homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.168.78
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

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 55 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 55 ( 1 [2]     
Belgian Courts tell Google - no cached pages allowed
tedster




msg:3087096
 8:40 am on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I missed this one over a week ago. A Belgian court has ordered Google to:

...withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order, under penalty of a daily fine of
1,000,000.- &#8364; per day of delay;

[chillingeffects.org...]

The court also mandated that Google publish their entire judgment on the home pages of 'google.be' and of 'news.google.be or face a daily fine of 500,000,- &#8364; for each day they don't.

 

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:3087509
 4:00 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Because 90% of Webmasters don't care.

These days are long gone.

I would say that 99% of people with websites are only too well aware of the importance of search engine inclusion. They would soon learn to do what was necessary.

Demaestro




msg:3087536
 4:16 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

noarchive tags don't work in Belgium?

The noarchive tag means that the copyright holder must request from Google to not violate ther copyright.

This is contravening to the standard everywhere else that one must request from the copyright holder permission to make copies and publish them.

So while the noarchive tag does work that isn't really the point.

What is interesting is that this same type of case has gone forward in the USA a couple times and each time US court districs accept the arugments that are brought forth by Google and allows them to continue copying and publishing copywrighten content without the express permission of the copyright holder.

I wonder if Goolge plans on honoring this and how much work this will be for them.

[edited by: Demaestro at 4:28 pm (utc) on Sep. 18, 2006]

BigDave




msg:3087554
 4:26 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I really would love to see someone sue google and then google remove them from the index.

In most cases, that would not be such a smart legal move, but in this case the court order can quite easily be interpreted that way. In fact, they have done it in the past where someone sued over the cache (google won that case in the United States, but removed them anyway)

Order the defendant to withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites

You see, Google has a method in place to exclude sites and pages (robots.txt and meta tags). If those companies are unwilling to use the tools available to differentiate what they want done, the easiest thing for google to do is remove the domain from the index.

- you are unwilling to set noarchive
- you sue and the court orders Google to remove your cache
- Google does not currently have a method to manually set your site to noarchive
- Google does have a way to manually remove your site from the index.
- Google only has 10 days to implement this
- the court order does not set any limitations on how Google should implement this change

What would google do? there is an old saying about playing with fire...

BigDave




msg:3087570
 4:32 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

The noarchive tag means that the copyright holder must request from Google to not violate ther copyright.

No, it does not.

Copyright does not grant the copyright holder absolue control over who copies thier works. It grants them control over certain types of copying.

With the case in the United States, the court did not rule that Google had a right to violate copyright. They ruled that Google was within their rights to make a cached copy of the page. There was no copyright infringement.

RonPK




msg:3087583
 4:38 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I can'f find any articles from lesoir.be in news.google.be anymore. Plenty of pages in the cache, though. Le Soir was one of the papers that sued Google.

AFP reports that Google is to appeal, and that they weren't informed about the court order until last Friday. (I can only find reports about this in French, so no links...)

Quadrille




msg:3087600
 4:53 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Story in the UK Times [timesonline.co.uk]

As I thought - they want a piece of the cake.

Bring on the meta tag - make cache 'opt in'; better for all, in the long run.

And if it stopped Google news offering 15 versions of the same story (until the dupe content filter kicks in), so much the better!

kaled




msg:3087612
 5:05 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

On Jan 26 2006, I posted a technical solution - it received no replies.

As I see it, two developments are required.
1) A definitive ruling on whether opt-in or opt-out is required.
2) A new standard to identify opt-in/out pages. Possibly a new http header such as Allow-archive: Yes/No.

Legally, as I see it, opt-in is the only defensible position, but with the suggestion above, it would be possible to rule, for instance, that after Jan 1st 2008, all cached pages must be removed for which opt-in headers were not present. This would give Plesk, etc. a chance to add the option to their control panel settings.

It would seem that we now have a definitive ruling (well maybe, for a small country) so the cache shall either be consigned to history, or a solution along the lines that I proposed shall have to be implemented.

Kaled.

koen




msg:3087617
 5:08 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

[google.be...]

reads on the bottom of the results:

" Als reactie op een juridisch verzoek dat Google heeft ontvangen zijn 10 resultaten van deze pagina verwijderd. Indien gewenst kunt u meer over het verzoek lezen op ChillingEffects.org."

Translates loosely as:

" As reaction to a juridical request that Google has received, 10 results are removed from this page. If wanted you can read more about the request on ChillingEffects.org.".

The site of "Le Soir" is one of the ones that has been removed from the search results.

edit: in the bottom notice the link for more information points to: [chillingeffects.org...]

BigDave




msg:3087624
 5:13 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

It would seem that we now have a definitive ruling (well maybe, for a small country) so the cache shall either be consigned to history,

Less definitive than the ruling in the United States that goes in Google's favor. Given that both rulings were at the initial trial level, they aren't exactly binding precident.

My best guess is that in the long run, the United States and most commonweath countries (with the possible exception of Australia, they are hard to predict) will consider the cached pages legal. Countries with copyright definitions that are more like those in France will declare the cache illegal.

Companies should be very careful about choosing countries where they establish a legal presence.

jtara




msg:3087729
 6:28 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Less definitive than the ruling in the United States that goes in Google's favor

I don't think there's been a case in the U.S. related to news.

Google agreed to pay Associated Press for content, eliminating the possibility of a future lawsuit from them:

[news.com.com...]

