Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Belgian Newspapers Delisted On Google

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-will-not-be-assimilated dept.

Google 385

D H NG writes "After being ordered by the Belgian courts to 'remove from its Google.be and Google.com sites, and in particular, cached links visible on Google Web and the Google News service, all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers published in French and German by Belgian publishers,' Google had removed all traces of the newspapers in question from all its search services. The newspapers, however, are crying foul, and alleged that it was done in retaliation for being sued for copyright violations."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

#1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783704)

First post!

Of course it was done in retaliation. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783712)

What are you gonna do about it?

(Google does support a noarchive robots extension tag, so instead of suing Google, you could have had just the search results without content by simply adjusting your server output.)

Google needs to do this more often. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784088)

All these companies and sites that get all pissy with google over stupid stuff...

First thing google should do in any case of complaints or being sued is to strip ALL refrences to the offending site/company from their index.

"We feel the only contact we should have with $org$ is thru our lawyers."

As a google investor i like this idea.

I'm trying to parse this (4, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783714)

Help me out:

1) "After being ordered by the Belgian courts to 'remove from its Google.be and Google.com sites, and in particular, cached links visible on Google Web and the Google News service, all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers published in French and German by Belgian publishers,'

2) Google had removed all traces of the newspapers in question from all its search services.

#2 is the exact thing the court ordered in #1, right?

So why, O, why, are the publishers whining in #3:

3) The newspapers, however, are crying foul, and alleged that it was done in retaliation for being sued for copyright violations."

Money (5, Insightful)

xkuehn (2202854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783734)

If Google doesn't remove them from its searches, they demand money on the basis of ridiculous copyright claims.

If Google does remove them, they demand money on the basis of Google abusing its monopoly to punish them.

I know it doesn't make sense if you're sane, but that's how these sorts of people reason.

Re:Money (5, Informative)

RsG (809189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783920)

Okay, this is partly a case of a poorly written summary. From reading the second article, here's the short version.

A number of newspapers in Belgium won a suit against Google for putting their papers in Google News. The judge in the case ordered Google to remove the sites. Rather than just removing the sites from their news aggregator, they also delisted them from their search engine.

Depending on how much slack you want to give Google, this is either a case of the judge's order being over broad or Google deliberately implementing it in an over broad fashion in order to make a point. I tend toward the latter interpretation; they are not so subtly reminding the papers that they need Google more than Google needs their content.

Now the newspapers are crying foul. They do want to get listed in search results when someone goes looking for them, but don't want to be "plagiarized" (their interpretation, not mine) by Google News.

Re:Money (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783952)

If you read the link pointing to the actual judge's order. You see:
- 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 (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.- ? per day of delay;

What don't you understand with "from all their sites". Then in the clarification between brackets it says again: "or any other name".

Re:Money (2)

djl4570 (801529) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784072)

...from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name) ...

Heh. Be careful what you ask for. You might get it. Also sounds like the Judge is wearing his ass for a hat but that's so common it isn't newsworthy.

Re:Money (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783992)

It's OK - they are just taking the training course for membership of the Tea Party

Re:I'm trying to parse this (3, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783748)

they didn't want to get automatically syndicated to google's news portals. so they asked to be removed from that auto syndication, which probably was giving them headaches as they didn't have copyrights to allow for such. so now what google did was to remove them totally from google services. it's just one example why you should keep a search service separate from auto generated portals. or just reform copyright and get out of the mess.
 
  but i'd imagine for example if they license a story from reuters or whatever, they're only licensing it for their own use and not for re-licensing - which would be needed to auto syndicate it to google news site.

  this is only sort of fair, you see, building a service like google news isn't hard at all - what's hard is letting the content providers let you do it.

