| 12:15 pm on Jul 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's lived in Spain. P.S. I love Spain.
| 1:18 pm on Jul 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The use of the term "appropriation of content" sounds as if the author is talking about scraping content rather than just linking in the search results but then doesn't expand on the point. Typical journalism.
| 1:53 pm on Jul 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I'm sure that a snippet in Google News is beneficial. I've used it so many times to find a story, so a site mentioned is going to get clicks, and ultimately to benefit. Google has an easy answer, and that's to drop sites from Google News. It really could work out unfavourable for the traditional newspaper publishers, imho.
| 3:24 pm on Jul 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Why special treatment for newspapers? The law should be the same for all content.
A similar law in Germany lead to Google making Google News "opt-in". Spain has blocked that approach by not permitting news articles to be linked to for free - publishers MUST charge, whether they want to or not.
| 4:07 pm on Jul 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
A better explanation here:
Royalties will be collected by a government appointed collection society, without the consent of copyright holders.
There is no opt-out, so news articles cannot be published or republished using free licences such as Creative Commons ones.
[edited by: engine at 4:30 pm (utc) on Jul 30, 2014]
[edit reason] fixed link [/edit]
| 4:33 pm on Jul 30, 2014 (gmt 0)|
It could be argued that any of the Spanish newspapers achieving clicks from Google might be subject to a charge from Google for providing clicks to help fund their business. I would assume the newspapers would be making more money out of it if they get a click.
It's a tightrope they are walking, imho, and i'm not over-keen on it.
| 12:15 pm on Jul 31, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The Spanish law proposal declares that editors cannot refuse the use of “non-significant fragments of their articles” by third parties. However, it creates a levy on such use to compensate editors and declares it an inalienable right
I can see it totally justified for "significant" fragments. If there is enough in the SERPS to satisfy the searcher then G should pay but unless there is a mistranslation the judgement seems OTT.
| 3:01 pm on Jul 31, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The article is a bit unclear on that point, but I think "non-significant" means anything more than the headline - i.e. title but no snippet.
Banning opt-outs is also draconian.