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!

German Law To Make Google Pay For Snippets

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the die-schnippets-sind-aber-teuer! dept.

Google 117

judgecorp writes "The German government has announced plans for a copyright law which would require Google, other search engines, and aggregators to pay for small snippets of text displayed on their pages. Journalistic citations and private users will be exempt."

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

again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339013)

Has this ever worked out well for anyone that wanted Google to do this?

Re:again? (3, Informative)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340355)

No [teleread.com] and no [torrentfreak.com] .

Yeah, that's fine. (5, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339015)

Google, Bing, et al. will just stop linking to sites which enforce this.

Who thought this was a good idea?

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1, Redundant)

smi.james.th (1706780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339047)

Which is pretty much an internet death sentence. Smart.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (5, Insightful)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339607)

Which is pretty much an internet death sentence. Smart.

So? Google is not under an actual legal obligation to index or describe any site hosted in Germany (or anywhere else). The enormous majority of people outside Germany wouldn't care if their sites vanished from the face of the earth. The simplest technical response to such a law would therefore be for search engines to not return any matches at all for German sites (and to not provide any results at all to people in Germany). Very simple to implement. Complies with the law.

Also totally not what the legislator had in mind, but who cares about what passes for thought in his or her neck of the woods?

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339949)

I wonder. If there was an issue with a specific company, AND if Google was declared a monopoly, would not listing that company count as anticompetitive?

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39340235)

Nope.

Demanding fair non-discriminatory terms for deals is one thing, demanding to accept deals is another.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (2, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340431)

Google is not required to do business in any single country.
Google can not be touched if it just pulls everything out of Germany then de lists all German sites and shuts down its .gr domain.
What are they going to do? Demand that Google do business in Germany?
Fuck em.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39340621)

Google is not required to do business in any single country.
Google can not be touched if it just pulls everything out of Germany then de lists all German sites and shuts down its .gr domain.
What are they going to do? Demand that Google do business in Germany?
Fuck em.

It's just the single biggest economy in europe, if they want to pull out, they'd probably lose money in the end and leave a profitable market to the competition. Also, shutting down the .gr domain is surely going to affect a lot of german users :-)

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

suutar (1860506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342377)

The only reason I can think that they'd pull out is if the payments and the work needed to track what needs to be paid makes it unprofitable. At the point where Google can't make it profitable with their established and wide-scale infrastructure, I have doubts a smaller competitor will be able to make it profitable, and it may be that Germany will just be SOL.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (3, Funny)

Rhodri Mawr (862554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340733)

Bloody Germans, shutting down Google in Greece. How low will they stoop? Is this another condition of the bail-out?


(the German TLD is .de BTW)

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341563)

Whoops.
Sometimes I type faster than I think.
Thanks.
Also. What have the Greeks done lately.
I mean sure. Birth of western civilization and all but what about the last 2000 years?

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39343483)

Also. What have the Greeks done lately. I mean sure. Birth of western civilization and all but what about the last 2000 years?

They rested :P

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1, Informative)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#39343551)


Dealing with the Romans after they copied their entire culture and then molested it.
Dealing with the crusaders who pillaged and burned anything along their path to the ME.
Dealing with a Muslim occupation for 400 years without losing their identity.
Dealing with a foreign imposed Bavarian then Danish King they didn't ask for.
Dealing with a Civil War started by the British to force Greece to take back said Kingdom.
Dealing with a Euro Dollar that no one in Greece other then the pro-Euro government actually wanted.
Dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars of Bribes from German companies ThyssenKrupp and Siemens.

Just a short form of the history the last 2000 years, there is more if you look for it.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (3, Insightful)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340831)

Leaving aside your assumption that Google can afford to do this more than Germany can (obviously both sides can, but I think Google would be the clear loser in pulling out of Germany), you're not answering the question that was asked.