Google *IS* the internet (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783870)

I think the publications in question thought that the Google News syndication was taking hits away from their own websites. That people were reading "their" articles on GN, without visiting the newspapers' own sites and benefiting from the advertising on them. So they were losing revenue from reduced numbers of visitors. Just how they would deal with the subsequent issue of people reading the articles from Google's cached content is debatable - but the same principle may apply there, too.

Whether this action amounts to punishment, or is a rational conclusion drawn from the demands of the newspapers will never be known. It could be both. However, the newspapers will soon learn a lesson: don't honk off the people who send all your visitors your way. Without Google websites have nothing.

Re:Google *IS* the internet (1, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784118)

Without Google websites have nothing.

And that statement in itself shows the severity of the current situation on the Internet. And how much power is in the hands of a foreign, private, and fully unaccountable organisation.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783896)

but i'd imagine for example if they license a story from reuters or whatever, they're only licensing it for their own use and not for re-licensing - which would be needed to auto syndicate it to google news site.

Google never has "auto-syndicated" anything from the news websites it aggregates on google news. At most it thumbnails images, pulls headlines and lead sentences. Every full-content article you find hosted on news.google.com itself was licensed from the newswires by google themselves.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783928)

In addition googlebot follows noindex and nocache in robots.txt so if they don't want their content to be included that's their choice without involving lawyers. Heck, if they want it indexed but no summaries to show up (and thus exclude the results from the news feed I assume) they could use the nonstandard nosnippet tag that googlebot will follow.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783948)

they didn't want to get automatically syndicated to google's news portals. so they asked to be removed from that auto syndication, which probably was giving them headaches as they didn't have copyrights to allow for such. so now what google did was to remove them totally from google services. it's just one example why you should keep a search service separate from auto generated portals. or just reform copyright and get out of the mess.

Could they not have solved this problem with robots.txt? I'm guessing there must be a technical reason why not, but if re-licensing of the content was a problem maybe the smarter thing to do would have been to tap google on the shoulder and say "we have a problem with you 'republishing' some of the content on our site because we don't have a license for us to allow you to do that. Can we work out a robots.txt-like solution?". I assume it was the lawyers idea just to take it to court...

Re:I'm trying to parse this (-1, Redundant)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783754)

The court didn't order Google to remove linking to the publishers when someone performed a Google search. It would seem that Google did that out of spite.

However, I have not read the article yet to have a more informed opinion.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (3, Informative)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783806)

The english document that is available seem to support Google.

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 (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.- ? per day of delay

It sounds very weird, probably machine-translated, but 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 sounds pretty straight-forward.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (-1, Redundant)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783922)

You're right: No where in what you quoted does it say to withdraw a link to them from Google's search engine.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783964)

You're right: No where in what you quoted does it say to withdraw a link to them from Google's search engine.

In that case it doesn't require them to withdraw a link to them from news.google.com either. It's the same search engine filtered to news articles. And the order says all sites.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783976)

ehm, but every link on googles search site is accompanied with a snippet of text from the article.
So, no, they cannot keep in on their search site, unless they make an exception for not showing any text with the search result.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784008)

It would be difficult for Google to present links for search results on content not stored within their database (arguably their site).

Re:I'm trying to parse this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784046)

Err.... There is a million euro fine per day that Google would be fined if they kept something that they should not have done. If I was ordered to either pay that or remove it from ALL sites - they be gone in no time. Imagine standing up to the board to explain you lost another 5 million euros because the interpretation from the Judge was to include the links too and it took them five days for you before you could remove them.

Remember, these are pissed of news papers - They could have solved these with robots.txt, but they rather sue, so you bet if they could incur more damages to google, they would not have passed the chance.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784080)

Sarcasm aside, Every search result in Google Search includes some context - not just mere links. This fact alone makes it impossible to legally distinguish from a search result in Google Search and a News item in Google News. Although the publishers may have only wanted Google just to stop publishing results in the 'Google News' format, the text of the ruling binds Google to remove them entirely.

