Oh, really! I wonder how far this will get. The newspapers need Google News, and want to get paid for it! I wonder if Google would consider turning it around and making a charge for listing. Oh no, did I really suggest that! </ducks>
Traditional mainstream publishers in Spain believe they have found a way to extract payment for the appropriation of their online content.
It follows the Spanish congress's passing of a law last week nicknamed tasa Google ("Google tax") which gives newspaper publishers the right to seek payment from any site that links to their content.
The law, called Canon AEDE, will need to be ratified by the senate in September. If it clears that hurdle, it has the potential to be disruptive for search engines such as Google and sites like Digg and Reddit. Spain's Newspapers Target Google Tax For Links To News [theguardian.com]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.