The question was about Google refusing to service sites which insist that German law be enforced, implying that Google would still serve German sites that let them pass. I strongly suspect that would be illegal whether or not there's any antitrust concerns.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (2)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341581)

I do not think it would hurt Google.
I think if Google stood up to this the law would get changed.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341767)

It possibly would not immediately hurt Google. However, surely some other search engine (Bing?) would step in, and with Google being unavailable, it would get all the traffic Google would have gotten.

Note that it is quite easy to comply without violating that law, and at the same time without paying anyone: Just offer the links, without text excerpts. Not as useful as with excerpts, but infinitely more useful than no search engine at all.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39342073)

seriously? I mean you would follow a link that said "news"? Because the text blurbs describing the story are the issue. so imagine what you might end up at if you were searching for "one cup" and it linked (with no description mind you) to a certain site with not just one cup, but two girls as well.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

unrtst (777550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342979)

The point is, they can easily do that...

* update google .de site to return only the links and ads. Provide a banner stating why it is this way (or info bubble or something). Provide a means for site administrators to opt out (or would it be opt in?) to allow text blubs.

* Leave google.com alone. Tell Germany to block google.com if it wants to - that'd be their responsibility (I think).

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39344411)

The point is you do more harm by making your site shitty than by making it go away.

No German really wants a shitty Google. These laws are against the people. They are bullshit. Put there to protect "Big Copyright". Just because you can comply with them does not mean you should.
Google SHOULD not comply with laws like this. They should rail against them. Use their power to make the world a little bit better. Because I am tired of it getting shittier.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39344857)

" However, surely some other search engine (Bing?) would step in...."

And be subject to the same law.

Besides, Google can't afford to let this stand, or else everyone else EVERYWHERE else will start demanding the same thing. Boom. There went Google's search revenue profits.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341159)

Why would Google shut down its domain in Greece?
If they got a problem with Germans, they would rather shut down their .de domain.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341317)

They would be removing results "to comply with new legislation". Literally. Rather hard to claim that this is anti-competitive.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39341359)

I have occasionally counted myself among those who would be OK with everything Germany disappearing from Google. In fact, I'd be equally thrilled if their equally-lunatic neighbor France disappeared with them. Google might lose some ad money but think of the savings on lawyers!

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (3, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339061)

This is a great idea. If a site wants to keep their material off Google, then they can. If they want their material to be on Google, they can do that too.

I fail to see the problem.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (5, Insightful)

ichthus (72442) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339097)

see robots.txt [wikipedia.org] . Google honors mine.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (3, Interesting)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339587)

Honest question:
Can you configure robots.txt to allow Google to index your site for search results without summarizing your news in news.google.com?

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339639)

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339919)

Where in robots.txt how can you set a different rate based on the size of the snippet? Or the number of times it is displayed? Or by which company (google, bing) displayed it? Robots.txt is not a solution to copyright in search results.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340405)

Doesn't matter. Google will simply say, ok, the price I'm willing to pay for you snippets is $0.00 (â0.00). If you don't accept the deal, robots.txt...

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340523)

Wow. So you want Google to index your site so that the masses of the internet can see it. Then you want them to pay you for it? You also want them to pay you more if they send more people to you? Copyright does not give you the right to force me to use your stuff and pay you for it. If you do not want parts of your site to come up then do not let it be indexed.
What you really want if for Google to index your site for you. Make it real easy for people to find your content and display nothing but the url?
Are you an idiot of a staff writer for the NYT?

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39344561)

Why show a snippet anyway? Because it makes their service better. Ask yourself, wouldn't Google results be better if they displayed whole paragraphs in the results? Or if you could mouse over the "..." and expand the sentences you were interested it? Sure, but they don't because that would be clearly violating the content producer's copyright.

You can see that clearly the snippets have a value, but who is getting the profit from using this value? Only Google. Especially with news, the headline itself may be the lion's share of the value in the story and viewers of Google News pages may never visit a site to read the article. The content producers are getting shafted.