The publishers are butthurt because they got what they asked for but more than they bargained for. They shot themselves in the foot.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (2)

Liam Pomfret (1737150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783828)

The actual court order is over on Chilling Effects http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=2160 [chillingeffects.org] It expressly says that Google is to remove the links "from all their sites". So...yeah, the publishers got what they wished for, they just didn't realise what that would really imply.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783926)

It says "the articles, photographs and graphic representations", not links. Links it seems would still be permitted.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (0)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783950)

It says to remove "articles, photographs and graphic representations" from all their sites.

This did not say "links"

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783994)

Is google obligated to link to them?

Maybe Google can charge them to have them have links on Google's site?

IP is a knife with no handle that cuts in every direction.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784120)

Nope. But they are allowed to.

This is a negotiating position, rather than a mandate.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784020)

It says to remove "articles, photographs and graphic representations" from all their sites.

Okay, so what does it MEAN to remove an article from Google's site if not to remove the link to it?

The little snippet of text that gives you some idea what the article is about? That's hardly "an article" but is that what you're interpreting it to mean? Those snippets seem to be a basic part of the design of Google search. Are they set up to remove them on a per site basis?

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784144)

It means to not cache it, syndicate it or store an image of it.

The little snippet of text that gives you some idea what the article is about? That's hardly "an article" but is that what you're interpreting it to mean?

I doubt anyone would reasonably interpret it that way. I really don't think this is what was intended. Google does have 10 days to ask for clarification. If they wanted to they could defer ask.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784098)

It says to remove "articles, photographs and graphic representations" from all their sites.

This did not say "links"

But the URL is part of the article, as are headlines, stylesheets, etc. They got precisely what they had asked for.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784104)

The courts have already decided that linking to copyrighted material is the same as publishing it. So again, these people got what the asked for and what the deserve.

I've been waiting for just this to happen. It's a joy.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (3, Insightful)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783832)

Actually, I think it did. From Chilling Effects: [chillingeffects.org]

- 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 (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.- ? per day of delay;

Emphasis mine. If Google isn't allowed to have any content from the newspapers on any of Google's sites and search engine indexing is based on content, then how is it supposed to index the pages?

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

rust627 (1072296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783842)

" all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers"

I dont think that really leaves much to link to........

what did they expect ?, that every link in googles search results would be replaced with a neat little tag saying "our apologies, due to court action we cannot display a link here but if you wish to see this content which we really really assure you is relevant to your search go to the website of a certain newspaper......."

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783932)

" all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers"

dont think that really leaves much to link to........

You can link to the official website, you just can re host it.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783990)

" all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers"

dont think that really leaves much to link to........

You can link to the official website, you just can re host it.

I think you need to spell out what you mean because it isn't at all clear right now. Are you saying that the order just says they mustn't cache the content? The translation isn't great but it doesn't look to me as if it's intended to apply only to that.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784016)

A link would be fine, giving a preview or storing cached content would not be.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784032)

A link would be fine, giving a preview or storing cached content would not be.

Okay, so no caching (which the newspapers could have achieved through robots.txt without all the bother of a court case but okay, they don't feel they should have to opt out). And without a "preview" am I right in thinking you mean the couple of sentences indicative of the content that accompanies every search result?

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783868)

From the summary:

"remove from its Google.be and Google.com sites, and in particular, cached links visible on Google Web and the Google News service, all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers published in French and German by Belgian publishers"

Notice "google.be" and "google.com" websites. No mention of "news.google.be". And also "visible on Google Web and the Google News service". Not just news, web search and news search.

Google did exactly what they were told to do. It's the judge who gave that order, who should have their ass kicked. This is going to hurt every belgian publisher until it's reversed.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783914)

It's the judge who gave that order, who should have their ass kicked.

