think you have misunderstood the objectives of companies. Companies exist to make money. They do not exist to remind people that they've done bad things.
posted by Bugbread at 4:15 PM on September 23, 2006
Skeptic, could you perhaps explain to us how the idea of Fair Use factors into your country's freedoms?
I'm honestly not being snarky—I genuinely want to know if Belgium has a fair-use policy and, if so, how Google News' small snippet of a larger article, complete with link to the full article (on the originating website) could possibly construe infringement.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:36 PM on September 23, 2006
I'm honestly not being snarky—I genuinely want to know if Belgium has a fair-use policy and, if so, how Google News' small snippet of a larger article, complete with link to the full article (on the originating website) could possibly construe infringement.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:36 PM on September 23, 2006
After having read the last link, I must add something:
Apparently, Google News has an arrangement with Associated Press, remunerating it for being able to index their content. AFP is also apparently seeking a similar arrangement, and if they succeed, I do not doubt that Reuters will be next in line.
Considering that nowadays something like 80-90% of all non-local news content originates from these three big wire services (something that Google News makes painfully obvious when exactly the same text is shown published in hundreds of different news sites), and that, if the wire services prevented Google News from showing their reports, even when published in other sites, Google News would be a very empty place indeed, I wonder whether such rulings are a good thing (because they give small newspapers some leverage against Google and the wire services) or a bad thing (because they reinforce copyright-owners, including the wire services) after all.
posted by Skeptic at 4:36 PM on September 23, 2006
Apparently, Google News has an arrangement with Associated Press, remunerating it for being able to index their content. AFP is also apparently seeking a similar arrangement, and if they succeed, I do not doubt that Reuters will be next in line.
Considering that nowadays something like 80-90% of all non-local news content originates from these three big wire services (something that Google News makes painfully obvious when exactly the same text is shown published in hundreds of different news sites), and that, if the wire services prevented Google News from showing their reports, even when published in other sites, Google News would be a very empty place indeed, I wonder whether such rulings are a good thing (because they give small newspapers some leverage against Google and the wire services) or a bad thing (because they reinforce copyright-owners, including the wire services) after all.
posted by Skeptic at 4:36 PM on September 23, 2006
Civil_Disobedient. First, it isn't my country (I live in it, but I'm not Belgian) and secondly, I honestly do not know, I'm not a copyright lawyer. I do think that there are the usual considerations for use, even if it is being progressively restricted by legislators, just as everywhere else, I'm afraid.
As I mentioned, Belgian courts can, on occasion, be rather boneheaded. And since, as it happens, one of the factors in this case is that Google for some reason did not appear in court to defend itself, I think that we'll have to wait until the appeal hearings to know the answer...
posted by Skeptic at 4:42 PM on September 23, 2006
As I mentioned, Belgian courts can, on occasion, be rather boneheaded. And since, as it happens, one of the factors in this case is that Google for some reason did not appear in court to defend itself, I think that we'll have to wait until the appeal hearings to know the answer...
posted by Skeptic at 4:42 PM on September 23, 2006
« Older His, Mine, Yours, Ours | Nina Hartley, Bolshevik Porn Star Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by peacay at 12:07 PM on September 23, 2006