But Google provides a service to content producers, you say! Of course, just like any middle-man. Google provides a service to users (who pay by viewing advertising) so Google can pay for the content, but instead they sell the services and keep it all as profit. Who would fare worse, Google with no access to content or content producers with no search engine? People would still visit content sites -- sure, it would be harder to build an audience, but also easier to keep them. In any case they would still exist, but what would Google do? A search engine is useless without content. Google is a failure of the market, because those creating most of the value are not the ones earning most of the profit.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341445)

It is a bit late to get it as a standard, but I would rather have had an opt-in instead of an opt-out.

Sure, that would have meant that some things would not be standard to find. However with the opt-in that would have been what those sites would have wanted.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342555)

It is a bit late to get it as a standard, but I would rather have had an opt-in instead of an opt-out.

You have always had the option of not putting material on a publicly accessible web server. Google does you a favor by indexing it for free so people can do a quick search and find it. They also make it very easy to opt-out. I'm not sure what this publicly available but "opt-in" concept you have would look like. Perhaps you could do a prototype which we could all go opt into after we hear about it ummmm how?

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

cez (539085) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339113)

It's called robots.txt, look it up. This is already a non-issue. Greedy ppl want more money, news at 11. Where's moped yahweh?

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339789)

Don't worry... he's coming.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (3, Insightful)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339339)

It requires needless software development. Instead of honoring robots.txt for sites that don't agree to be indexed, Google will either have to extend robots.txt to allow oppt in or alter their internal code with a list of what they will not index regardless of robots.txt. More cruft and potentially nonstandard extensions on the web is not a good thing. Or Google could just stop indexing any site with an IP addr in Germany.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339443)

It requires needless software development. Instead of honoring robots.txt for sites that don't agree to be indexed, Google will either have to extend robots.txt to allow oppt in or alter their internal code with a list of what they will not index regardless of robots.txt. More cruft and potentially nonstandard extensions on the web is not a good thing. Or Google could just stop indexing any site with an IP addr in Germany.

They could just not show the text snippets to users in Germany... I would think that would be the easiest answer for them and it would also mobilize German users to get the law fixed as it would be all search engines, not just Google.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

RatherBeAnonymous (1812866) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339695)

I expect that is what will happen. I also expect that German news outlets will get less traffic to their sites and end up loosing revenue.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339815)

Good, stupidity and greed deserve their just rewards. I predict a lawsuit in a year demanding that Google put snippets back up.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340093)

Or just not index anything in Germany.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340881)

Or just not index anything in Germany.

And this is the most responsible action Google can take - it will have a positive influence on bad policy.

With BGP intelligence, you can figure out what servers are in Germany, but the trick will be how the German government defines what a 'German' website it. I doubt they'll go with the most technically astute definition.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341275)

It would lead to the interesting situation where the government wants to insist that a website not actually in Germany is 'entitled' to such payments and the site owners anxiously urging them to reconsider.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39343121)

Just as a test, google should just stop indexing anything from the German government for a couple of months just to see how it will work out.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (2)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339609)

I think this not about search results, but news.google.com summarizing and aggregating news in a way that users don’t ever feel the need to enter news sites to see what is going on in the news today.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339731)

I take it you didn't use Google's/Bing's news search much, because otherwise you'd know they show 2-3 sentence blurbs, barely enough to find relevant articles. Yahoo news search shows somewhat longer snippets, but still shorter than, say, an average /. summary and still not enough to visit only search page.

This is just yet another attempt at legislation from people unaware of how Internet works and proud of it.

Here's a beauty:

The law would oblige Internet aggregators and search engines to pay publishers to display all or part of their articles, including snippets such as headlines embedded in search links, according to the CDU.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340327)

It doesn't require any software development. Google bot check against 2 user agent in your robot.txt: Googlebot and Googlebot-News. There is also a lot of possibility with some meta tags.

support.google.com [google.com]

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

imagined.by (2589739) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339077)

Do you really think the German government would allow this? Of course they would include right in the law that Google HAS to list the news snippets.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339169)

Until they make a law that http://google.de/ [google.de] has to point to an actual search engine, Google is safe. :)

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

imagined.by (2589739) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339233)

The USA haven't really cared about that, why should Germany care about it?

