homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.15.196
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

This 89 message thread spans 3 pages: 89 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Google Faces Lawsuit Over News Copyright
Brett_Tabke

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 1:04 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

[money.cnn.com...]

The French news service is seeking damages of at least $17.5 million and an order barring Google News from displaying AFP photographs, news headlines or story leads, according to the suit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

 

XMLMania

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 1:18 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Wow, this could be quite a blow for Google news if AFP win this case, -- AFP source news for Yahoo and other media vendors.

Doesn't look good for Google IMO, and $17.5 million is a substantial amount of cash.

Imaster

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 1:19 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Story was already posted here:
[webmasterworld.com...]

Mario

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 1:34 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

If a news agency doesn't want its articles to be included in Google News it can easily use robots.txt to do so. The trouble for AFP it seems is that a lot its paying clients presumably want to be indexed by G news so it becomes tricky to remove them too.

arrowman

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 1:59 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

If a news agency doesn't want its articles to be included in Google News it can easily use robots.txt to do so.

Copyright works the other way around: it's opt-in.

communitynews

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 2:05 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Maybe they think companies that are using their work to create a service for others should ask their permission.

Wlauzon

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 2:28 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

With all the problems that Google is having in France, I wonder if they might just be better to pull out and delist/block all IP's originating from there.

weeks

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 2:51 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

The lawsuit doesn't have anything to do with France, except that the company is based in France.

I think the case against Google has merit, and it's important.

Keep in mind that the typical news website gets less that 2 pageviews per visitor. (Yahoo, NYT, CNN and just a handful of others do better.) Google News is taking one of those pageviews--where the reader is looking at the headlines, then going to that one story they are interested in reading, then leaving.

A few years ago anything that brought traffic was good and welcomed, but now it's all about share of the market that exists.

Google ( and Topix.net ) aren't doing the news sites any favors.

walkman



 
Msg#: 484 posted 3:09 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I think the case against Google has merit, and it's important."

Merit, why? Google at most uses a thumbnail and a sentence, clearly within the fair use. The public's right to know is more important than AFP's copyright of that sentence. Methinks this will not even make it to the trial, it will be dismissed by a judge right away.

Visi

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 3:12 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well it is perhaps the beginning of the court battles related to content caching by search engines. Think I will follow this one with some interest to see the outcome.

Webwork

WebmasterWorld Administrator webwork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 3:21 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does Google bring new traffic or diminish traffic to news sites?

If Google brings traffic, or at least creates an increased awareness of a media outlet, does that result in an increase or decrease in revenues or profits for the media outlet?

What is the downside of the Google traffic measured in terms of financial loss or costs?

Once the discussion of issues falls outside the analysis profits or losses the issues to debate grow exponentially.

There's an argument for keeping it simple: It's about the money, stupid! If it's making you more money than it's costing you shut up.

There's a million arguments for everything else: It's about control, creatives, etc. In that case, the answer invariably is the courts.

The funny thing about the "million other arguments" and the courts is this: 90%+ of the time, the final outcome of court proceedings is the movement of money.

Go figure.

My vote: Cut off the traffic if it makes them happy and don't ever let them back in once they opt out. That way, if their competitor gains an advantage by accepting the traffic that they refused, the complaining party can pridefully take credit for their own decline.

It's good to take responsibility after all. Give 'em the chance and don't look back.

Or, look to set legal precents and then get to live with them, which in this industry may be the more efficient methodology.

Go figure. Just don't blame the lawyers. ;0)

Clark

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 3:29 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

We should parse this:
an order barring Google News from displaying AFP photographs, news headlines or story leads

The web is not like another medium. You are releasing content to the public. You are participating in a known protocol. Robots.txt is a well-known and long used protocol on the internet.

Displaying photographs on your own website is a little different though, depending how it's done. A thumbnail could be considered fair use. But maybe the court won't view it that way. Is caching fair use? Good questions.

But saying that Google has to go beyond the robots.txt just for AFP is stretching it. Don't display headlines? Snippets are what fair use is all about.

Visi

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 3:37 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

But the hook on this case is that the newspaper doesn't allow free use..it is subscription only. By caching snippets and pics google has potentially reduced their income. Same can be said of any page that is cached...webmasters income reduced since not visiting the site. Think Google has to fight this one hard to protect the business model they have currently.

cellularnews

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 4:01 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

The article also says that Google has repeatedly ignored requests from AFP to stop spidering its sites.

blaze

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 4:06 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

What does this have to do with ToolBar/ Desktop Search / API?

Visi

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 4:08 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

So please stop listing our copyrighted material that earns us money. Any webmaster out there argue with that? Forget about the robots.txt protocol this ones going to have some large consequenses on internet laws.

figment88

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 4:18 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google has to go beyond the robots.txt

Google doesn't have to go beyond the robots.txt, they just have to respect all of it. Robots.txt has two major directives disallow and allow.

As has been pointed out in this thread, copyright is opt-in. If google is not explictly allow'ed by the robots.txt they should not spider and use others' intellectual property.

Jon_King

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 4:33 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>$17.5 million is a substantial amount of cash

To whom? Google. I don't think so. Money is not the issue.

davelms

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 4:37 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry if this sounds a dumb question, but I'm confused how Google has managed to spider content that is supposedly protected by a subscription service. At face value that indicates to me that the site has opened up their content for spidering by the Google, whilst maintaining a subscription requirement for human visitors. Forgive me if I lost the track a little.