Is there some reason to believe that the judge didn't apply Belgian law correctly? I'm unfamiliar with the subject myself but I see no reason to assume they didn't anything wrong. If we assume that Google's indexing methods breach Belgian law then I doubt that the "web" indexing is any different to the "news" indexing.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783938)

It doesn't mention removing links to the official website

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784000)

It doesn't mention removing links to the official website

Indeed, it doesn't refer to any sites as being official or unofficial at all. If had done, what would that mean?

Re:I'm trying to parse this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784002)

A link by itself has no value, nearly every link in google's search results is accompanied by a copy of the page's title , and a little snippet of the content on that page (generally the part that fits the search query). Without the ability to display any of that, the link has almost no value for users of the google search.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

Gible (526142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783880)

No the court ordered it [chillingeffects.org]
 

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

Re:I'm trying to parse this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784004)

Read the article, you fucking idiot.

The stench of these fanboys is unbearable in here.

You must be so proud of yourself, as a hypocrite cunt who has morally corrupted himself into blindness.

And for what? A fucking ad broker.
 

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

mjpg (717775) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784042)

If the order posted on Chilling Effects is correct you can see why Google took a broad view [my emphasis]:

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 (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.- ? per day of delay;

http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=2160

Re:I'm trying to parse this (0)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784110)

Searching for the news paper names on Google you can not find them, at all. Not even their home page, their "about" pages, whatever. It's as if they do not exist. I don't think that is what the court demanded Google to do, nor what the news papers wanted to be done.

Google obviously went a big step beyond what was required of them.

Re:I'm trying to parse this (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784112)

Apparently they are retarded and didn't realize that removing themselves from Googles cache entirely involved removing themselves from search period.

The caching service is directly tied into the search service. If they had instead just gone after Google News they would have been fine. Their over-reaching law suit, probably in an attempt to garner more damages, has put them into their current predicament. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Uh, tough? (5, Insightful)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783716)

I think the correct response is "tough". Google have no obligation to include your site in their search results and if you start fucking around claiming copyright violation then the easiest way for Google to deal with it is to remove any trace of your sites entirely.

Welcome to the unintended consequences of your actions. Next time think about what you're doing a little harder.

Re:Uh, tough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783742)

Aaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Damn, that's some sweet justice.

Re:Uh, tough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783746)

Ah now I get it. That's hilarious :D

Re:Uh, tough? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783760)

Sure but Google should also only list sites that opt in to their search engine, I have never once submitted a site to Google yet they copy my sites at will and use my images.

Re:Uh, tough? (5, Informative)

grim-one (1312413) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783774)

You're welcome to opt-out with your robots.txt

Re:Uh, tough? (0)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783764)

While it would be within Google's right to not include webpages if they choose not to, it does leave a bad taste with me. I don't like the idea of my search results being censored.

Re:Uh, tough? (5, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783794)

I'm having a hard time calling this censorship. It's more like giving up on a tantrumming child who's WAY to picky about their food and just saying "Fine, he'll eat when he gets hungry."

Re:Uh, tough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783798)

I don't like the idea of my search results being censored.

Don't use Google then.

Re:Uh, tough? (1)

abhi_beckert (785219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783834)

They had a *court order* not to include links to those URL's. What do you expect?

It looks like Google even spent several months trying to fight it, before finally giving in.

Re:Uh, tough? (0)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783954)

Can you quote where it mentions links? I didn't see that part.

Re:Uh, tough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784036)

Can you quote where it mentions links? I didn't see that part.

Well the judge did say to remove all content referring to these sites in question. That would include the sites index queries and hence links.

Re:Uh, tough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784082)

If you ever look at the search results on Google? Where in your search results does it ever just show the link? It contains a snippet of the site to guide people what it is about. So, Google should have changed their whole way of showing links to accommodate the ruling but still retain the news papers in the search results?

Re:Uh, tough? (2)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783844)

I don't like the idea of my search results being censored.

Then you should make sure that the copyright laws in your jurisdiction are sane. Google didn't do this voluntarily, they were ordered by a court 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

Re:Uh, tough? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783862)

You aren't missing much, it's only affecting Belgium.