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (2)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339423)

The German public cares a lot about privacy and security on the net. Germany also has copyright lobbies. They are trying to sneak this in as the former. As soon as the truth about it hits the media it will be ridiculed and dropped. Germany has a parliamentary system and it works ok (in comparison to some other systems I could name), a bill is being planned usually means a member bill and some of them are retarded, but they never come anywhere near becoming law.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339879)

The USA haven't really cared about that, why should Germany care about it?

Someone on the Internet might say "Nazi".

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

doza (657250) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339137)

I think cost is a major factor. I have no idea how they plan on enforcing search engines pay for content. I think it's a terrible idea if publishers are planning to expand their reader base. Bloggers are exempt, so i wonder if a google snippet of a blog would be cause for a payment.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (4, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339197)

Ya, if anything the market has shifted the opposite direction, and you pay them to get your website featured prominently (however you want to define that specifically).

Search engines have no incentive to pay to link. As long as they can minimally link for free they will, and if they have to pay for everything they link, well that isn't going to happen is it, because then you'd have no search.

It's like demanding the phone company pay businesses for the right to list their name in the phonebook.

A couple of weeks ago there was a story here about some campground in spain getting screwed because a search for Alfaques or whatever it was produced a slew of images from some terrible accident near them 30 years ago. That happens because the people who publish those images have made sure their results are at the top of searches, with images in thumbnails, and they are bigger companies than the small little campground. The system can't work both directions at once, and I can't imagine it working with search providers having to pay for what they are currently paid for.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342633)

The campground should make a site with lots of nice pictures and have some other sites do a few fluff pieces on them.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342723)

The only real SEO is paying google to make sure you're at the top of the list when your website shows up in a search query. Everything else is going to still put you below the people who are paying.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39341173)

>Google, Bing, et al. will just stop linking to sites which enforce this.

>Who thought this was a good idea?

Our Government is still learning to understand the Internet.

We have *1* christian right (CDU) who is using Twitter, now :D

Thank god, we can surf other places than just Germany.

Re:Yeah, that's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39341329)

Doesn't matter.

Germany/Frankfurt is awesome for game servers.

For WWW there are wayyyy better deals from hosts in other jurisdictions.

And Righthaven back in business? (1, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339027)

Where did that domain name go? I know it's around here somewhere...

Nein nein nein (2)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339073)

Achtung!!! this is a bad idea, copyright law is out of hand.

Re:Nein nein nein (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339329)

Achtung!!! this is a bad idea, copyright law is out of hand.

You know, I increasingly think that this [wikipedia.org] be read aloud any time a government tries to pass a law about technology.

DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FUR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN!

If you don't know how it works, don't touch it. :-P

Re:Nein nein nein (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339341)

True, but their solution in this case is to leverage themselves onto a dusty back bookshelf. I say let 'em. They'll be quite comfortable there, with no readers. Anybody publishing with these guys is a fool.

All link to english web site (3, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339083)

It is not that I don't trust you all guy, but I would rather read the german law than the (eventually biased) interpretation by some english blog/web site.

Re:All link to english web site (2)

imagined.by (2589739) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339143)

At this moment, it's just a proposal. A draft will most likely be presented in April. So it's not written in stone just yet.

Re:All link to english web site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339241)

Or, the dude who sent it doesn't read German. What I'd love to see is an obligation to use robots.txt to be able to collect damages.

Re:All link to english web site (3)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341485)

The announcement doesn't surprise me at all. Germany is retarded with copyrights and riddled with the copyright industry lobbyists, they make auctions now give a percentage of art sales into a fund to be distributed to the artist who made it. This even affects art that was sold before the law. All it did was spring up masses of organizations that claim to represent a list of artists to claim the money and then take their commission.

Not to mention that the people who invested into art suddenly lost a few % to these leeches.

Before anyone claims that's right or correct, should volunteer, when selling their house, to give a few % to the carpenter/bricklayers/plumbers/electricians/etc. who built it, into perpetuity. Or when their used car is sold, give a few percent to the manufacturer. Or used books on amazon. Etc.