BigDave




msg:3087744
 6:41 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't think there's been a case in the U.S. related to news.

Correct, but I was replying to a comment regarding archiving.

As for google paying AP, I seriously doubt that it was simply to avoid losing a lawsuit, because it is extremely unlikely that google would lose copyright infringement lawsuit related to Google News in the United States. They have significantly more fair use rights with News than they do with search.

europeforvisitors




msg:3087999
 11:13 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

As for google paying AP, I seriously doubt that it was simply to avoid losing a lawsuit

The cited article says that Google's agreement with AP involves a "new product," not just Google News. The story suggests that Google plans to actually use AP content instead of merely linking to it with headlines and snippets.

At any rate, Google News (and Google's deal with AP) have little if anything to do with the caching issue.

Quadrille




msg:3088025
 11:58 pm on Sep 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

If I remember correctly, Google won the US case on the slightly tongue-in-cheek argument that its caches were 'temporary' - I think the average quoted was "a couple of weeks". Under current copyright law, that qualifies under fair use, and was not challneged.

As mentioned above, neither case could really be argued to be definitive - the Belgian case was uncontested, the US case was a lower court and a specific issue.

However, if other publishers see this as a 'victory' against Google, then more will follow.

I think it's quite likely, however that some may realise it's a more a shot in the foot than a victory; poor Belgium ;)

[edited by: Quadrille at 12:01 am (utc) on Sep. 19, 2006]

swa66




msg:3088043
 12:21 am on Sep 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Belgians speak French and FLEMISH, not German, so there may be a problem with the translation. I know...nit-picky, but hey I was born there and gotta look out for the motherland.

To continue on the nitpicking: I'm not only born here, I also live here.

For the record we speak:
- Dutch (northern part, not involved in the lawsuit)
- French (southern part)
- German (minority in the eastern part, often overlooked but an official language)

The lawsuit (I read a copy of the court papers in French) are about German and French speaking newspaper content. No Dutch newspaper seems to be invoved.

The court makes a difference in copying for search purposes (indexing) and copying for showing through the cache, it only prohibits the latter.

I really do not want this detail to escalate, but remember that there is but one dictionary for Dutch and whatever you feel like the language spoken in the Northern part of Belgium should be named. Hence we call Dutch. If you comapare English as used in the US and as used in the UK you'll find mre differences than if you compare Flanders and The Netherlands.

jtara




msg:3088064
 12:42 am on Sep 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google won the US case on the slightly tongue-in-cheek argument that its caches were 'temporary' - I think the average quoted was "a couple of weeks"

Maybe next time the complainant should talk to some of the people here who have experienced cached content hanging around for months.

BigDave




msg:3088069
 12:59 am on Sep 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Maybe next time the complainant should talk to some of the people here who have experienced cached content hanging around for months.

Considering that "limited time" from the Copyright Clause of the Constitution is now being interpreted as life of the author plus 75 years, that same logic that congress used could be extended to "temporary" being a few decades.

Receptional




msg:3088493
 10:42 am on Sep 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Meanwhile... does anyone see the Google.be home page complying with the ruling? How many days have they got left to comply?

koen




msg:3088782
 3:30 pm on Sep 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

They complied. And even more: all links to the complaining websites have been removed from the belgian index google.be.

Chris_Boggs




msg:3088817
 3:55 pm on Sep 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

haha swa66, good point on the Belgians speaking German in the east. My point was about the original translation, which I felt may have been wrong. Thanks for clarifying! :) As far as Dutch v. Flemish, I see you, like many Belgians, have strong opinions about the language issues, so I will not escalate as you suggest. However, I would venture to say there are more idiomatic differences between Dutch and Flemish than you care to credit. You aren't one of those people that paints over one of the languages on dual-language road signs, are you? :P Kidding of course.

[edited by: Chris_Boggs at 4:00 pm (utc) on Sep. 19, 2006]

Chris_Boggs




msg:3088825
 3:58 pm on Sep 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

jtara, thanks for the link to the news article from the UK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2363584,00.html)

One thing that jumped out at me was the following quote:

"Google only provides a link and first line of a news item, which it argues represents fair use. "In some cases we are providing about 25 per cent of the traffic to a newspaper site, so we think Google helps boost readership," the Google spokeswoman said."

Hmm wonder how they know that?

BigDave




msg:3088858
 4:25 pm on Sep 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hmm wonder how they know that?

I suspect that they are actually on very good terms with several newspapers around the world, and may even buy the stats information from them.

viggen




msg:3094124
 2:57 pm on Sep 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

Meanwhile... does anyone see the Google.be home page complying with the ruling? How many days have they got left to comply?

The ruling is now live and in full on google.be

cheers
viggen

trambuco




msg:3094142
 3:28 pm on Sep 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

Which country is next? Now that they can see that the 100 billion giant has feet made out of clay?

System
redhat



msg:3094843
 6:04 pm on Sep 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

The following 4 messages were cut out to new thread by brett_tabke. New thread at: goog/3094841.htm [webmasterworld.com]
8:55 am on Sep. 24, 2006 (cst -5)

Purposeinc




msg:3095030
 5:26 pm on Sep 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am afraid this means that Google will also have to take down this page.

Belgian Crime System [google.com]

;)

(If I could have blocked my User Name from this post I would have.)

This 55 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 55 ( 1 [2]
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