Re:Uh, tough? (-1, Troll)

haulbag (1160391) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783778)

So just because Google lost on the copyright issue, it gets to use it's considerable market power to punish the winners by not including any search results? IANAL, but doesn't that smack of anti-competitive behavior? If this was a US firm they pulled that with, I'm sure the DOJ would be very interested.

So, for example, you sue your neighbor for running over your dog, you win, and then your neighbor also decides to run over your cat. Welcome to unintended consequences? Two wrongs (by the same perpetrator) make a right? What kind of ethics are those? I think we expect more than the Law of the Jungle when it comes to business law.

Oh, and screw all of the hard working journalists who produced the content that Google was making available for free with no permission? Does "Thou shalt not steal" mean nothing anymore?

Re:Uh, tough? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783810)

1) Google lost on the copyright issue and was ordered to take down the newspapers from its search results.

2) Google News does not include entire articles, usually only enough to entice you to visit the actual site of the paper in question, thus driving up traffic free of charge. Don't even get me started with your "Thou shalt not steal" drivel. I award you no points, and highly recommend that you report to the nearest sterility clinic, your genes (specifically those meant for intelligence and reasoning) won't pass muster.

Re:Uh, tough? (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783814)

It's not that, it's that they want to pick and choose exactly what parts of google they show up in and how. They don't want to be in google news but they want to be in regular google. That sort of thing is such a pain in the ass that, like a parent dealing with an overly picky child at the dinner table, they said "Fine, you'll eat when you're hungry" and took them off completely.

Re:Uh, tough? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783838)

How would you provide a search result for them without breaking their copyright?

Re:Uh, tough? (4, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783860)

No the problem and I can understand Google's perspective is that they were sued for doing linking. Google said fine you sued us, but now we have to remove you because we might get in trouble again.

You may say its retaliation. I say its because of the software. Think about it. Google has this huge search engine that goes through the Internet. I am betting the news.google.com is a service that sits ontop of the search engine. So now Google has to remove the websites in question. They can do it one of two ways:

1) Create a "don't use this content link" in news.google.com, which means changing their software.
2) Add the websites in question to do not crawl thus removing them from everything.

Remember that Google has a ton of services that work off the Google search engine. Does Google want to wait and get sued again because now instead of news.google.com its some other service that is doing the offending? I would just say it, bugger it remove them from the search engine. And of course a side benefit is that they get to release some steam.

Re:Uh, tough? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783864)

So just because Google lost on the copyright issue, it gets to use it's considerable market power to punish the winners by not including any search results? IANAL, but doesn't that smack of anti-competitive behavior? If this was a US firm they pulled that with, I'm sure the DOJ would be very interested.

The court said that Google News linking to the newspapers violated the newspaper's copyright. Now linking from Google Search and linking from Google News is basically the same thing; if one violates the copyright of the newspapers, the other does, too.

Re:Uh, tough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783942)

The court order didn't say "Google News", it said "all sites".

Re:Uh, tough? (1)

Gible (526142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783882)

No the court ordered it [chillingeffects.org]
 

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

Re:Uh, tough? (5, Interesting)

cyberthanasis12 (926691) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783892)

Welcome to the unintended consequences of your actions. Next time think about what you're doing a little harder.

What unintended? That's what they asked for, that's what they got. I am all for EU, I am European myself, but for once an American company did exactly what the court ordered. And now we complain?

Re:Uh, tough? (0)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784134)

Google is a private, foreign, totally unaccountable organisation. And such an organisation has that much power in their hands. I don't know what should be done about it, but something should be done about it. They're just getting too much power over the Internet these days. And their power is only growing, and their tentacles are ever extending and multiplying. Isn't it time to put a stop to that?!

Confused (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783718)

I don't understand the logic behind the whining of these newspapers. First they sue Google for making their content discoverable. Then the court orders Google to remove the content. Google complies. Now the papers are whining about Google removing their content. What exactly is it that they want ?

Re:Confused (5, Insightful)

kjoonlee (226243) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783736)

I don't understand the logic behind the whining of these newspapers. First they sue Google for making their content discoverable. Then the court orders Google to remove the content. Google complies. Now the papers are whining about Google removing their content. What exactly is it that they want ?

I think they want to have their cake and eat it too.

They want to appear on Google web searches, but they don't want to be aggregated on Google News.

Re:Confused (1)

Liam Pomfret (1737150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783788)

Which does raise some interesting questions about how Google works on the backend. I wonder if it's actually possible for a news site to appear on one and not the other with how Google's search database is setup. If you do a regular Google search, one of the ways you can narrow things down in the left sidebar is news. I'm getting the idea that for a website to be correctly indexed so that it appears when you narrow down the search to news, it would also appear in Google News aggregated feeds. So technically it should therefore be possible to index the site without it appearing on Google News, however it'd also mean that Google can't actually then filter them properly on their search results.

Re:Confused (2)

fireylord (1074571) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784064)

Which does raise some interesting questions about how Google works on the backend. I wonder if it's actually possible for a news site to appear on one and not the other with how Google's search database is setup.

Yes it is perfectly possible, via the application of robots.txt. THis is purely a story about publishers deciding they want to fleece Google for some cash rather than just apply the relevant settings to their robots.txt files. Guess it kind of backfired on them. Karma or something.

A case of be careful what you wish for (5, Informative)

Liam Pomfret (1737150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783724)

Sounds to me like that court order pretty much required Google to do what they did. I assume the newspapers simply didn't realise exactly what it was they were really asking for when they made that attack, and I'm sure their competitors are loving them for it right now.

Re:A case of be careful what you wish for (2)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784114)

Sounds to me like that court order pretty much required Google to do what they did. I assume the newspapers simply didn't realise exactly what it was they were really asking for when they made that attack, and I'm sure their competitors are loving them for it right now.

Or maybe they just realise that by jumping up and down and screaming they can get more news coverage and hopefully get more people to hear about them. Is this big news in Belgian? Are people buying the papers to see what all the fuss is about?

Be careful what you wish for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783728)

If linking to copyrighted material is copyright infringement, then so is linking to it on its search web site. Decide you stance on the subject.

They got what they asked for, not what they wanted (4, Interesting)

darkonc (47285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783758)

They claim that links to their sites are illegal and sue to have them removed -- soo now they're removed.

Google doesn't want to have to deal with another lawsuit over whether this link or that link is illegal. Nor are they going to spend extra money trying to be nice to somebody who used a blunderbuss lawsuit against them.

All of the links that they want removed are removed. Job done. The rest is just Google being very, very thorough.

It's kinda like a kid pissing on a wasps nest and complaining that the wasps didn't just quietly wait to drown. He'll be holding his breath a long time waiting for me to feel sorry for him -- or stop laughing, for that matter.

Of course it was done in retaliation! (4, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783772)

So they thought that "pay us for using our content" meant "now you have to use our content and then pay us". Oops, maybe not!

It does sound like a particularly (French-)Belgian idea, though. Next we'll hear they are parking tractors on the Information Superhighway in protest...

Re:Of course it was done in retaliation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783894)

No, it was what the court ordered them. These lawyers (i'm pretty sure it was a lawyer's idea to try and sue Google) don't really think when they see a mountain of money.

The courts don't act unless asked to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783782)

The Belgian media can call foul all it likes however this is a rod of their own making. The courts don't act unless the copyright holder brings a complaint. As it has been established that Google may not republish their content it's clearly not safe for Google to link to it either.

If this means those media organisations now face a significant loss then perhaps they should re-evaluate the value to them of permitting something akin to fair use.

Google is a private company. It's not a public space. Those media organisations have no inherent right to be listed on Google at all.

+1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783796)

Good for you Google, if they don't want to play with you then you shouldn't play with them.

Missing from the description (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783800)

The newspapers are complaining that the should only have been removed from google's "news" search, but not removed from the "web" search.

Clearly they don't understand how Google works: news is just a web search that only shows news articles. Clearly thees guys are posting news articles.

Google has no obligation to change how their system works just to keep a few small businesses happy.

Re:Missing from the description (1)

rust627 (1072296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783918)

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 (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.- ? per day of delay

so where is the distinction between google news search and google web search, All their sites, means ALL their sites. All articles photographs and graphic representations pretty much covers everything in a newspaper, with 10 days given to do it , somebody could have been paid to work out a really neat algorithm to display only content they are allowed to from those websites, after of course a lot of money and time is expended with the lawyers to work out exactly what is left over that you are allowed to link to. Or you could just ignore the whole domain for no cost.............

I think I understand???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783802)

1: The news papers don't want google display cache of webpages or using their images.
2: Google in order to comply as fast as possible with this insane idea and probably to upset said new papers; delists the entire domain for the websites. You time Euro News and you get nothing from these websites.
3: News papers are now upset that "Hey google not be sending us traffic. They pissy because we not let them use our stuff, so now we not get to use their stuff, unfair..."

Only French and German? (1)

radio4fan (304271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783824)

By far the most common of the three languages in Belgium is Dutch.

The German-speaking community in Belgium is tiny by comparison.

Re:Only French and German? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784010)

By far the most common of the three languages in Belgium is Dutch.

The German-speaking community in Belgium is tiny by comparison.

And with good reason, too, after having been run over by German armies twice in 30 years despite having declared neutrality beforehand and then having suffered the privations of 2 military occupations. It's about the same in Belgium as in Denmark: a really good way to get yourself ignored is to try to start a conversation in German.

Re:Only French and German? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784028)

The Flamisch (Dutch) newspapers didn't sue Google.

Re:Only French and German? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784054)

The Belgian Dutch newspapers didn't sue and they're still on Google News (or Google Nieuws).

Re:Only French and German? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784132)

By far the most common of the three languages in Belgium is Dutch.

Maybe so, but worldwide (remember what the first W in WWW stands for?) dutch is rather much smaller than german or French...

Re:Only French and German? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36784138)

Uh,,,, Dutch - Deutsch, do you get the connection? It's basically the same language.

Re:Only French and German? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784146)

Possibly the Dutch speaking half is the smart half?

Oh, wait a moment... that would imply there are smart Belgians... then how about all those Belgian jokes we always tell in The Netherlands?

About time (1)

fremean (1189177) | more than 3 years ago | (#36783858)

I've been saying this for years... Why does google capitulate to idiots when it can simply... literally... ignore them

Not ALL belgian newspaper have been delisted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36783900)

Only *some french speaking* newspapers have been delisted.

Of course only french speaking newspapers associated to Copiepress, not all of them are concerned.

Funny belgian joke, as usual :)

Silent number (1)

tinkwink (723486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784038)

This seems like the equivalent of taking someone to court to take your number out of the phone book when I they should have just asked for a silent number. You can't efficiently index something without taking a copy of it.

Ohh Belgians (1)

MM-tng (585125) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784066)

This confirms once again that Belgian are not very bright. There has to be a good joke in here some where. What does an American and a Belgian do to run a newspaper into the ground.

A robots.txt (1)

perl6geek (1867146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784090)

would have been much cheaper than a law suit, with the same effect :-)

Just what they deserved (1)

belgianguy (1954708) | more than 3 years ago | (#36784126)

I couldn't agree more with Google. Whiny newspapers want to have their cake and eat it, too? How about no? I'd be damn careful not to mention anything even related to something that could cost me a million bucks. Let them eat crow! For the record, I'm Flemish.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?