Re:All link to english web site (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342051)

they make auctions now give a percentage of art sales into a fund to be distributed to the artist who made it.

Hmmm ... I wonder how they manage to pay Rembrandt or Michelangelo. :-)

Re:All link to english web site (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39343541)

I don't know. But I'm collecting it so that when they do find out, I can pay it :)

Re:All link to english web site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39343045)

"Droit de suite" is limited to unique non reproducible original piece of arts such as paintings. Houses, cars and used books don't fit that definition.

Re:All link to english web site (2)

WoOS (28173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341763)

An alas German article about the whole debate (including Pro and Contra position) can be found in the c't 17/10 (online http://heise.de/-1447608 [heise.de] ). They also have a news article on the most recent development ( http://heise.de/-1447608 [heise.de] ) but that is not really anything new except that the government now started to make internal plans on how to realize such a law. Note that obviously Heise would profit from such a law but they are typically quite impartial.

Main argument for introducing the law is that for many news simply quoting headlines and a few excerpted lines of text is all someone wants to know. Thus the argument goes that the news aggregators do not direct (sufficient) traffic to the authors of the news but mostly keep the traffic - and thus the ad profits - for themselves.

This should turn out good (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339103)

I would love to see Google just stop displaying snippets, and see how long it takes for them to realize that no one can find their articles anymore

Re:This should turn out good (2)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339811)

Wasn't it exactly what happened in Belgium [bloomberg.com] ?

equal protection? (1)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339133)

So the German constitution has no "equal protection" equivalent?

Re:equal protection? (1)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339557)

Is this what you mean?
(1) All persons shall be equal before the law. [iuscomp.org]

I don't see how this is relevant here, though.

Re:equal protection? (1)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340175)

I was thinking an equivalent to the US Constitution's 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [wikipedia.org]

In the US, this applies to corporations, because corporation are associations of people, and specifically, the court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company [wikipedia.org] recognized corporations as having 14th amendment rights. So in the US, a law to apply this regulation to search engines and exempt others likely would be challenged as an infringement on Google's 14th amendment rights.

Re:equal protection? (1)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341003)

It does have sort of an equivalent to that, in the form of a number of articles like "Every person shall have the right to (property|life|...)". That the state may not make a law that restricts these rights (unless otherwise authorized to do so by the constitution) is implied. I'm not sure which rights apply to corporations and to which extent.

This new law will probably be constitutional for the same reason patents and copyrights are. I'm not sure what this reason is since the constitution doesn't specifically mention them, it might be the right to property.

Re:equal protection? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342147)

It does have sort of an equivalent to that, in the form of a number of articles like "Every person shall have the right to (property|life|...)".

No. It has such articles stating that every human shall have those rights. And therefore AFAIU those fundamental rights do not automatically extend to corporations. IANAL however.

Re:equal protection? (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341569)

Gosh, doesn't that render illegal the round-up of suspected "illegal aliens" (they are persons, not necessarily "citizens"), as well as the "you must have government-issued identification papers to vote" ? Maybe we should all read this Constitution thing.

Re:equal protection? (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339579)

So the German constitution has no "equal protection" equivalent?

Because that would apply, since Google is a suspect class, having an inherent and immutable characteristic that has caused them to be the subject of a history of invidious discrimination?

Re:equal protection? (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340957)

Because that would apply, since Google is a suspect class, having an inherent and immutable characteristic that has caused them to be the subject of a history of invidious discrimination?

Microsoft competitors?

And Google pulls out of Germany (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339157)

Followed by most other search engines, leaving the Germans with no Search engines and reducing a small number of jobs
But atleast then their children will not be exposed to Nazi stuff

Re:And Google pulls out of Germany (0)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339505)

Yep the headline after this goes into effect: "Germany ejected from the internet...no one cares"

Re:And Google pulls out of Germany (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342193)

While I've heard several times equating the web with the internet, his is the first time I've come across someone equating search engines with the internet.

Re:And Google pulls out of Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39342999)

Not "search engines == internet", but "no search engines == ejected from internet"

A hyperbole, but has something to it - if search engines pull out, loss of discoverability will kick them back from modern internet to 1990.

Legislating the Interwebs? (2)

clafarge (655943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339221)

This is what happens when any nation takes it upon themselves to try to legislate the internet: mindnumbingly stupid legislation. We edge closer to this trap each day ourselves.

Does that include Slashdot, then? (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339225)

Does that include Slashdot, then? Or will the submitters & editors have to make sure they paraphrase everything in the summary (no more copypasta)?

Re:Does that include Slashdot, then? (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339255)

One other question -- under whose authority/jurisdiction will this be enforced? Will it only be applicable when the source article is hosted by a site that is based in Germany? What if they aren't based there, but they do have a physical office there?

Re:Does that include Slashdot, then? (2)

asylumx (881307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339271)

Ok, I actually asked three questions...

And that's how Germany will bring their economy... (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339259)

...into line with the rest of the EU. Just restrict their citizens' ability to find information.

Next up... (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339317)

Google announces they are blocking access from all German IP addresses in 3...2...1...

Two additions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339745)

The article misses two points about the proposed "Leistungsschutzrecht" (ancillary copyright):

  • The proposal is to found a collecting society. Only its members get paid. i.e. not every publisher, only the ones which can afford paying the fees to enter the society and/or which the society finds "worthy".
  • In Germany we have "Zitatrecht", the right to quote freely. This is not only guaranteed by a German law, but also by the EU Copyright Directive. The proposed law would not supersede the right to quote.

Re:Two additions (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339939)

The proposal is to found a collecting society. Only its members get paid. i.e. not every publisher, only the ones which can afford paying the fees to enter the society and/or which the society finds "worthy".

Oh, we have those here in Portugal, one for authors and one for performers. At least the latter is a cesspool of corruption, trying as hard as they can to avoid paying their members, since they get to keep the money.

Re:Two additions (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342465)

Hmmm ... depending on the actual amount to pay, Google might actually like that (although it would certainly not publicly say so). While Google can afford some payment (as long as it is clearly below their revenue), the very same payment may be too high for a startup. In other words, it would keep competition away.

hmmm people v corporations? (1)

a_fuzzyduck (979684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339851)

So, if I have a personal blog, Google can happily spread my content around all they like, for free. Okay, fair enough. BUT, if I set up a private company to run my blog for me, and Google use content from THAT, they'd have to pay me? Am I right in interpreting it like that? Or do they only mean *certain* businesses can get money for it? If it's that, get it tae fuck entirely

Heavily influenced by media companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39341035)

The legislation is getting insane here.

I really hope that Google has the balls to unlist all German content which is subject of dispute here. But it will also hurt them, because if they unlist a company they will sue Google about some competition fairness laws.

Whatever Google does here, it will be still wrong. You need to know that I can see hatred against Google everywhere. People here in big cities are destroying advertisement posters (about Google Chrome) and censoring them as a reaction to "Street View" and they just search a reason to make Google look evil. The biggest problem for everyone here is that Google is not evil enough to make them look evil.

Can't think of anything else to say... (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341347)

Good luck with that. Seriously. Next you'll tell me I have to pay to utter phrases that were already exclaimed! Sign me up! Just another way to paint themselves "victim" and get some simpathy browny points. Assholes.

Great (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341925)

Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. should all stop indexing things from Germany right away. If they ALL stop, that might make Germany and other nations re-think things through.

Google can make some money out of this (1)

qzzpjs (1224510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39344625)

The way I see it is that this is a direct cost of business that Google must recover. The snippet really is an advertisement of the article they are pointing to. That snippet is what the user uses to make the decision to click the link.

If the publisher wants that snippet shown, Google can charge them a nice monthly fee for advertising the article. Or they can opt out and have their article shown without the snippet or not at all.

Of course, Google is going to have to hire many new people to manage this administrative cost, so the fee they charge the publishers is going to be higher than the copyright fee they're being forced to pay. Add to that some profit factor and they win!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?