In relation to the discussions so far, I am by no means clued on this, but as most of us do I have an opinion. I believe wrt SEs it should be opt out, via robots.txt. I don't agree with it being opt in. I also don't understand how showing a cache of a page harms a business, the links still work, a user can still purchase if they like, and they still see your paid for on site adverts. On this issue, what I've read - and I don't think I understand hence my opening question - I fall on the side of Google. And that's me done on this, anyone that can answer my first question and help me understand just a little bit more can have 1,000 friendly webmaster support points :-)

walkman



 
Msg#: 484 posted 4:48 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

> To whom? Google. I don't think so. Money is not the issue.

well, if AFP wins, then any of the other 4000+ news sources will sue for millions. Is it an issue then?

Visi

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 4:49 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Actually I think you hit the nail on the head. This is an issue of "who" gave search engines the right to spider pages and the onus on webmasters to deny this. Copyrighted material is protected by law, the search engines should have permission to use it....in principle a reversal of the robots.txt. If you don't allow them in they cannot cache the site.

Sobriquet

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 5:16 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, I had been thinking over this issue and related issus since long. I think that each siteowner MUST have a way ( apart from robots.txt ) to alow or disallow.

My solution ( if google listens to it and implements it ) is a simple suggestion.

Google should introduce a small file ( something which must get manually downloaded from google site after an "I AGREE" stuff. This file, once found in a site root or folder, should tell google's spider to index anything in that domain.

Absence of such a file should tell google that this site does not want itself to be indexed.

Why not 'robots.txt' file? because its something thats too open. It should be a Google file.

Similar strategies should be taken up by other search engines also ..

What do you all think?

creepychris

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 5:27 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sobriquet,

I think it's a bad idea. Google is not special. It just has market power for the moment. The solution has to be generalized like robots.txt so that it can be applied to whatever indexing spider comes along. It should have the ability to be generalized as in all spiders allowed or no spiders allowed and it should also have the ability to be customized. robots.txt is fine for that.

I really hope Google wins, because I think a lot of important information sites by hobbyists and educational institutions which don't use robots.txt will disappear and their owners will not know why they disappeared. A lot of good content is created by less than savvy webmasters.

The web is not like other mediums. If the French newspaper wants out, it only takes 1 line of code. Personally, I think Google should give them the permanent boot.

ronburk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 6:10 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google News is taking one of those pageviews

Heh -- well, all I know is that I never visited the web pages of Channel News Asia, or AllAfrica.com, or The Times of India, or [long list of more obscure news sources] before I started using Google News. So, there's some folks getting some traffic they were sure never gonna get before. Whether they want my traffic or not, I dunno.

weeks

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 9:58 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google News is taking one of those pageviews

Heh -- well, all I know is that I never visited the web pages of Channel News Asia, or AllAfrica.com, or The Times of India, or [long list of more obscure news sources] before I started using Google News. So, there's some folks getting some traffic they were sure never gonna get before. Whether they want my traffic or not, I dunno.

They want your money, or to link some one to you who wants your money. It is not happening. I have a small news paper with a website and all I can see it do is damage subscriptions and news stand sales. My competitor has a more extensive web site. I have to read their paper to keep up with them, but I'm seriously thinking about canceling the subscription because, gee, it's all on the web and easier and faster to scan. But, of course, the ad department wants to see the ads ;-)

I believe the thumbnails as they are often used by Google News go beyond fair use. They are used to make the page more attractive, as design elements. The people who do that work deserve to be paid, because that is why they are making those images.

Freedom

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 10:43 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

France definetely has it in for Google.

First there was the French created controversy over the announcement by Google "to put books from some of the world's great libraries on the Internet."
[webmasterworld.com...]

Then, French Adsense publishers threatened to boycott Google. [webmasterworld.com...]

Google loses an appeal in French courts. [webmasterworld.com...]

Now, AFP is gunning for them.

I've never seen a country act this belligerent towards a company before. And I certainly don't see any other country going after Google as hard as France is.

Looks like there is more going on here then meets the eye.

Fairla

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 11:52 pm on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm confused how Google has managed to spider content that is supposedly protected by a subscription service

Isn't AFP a news service? So Google would be picking up its content from sites NOT owned by AFP -- sites that paid to use the content (and which probably don't mind being included in Google's news section).

I don't think AFP should be able to stop people from linking to the articles or using the headlines. A news service should understand that this is how the Internet works. The photos are another issue -- they really are losing value if people can see them on Google's site and Google isn't paying for them. Whereas with a news link, you still have to click to read the whole article, and that means going to the site that paid to use the content (content that has negative value to the sites that bought it if AFP then bans those sites from Google).

(Added: On the other hand, I haven't noticed a lot of full-sized images in Google's news section, so you still have to click through to the originating site to see the whole thing.)

Fairla

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 12:01 am on Mar 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

And isn't trying to stop a site from showing a news headline like trying to stop a newsstand owner from showing the headline? The newsstand owner doesn't pay the news service. The newspaper publisher does. But the guy who peddles the papers still gets to show the headlines to tempt people to read them.

IanKelley

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 12:18 am on Mar 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

It seems as if a lot of people have forgotten what the net is all about.

It's public. If you publish something on the internet then you're publishing it to the public. If you don't want it to be public then publish it on your INTRAnet, not the internet.

Protection from out right rip offs of intellectual property are of course necessary but it should stop there.

I won't go into all of the (obvious) ways in which the internet will change for the worse if enough of these types of lawsuits succeed. The amazing (read scary) thing is that so many people are somehow missing this?

spaceylacie

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 484 posted 1:06 am on Mar 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

By allegedly not adhering to the company's requests to "cease and desist", Google must be trying to prove a point. They are apparently willing to spend a few bucks in order to do this.

This 89 message thread spans 3 pages: 89 ( [1] 2 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved