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!

Google Threatens French Media Ban

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the look-somewhere-else dept.

Google 419

another random user writes in with a BBC story about Google's displeasure with proposed French plans to make search engines pay for content. "Google has threatened to exclude French media sites from search results if France goes ahead with plans to make search engines pay for content. In a letter sent to several ministerial offices, Google said such a law 'would threaten its very existence.' French newspaper publishers have been pushing for the law, saying it is unfair that Google receives advertising revenue from searches for news. French Culture Minister Aurelie Filippetti also favors the idea. She told a parliamentary commission it was 'a tool that it seems important to me to develop.'"

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

But where to get it (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702451)

France is out of french money, so where to get more?

Re:But where to get it (3, Insightful)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 2 years ago | (#41702461)

There's no french money, there's only european money. That's the problem.

Re:But where to get it (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702467)

You're an American, aren't you? Just another ignorant ass.

Re:But where to get it (1, Offtopic)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41702535)

You mean if we all run out and start buying french fries again, it won't help? Maybe I should stick to freedom fries. They taste a little better.

Re:But where to get it (1)

Fuzzy Viking (1140767) | about 2 years ago | (#41702895)

Seasoned with a hefty helping of nationalism ?

Re:But where to get it (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41702893)

There's no french money, there's only european money. []

If the number of the euro note has a "U" in front, it's French euro.

Example: []

A child's ass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702455)

I just got through fucking a small child's ass until it was leaking out cum as if it was a faucet. The cows, that is.


Easy solution french media (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702463)

Just put a complete paywall up over your news. Then you don't have to worry about anyone ever reading it again.

Re:Easy solution french media (0, Troll)

Sperif (1005787) | about 2 years ago | (#41702747)

Nobody read French newspapers because they do not provide informations, just raw gov communication. In fact, if most French newspaper still exist that’s because part of french taxes subsidise them.

Re:Easy solution french media (5, Interesting)

toutankh (1544253) | about 2 years ago | (#41702945)

Actually good independent newspapers exist in France and some of them do a great work. The best example is "Le Canard Enchaîné", which has existed for almost a century. Although self-qualified "satyrical", this weekly is at the origin of many scandals in France in the past century. The journalists do amazing investigations, you won't see ads on any page (to ensure independence), it cannot be read electronically (although there is a website [] including a poor-quality version of the front page). And guess what, people are willing to pay for a paper version with no ads and quality content. They release accounts and balance every year, and unlike every mainstream newspaper using tons of ads and an electronic version, the balance is positive every year.

By the way, politicians are afraid of it, too. I'm not sure there are equivalents in other countries in fact, but maybe someone could enlighten me. For instance, how many national newspapers with 0 ads can you find in the USA?

careful what you wish for (5, Interesting)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about 2 years ago | (#41702479)

Instituting a law that makes search-engines PAY content providers for click-through links from searches will obviously result in ALL links to media being dropped from search results.

The phrase you're looking for is NATURAL CONSEQUENCES.

Personally I think The Big G should have immediately dropped all search results leading to French Media Sites with a HUGE banner saying "this is what THAT LAW requires us to do".

Proof video games cause violence! (-1, Offtopic)

AndyMans (2756041) | about 2 years ago | (#41702531)

How Violent Movies and Video Games Cause Violent Behavior
  To Believe Otherwise Means You Are Insane

  First we will dispel the pithy, nonsense arguments that are so often repeated in these debates. "Well, I play video games and I'm not violent!" So long as someone tells me this without following with "and if you don't believe me, I'll kick your ass," I can take them at their word. Now, of course, your anecdotal story about how you played "Grand Theft Auto" since you were in diapers and are now a pacifist does not constitute solid, scientific evidence. Just because you enjoy violent movies or games and are not violent does not mean that violent media never causes violence in anyone else. The next response, while it should be obviously fallacious to everyone, is that "millions and millions of people watch violent movies and they aren't violent!" Yes, that is true. It is also true that millions of people drink liquor and do not get liver cirrhosis. Does this mean drinking does not cause liver cirrhosis? Deniers also say that "violent video game sales have gone up while violent crime has gone down!" Again, liquor sales have drifted upwards since 1990 while deaths by liver cirrhosis have plummeted ( -- [] ). Obviously, other factors are at play in these data. No rational person could deny that alcohol does not cause liver cirrhosis based on this logic, nor does anyone claim that 100 percent of people who play violent video games will become violent. There are many factors contributing to violence, and violent films, games and other media are some of those factors. They may not have a huge effect on violent behavior compared to other causes, but there is an irrefutable effect and it has certainly cost lives. The evidence shows that drinking while playing violent video games will increase your risk of becoming a violent drunk with a bad liver.

  Furthermore, consider this statement by communications professor Henry Jenkins:

  "According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers — 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure."

  Now consider the same rhetoric shifted to a different topic. All of these data are factual according to the provided sources:

  "According to [CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians] statistics, the rate of [lung cancer diagnosis] in the United States is at a [14]-year low [(from 1990 to end of data)]. Researchers find that people [diagnosed] for [lung cancer] typically consume less [tobacco] before [being diagnosed] than the average [smoker] in the general population. It's true that [people] who have [been diagnosed with lung cancer] in America have also been [smokers]. ...[21.5] percent of [males] and [17.3] percent of [females smoke]. The overwhelming majority of [people] who [smoke] do NOT [get lung cancer]. According to a [2012 World Health Organization] report, [one of] the strongest risk factors for [cancer] centered on [diesel fumes] not [smoking]. ( -- [] -- [] -- [] )"

  What would you say to someone who said the above to you in order to argue that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer? What would you think of that person's mind?

  Now for some words on science. Science benefits from skepticism. A critical thinker can move closer towards the truth if they are made aware of their opponent's criticisms and are led to question their own beliefs. Creationists make a sound argument against biology when they point out that life could not have formed in the oceans because seawater has the wrong potassium-sodium ratio to form cells. It would be a practice of the grossest arrogance and ignorance to deny this scientific fact. One must have an open mind for evidence, even if that evidence is unpleasant and debunks your view of the world. Rationally minded scientists have been forced to accept the naked fact that the potassium-sodium ratio of the ocean is not conducive to life, but this admission of fact has only strengthened the science of life. Questioning their own beliefs has led scientists to realize that life likely did not originate in the oceans. The first cells likely formed in ponds of volcanic condensate, where the potassium-sodium ratio is much more permissive for cellular development ( [] ).

  Despite that the science of abiogenesis just become stronger, many will continue to deny it. The most important factor that determines what most people believe is not the evidence behind the belief, but whether or not they desire the belief to be true. Although deniers of science, even those who earned science degrees, may benefit science with their criticisms, they refuse to ever change their minds in the face of evidence and reason. The denial of evolution is one of the most blatant denials of obvious science in today's society. Another denial of obvious science is the topic of this essay. Although there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, etc., these theories will continue to be denied because many find them unpleasant. Like biology and cosmology, the field of psychology also offers unpleasant theories. One theory which has caused a great deal of contention is the belief that that violent media (such as movies, television, video games, etc.) will cause violent behavior in those who view them. This theory, despite what many people and a few unscrupulous scientists claim, is supported by overwhelming evidence and is not seriously debated in mainstream academia. The evidence is such that no rational person can deny this truth, and I can prove it.

  Before we examine the science, we will first examine some cases where violent media has been linked to real world crimes:

  In 1997, fourteen year old Michael Carneal walked into his high school, pulled out a .22 pistol, and murdered three students who were praying before class. After his arrest, police investigated his possessions and found a copy of Stephen King's "Rage" and the film "Basketball Diaries". Both the film and the book contain scenes of a student committing murder in school. The belief that these works of fiction fed Carneal's desire to murder sparked an outrage against violent media.

  Deniers of science contend that there is no proof that Carneal was compelled to murder from these media. They claim that it is illogical to believe that Carneal was not just a sick boy who, if anything, would have been drawn to such violent imagery simply because he was sick to begin with. However, as any rational person will tell you, these criticisms are completely valid.


  It would be insane to conclude that violent media caused these murders. There is no logic in such a belief. Just because a murderer owned books and movies where similar crimes took place proves nothing. The outrage from this case was voiced by those who speak the loudest against violent media, namely conservative prudes. These prudes are the sort of square-toed, bluenosed puritans who raise a fuss every generation when they see short skirts or Elvis rotating his hips. These priggish killjoys make the most noise, but are the easiest to ignore. They are also completely incompetent when it comes to using reason or science. Deniers of the effects of violent media should be careful, however, before they dismiss these people's opinions out of hand. Just as deniers should be careful before they believe, as they are often told, that cases like Carneal's murders are the only evidence that their opposition has. The conservative prudes are right on this one. They may be right by virtue of dumb luck, believing what they do based on bigotry rather than reason, but on this issue they are right.

  Consider the case where a group of children raped a young girl with a soda bottle shortly after viewing a similar rape with a broom handle in the film "Born Innocent" ( [] ). This is poor evidence taken by itself, but it does lead us to think about causality is such cases. It is possible that the children who committed this cruelty were already disposed to violence. It is possible that the rape was a coincidence and would have happened had the children seen the film or not. It is also possible that that the film did inspire the children, whether they were predisposed to violence or not, to commit the act—It is possible that the film caused the violence. Bear in mind that when I say a violent medium "caused the violence" I mean "the violence would not have happened had the violent medium not been seen." The children may have been predisposed to violence and may have committed a completely different crime had they not seen the film, and even if the film did "cause" the crime (remembering our definition) it would not necessarily make the children innocent or make the film makers guilty. Determining guilt is a moral question that the scientist does not ask.

  The scientist in this debate wants to determine if the film altered the children's behavior. Were someone to say "Guns hurt people!" half of the room would proclaim "That's true! Ban guns!" while the other half would say "That's not true! Bad people hurt people with guns! Imprison bad people!" This is a moral and philosophical debate worth having. A similar debate may be had with violent media, but the purpose of this essay is not to argue morality or philosophy. This essay addresses deniers of science who cannot yet have the above debate with violent media. When someone shouts "Guns hurt people!" the scientist in the room says "Of course guns hurt people. Guns cause an ignition in the solid propellant within the cartridge causing it to expand into gas which causes the projectile to be forced out of the barrel and towards the target. This has been known to cause physical harm in people." It is the position of many deniers of science that "movies and video games cannot hurt people." They literally mean this in the same way someone may say "guns cannot hurt people." Guns do hurt people. We may blame the gun distributor and reduce the amount of guns with weapon laws. We may blame the person holding the gun while doing nothing to reduce the availability of weapons. We may also blame both. Whatever we decide to do, we can all agree that parents should be concerned if their children have access to guns. Parents should also be concerned if their children have access to violent movies and games. And I'm just getting started with this argument.

  Consider a case in Tennessee where two teenage boys began shooting at passing cars with shotguns, killing one woman and injuring another. The boys claimed they were emulating activities in "Grand Theft Auto" ( [] ). Is this compelling evidence? This is not the Michael Carneal case, where the only link to violent media was circumstantial. The murderers explicitly identified the inspiration for their behavior. This is direct evidence. Whether the teens were predisposed to violence is irrelevant. They have cited their inspiration. It is not absurd to believe that the victim would be alive today if those teens had never been exposed to "Grand Theft Auto."

  "Perhaps," you say, "these teens may be lying?" "Yes! Yes! That's the ticket!" Another one of you chimes in. "They are merely making excuses for their behavior! This is the fault of psychopathic children or bad parenting! The fact that they play violent games is just an excuse for their actions!"

  Really now? Perhaps we shall consider the case of a 1974 Salt Lake City robbery. At least two men stormed into a small store, forced the attendants into the basement, and proceeded to torture, rape, and murder them before making off with their money. One of the torments was to force the victims to drink corrosive drain cleaner, causing agonizing burning of the mouth and throat. After their capture, one of the torturers said he got the idea of pouring drain cleaner down his victims' throats from a Clint Eastwood movie ( [] ). These men were obviously predisposed to violence. The robbery, rape, and murder would have certainly still occurred had they never seen the Clint Eastwood movie, only a different torment would have been used. Surely these vicious criminals, who are so obviously guilty, are not lying in an attempt to shift the blame from their own actions. They were inspired to perform one form of torture from a film and inflicted it on their victims.

  Now take the case of Colleen Stan. In 1977, Colleen was kidnapped by Cameron Hooker and kept as a sex slave. Under Hooker's control, Colleen would spend years locked in a box for 23 hours a day, only to be taken out in the evenings to be raped, beaten, and tortured. Hooker was a sexual sadist and a fan of sadomasochistic culture. He was inspired to dominate and inflict suffering on women by sadomasochistic pornography. He even gave Colleen the slave name "K," the obvious inspiration being one of his favorite pornographies, "The Story of O", about a slave girl named "O." ( [] -- [] -- [] )

  Do you still deny that violent media causes violent behavior? Cameron Hooker may have been an inherently immoral person. He may have been born with a psychopathic brain and may have been a threat to society even if he had never been exposed to sadomasochistic pornography. This is all possible, so do you still deny that violent media is a danger to society? How sure are you? If you are a denier, imagine you are Colleen Stan. Imagine that you are lying in a dark box. Imagine you have been lying there every day for years. Imagine the horror you must face as you wait, alone, for the box to open, knowing that when it opens you will be made to suffer. If you deny that violent media had anything to do with you being in this situation, what if you were offered to have another go at fate? Imagine if you were offered to be given your life as it would have been, at that moment, if things had been different. Imagine if one thing in the past could be changed, so that you had the chance to roll the die again to see if things would have improved for you. Imagine if the one thing you could change in the past was that Cameron Hooker would have never been exposed to sadomasochistic pornography.

  If you are a true denier, you cannot be excited over this offer. If you are a true denier, you must say "No, thank you. I'm quite sure that even if Mr. Hooker had never seen a violent pornography, I would still be in this box. It will make no difference." Surely no one would turn down this offer, even if it came at great cost. I would give both my legs to take this chance.

  This may strike you as a simplistic argument. You may think I have proven little here. The deniers that are still among you may believe that, sure, in some cases the criminally insane may be inspired to do horrible things because of something they saw on television, but you may stick to your guns and say "So there are very rare cases where psychopaths acted out the violence they've seen. That's unfortunate, but that doesn't mean violent movies and games are a serious threat. Society does not need to blame violent television just because, in incredibly rare instances, some wacko hurts someone. There is no need to start fear mongering and telling parents to take away their kid's video games. More people probably die in industrial accidents producing the DVDs of violent movies than are killed by any psycho who watches them."

  This is a valid criticism. These anecdotal instances do little to help us get a sense of whether or not there is an appreciable danger. They do, however, illustrate how violent media can be a threat. Despite this, no one could expect a denier to make serious movement on this issue with mere anecdotal evidence. That is why I stress that deniers of this danger are deniers of obvious science. You may comfortably dismiss everything I have said up to this point, if you like, but you will have a harder time dismissing hard science.

  The question as to whether violent media causes violent behavior is an old one. The first serious, scholarly survey on the issue was published by the Surgeon General in 1972 as it related to television violence, particularly in children ( ). In it, the question of whether television causes violence in children is considered pointless and misleading. The evidence and psychological understanding of human behavior made the answer to this question an obvious and forgone conclusion. "We know that children imitate and learn from everything they see—parents, fellow children, schools, the media; it would be extraordinary, indeed, if they did not imitate and learn from what they see on television." The only question asked was how bad the effect was. "...the real issue is once again quantitative: how much contribution to the violence of our society is made by extensive violent television viewing by our youth?" The study stresses, as I have stressed, that violent media is only one factor of many leading to violent behavior, but it does cause an increase in violent behavior. This conclusion came when the science was in its infancy. The follow-up report, published ten years later, states the conclusion as it relates to young people, "After 10 more years of research, the consensus among most of the research community is that violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch the programs" ( [] ). The science has only gotten stronger since.

  (All studies in the following section, unless otherwise cited, are featured either in "The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression", or in the paper "The Influence of Media Violence on Youth". The particular chapter cited in the Cambridge handbook, "Why Observing Violence Increases the Risk of Violent Behavior by the Observer", was written by L. Rowell Huesmann and Lucyna Kirwil. Huesmann is the Director of the Aggression Research Program in the Research Center for Group Dynamics at University of Michigan. He is also the editor of the journal "Aggressive Behavior" by Wiley Interscience. The chapter with the following studies is available for free here, along with citations ( [] ) The other paper was written by an expert panel assembled in 2000 by the National Institute of Mental Health to address these issues and is available here ( ). One of the authors is Craig A. Anderson, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence. The names Huesmann and Anderson are used in my citations. Page numbers are given along with references. Please use my citation to locate the correct document and to find third party sources in the respective bibliographies. You should also consider reading these professional documents yourself.)

  The scientific evidence supporting this issue is so complete, so overwhelming, and so utterly obvious that no rational person can be exposed to it and believe that violent media does not cause violent behavior. That this is an issue that so many otherwise intelligent, scientifically minded people raise exception to shows either massive ignorance of the evidence, deliberate misrepresentation of evidence by public figures, or genuine denial of science. There can be no question that the effects of violent media is a genuine public-health issue, just as there can be no question that man evolved from apes and that the Earth orbits the Sun. The following is just a sample of the evidence, greater collections may be found in other sources (Huesmann, Page 555—Anderson et al., 2003; Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Huesmann, Moise, & Podolski, 1997; Paik & Comstock, 1994; Savage, 2004).

  I repeat again that violent media is only one of many contributing factors to violence in our culture. It should also be noted that the pervasive effects of violent media transcends the question of why we have so many criminals. Crime rates should be addressed by this science, as 25 to 33 percent of criminals say they have "tried the same crime they saw in the media", "gone out looking to get into a fight" after watching a particular program, or "wanted a gun after seeing a gun used" in a show (Huesmann, Page 556—Surette 2002). We must consider how the media affects crime, but it would be a waste of this science to consider only how violent media contributes to the prisoner population. Violent behavior affects society as a whole. The effects may lead to violent crime and criminal arrest, and it may lead to violence in the home, violence against animals, belligerence, lack of empathy for the suffering of others, and general anti-social behavior. It may even affect our politics, our view of social welfare, of foreign policy, of who we vote for. It has been shown that there is a "Marilyn Monroe effect", whereby suicides increase after a highly publicized suicide (Huesmann, Page 556—Phillips 1979), and the phenomenon of "copycat murders" is well understood. These psychological phenomena also have good effects. We should hope that the combat footage and virtual reality simulations that our soldiers are exposed to will make them aggressive and desensitized to suffering and death on the battlefield, but we should also hope they are being vigorously trained to respect innocent life, to follow orders, and to control their ability to inflict violence so only the enemy is the recipient.

  The main psychological phenomena we will consider is known as "observational learning", which may be defined as a type of learning in which a person learns new information and behaviors by observing the behaviors of others. This has been observed in many non-human animals, such as octopuses ( ). This phenomenon gained considerable attention with Albert Bandura's classic experiment where children were exposed to video of an adults being rewarded for beating a clown doll with a hammer while the control group, which was not shown the video, showed dramatically reduced aggression against the doll. This study gained immense criticism, one criticism being that the effect was uninspiring because the doll was an inanimate object which was designed for rough play. However, this experiment was repeated with a real clown to the same effect (

  Bandura's experiment illustrates the principle. There have been innumerable other controlled experiments showing causality of violent media and violent behavior. One double-blind study assigned 396 children to watch either a violent or nonviolent film before a game of hockey. Physical assault and verbal insults were measured. The groups shown the violent film had more violent incidents than the other group. In some trails, referees carried a visual cue that was shown in the film, a walkie-talkie. Trials with the visual cue present had significantly higher incidents of violence (Huesmann, Page 557—Josephson 1987). Another study showed increases in hostility and other negative factors in adult subjects who played both mildly aggressive and highly aggressive video games ( ). Another study of hostility between billiards and Mortal Kombat players yielded predictable results ( ). In a double-blind study, Finish scientists exposed young children to either violent or nonviolent films. Children who watched the violent film rated much higher in physical assault (Anderson, Page 18—Bjorkqvist 1985). In another experiment, physical aggression was observed more in boys who played violent games compared to non-violent games (Anderson, Page 34—Irwin and Gross 1995). Another study with college students showed increased willingness to administer electric shocks to others by players of violent games compared to nonviolent games (Anderson, Page 34—Bartholow and Anderson 2002). An important series of experiments by Anderson first measured physiological and emotive responses to various video games, then chose two games, one violent and one non-violent, that scored equally in arousal. The group that played the violent game displayed a significant increase in aggressive behavior than the opposing group. This suggests that the effects of games on aggression are independent of arousal (Anderson, Page 35).

  Another interesting study exposed male adults to films portraying sex and violence, nonviolent sex, or a film with neither sex nor violence. When given the opportunity to inflict electric shocks to a woman, the subjects who watched the film with sex and violence punished the woman substantially more than the other two groups (Anderson, Page 20—Donnerstein and Berkowitz 1981). In a study with females, an experimental group was exposed to nonviolent rap music videos with sexually subordinate images of women. Subjects were then questioned on their attitudes of teen dating violence. The women who had watched the music videos showed a higher tolerance of this violence than the control group (Anderson, Page 31—J.D. Johnson, Adams, Ashburn, and Reed 1995). In a similar experiment with males, violent rap videos were found to increase endorsement of violent behavior in response to hypothetical conflict situations (Anderson, Page 31—J.D. Johnson, Jackson, and Gatto 1995). Another experiment showed rock music videos with antisocial themes lead to greater acceptance of antisocial behavior in the experimental group (Anderson, Page 31—Hansen and Hansen, 1990). Also, stereotyped sex roles showed greater acceptance in experimental groups exposed to music videos displaying such stereotypes (Anderson, Page 32—Hansen and Hansen, 1988; Hansen, 1989)

  That said, it is possible to find some studies that show psychological benefits to violent media, such as stress relief, while showing no indication of increased violent or aggressive behavior. Deniers of science like to tout the few studies that support their worldview while criticizing those that do not. They accuse psychologists of cherry-picking studies that show the harm violent media causes while claiming the overriding body of evidence is either inconclusive or shows that violent media are harmless. This is deliberate deception. However, it is true that the press often cherry-picks sensational studies to report while ignoring studies that contradict them. As famed cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson says:

  "If you are trying to measure a phenomenon that does not exist, the variation in your measurement will occasionally give you a positive signal, as well as a negative signal. If that positive signal is that A causes B ... a paper gets written about that result, and then people get concerned that cell phones might cause cancer or power lines might cause cancer.... In fact, if you look at the full spate of these studies ... there are some cases where, in fact, there is less cancer; and so these are the phenomenon of no result. When you actually have A causing B, the signal is huge. It is huge, and it's repeatable in time and place. ( [] )"

  The effect of violent media is not a phenomenon of no result. Scientists are not cherry-picking results that affirm the theory. If you look at the full spate of these studies, you will see that those indicating a negative result are few. In fact, to use Tyson's words, the "signal" we get from the entire body of work is huge. It is repeatable in time place. The only cherry-picking of studies comes from the deniers of science. This is why Anderson and the other authors on the NIMH expert panel affirm that "research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts" with an effect size of ".13 to .32" (Anderson, Page 8). This is a moderate number by correlational standards, but considering what is at stake, the implications are staggering. As Huesmann and his co-author have said in citing another author, "In fact, as Rosenthal (1986) has pointed out, a correlation of 0.3 with aggression translates into a change in the odds of aggression from 50/50 to 65/35—not a trivial change when one is dealing with life-threatening behavior" (Page 111. [] )

  "...the scientific debate over whether media violence increases aggression and violence is essentially over..." (Anderson, Page 9).

  There have also been many correlational surveys showing the link between violence, aggression, and the amount of television and film violence regularly viewed (Huesmann, Page 558—Chaffee, 1972; Comstock, 1980; Eysenck and Nias, 1978; and Huesmann and Miller, 1994). A meta-analysis of 410 correlational studies showed a correlational coefficient of .19 (Huesmann, Page 558—Paik and Comstock 1994). Many surveys also show the long-term effects, such as a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies which showed a statistically significant average effect size of .17 across 42 independent tests involving almost 5,000 participants (Huesmann, Page 559—Anderson and Bushman, 2001). In a longitudinal study on video games, Japanese scientists found overall exposure to video games was significantly correlated with violent physical behavior after controlling for earlier behavior (Ihori, Sakamoto, Kobayashi, and Kimura 2003). An early but significant longitudinal study showed that early childhood viewing of violent television was statistically related to their aggressive and antisocial behavior 10 years later. This finding was controlled for initial aggressiveness, social class, education, and other relevant variables. Most notable, however, was that aggressive behavior in middle childhood did not predict higher subsequent viewing of violence, making it impossible that the correlation was due to already aggressive children being drawn to violent television (Huesmann, Page 559—Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, and Huesmann, 1977). Although there are obvious problems with correlational studies compared to experimentation, Huesmann points out, "These cross-sectional surveys provide convincing evidence that frequent viewing of violence in the media is associated with comparatively high levels of aggressive behavior. The data from these surveys are consistent with the causal conclusions of experiments...." (Huesmann, Page 558).

  A common criticism against these laboratory studies is that laboratory violence and aggression does not generalize to real-world violence and aggression. The scientists, in a show of their utterly aloof mentality, arbitrarily define what is violent for the purposes of the experiment. Their definition of "violence" may be something as irrelevant as the willingness to administer blasts of noise or electric shocks, or the subject may be presented with the opportunity to assault another in some manner which simply does not exist outside the laboratory. These sterile observations of so called "violence" cannot be easily generalized outside the staid and stodgy ivory tower of academia. Scientists fluster at this criticism because they must admit that it is valid.

  That said, scientists also fluster when the opposite criticism is made. Violent media causing violent behavior has been observed outside the laboratory in naturalistic settings. Take the 1975 case where scientists observed children in a home for delinquent boys. Boys were separated into two cottages and shown violent and non-violent movies every night, respectively. Scientists then observed the frequency of hitting and fighting. The children who watched violent movies were significantly more violent (Huesmann, Page 557—Leyens, Camino, Parke, and Berkowitz 1975). In another naturalistic observation in 1992, scientists observed an inpatient ward before and after the patients lost access to MTV, which at that time mostly showed music videos with sometimes violent content. They found a significant drop in aggressive behavior (Anderson, Page 31—Waite, Hillbrand, and Foster 1992).

  What criticisms can we use against cases of naturalistic observation like these? Because these observations were made outside the laboratory, because they lack the ordered rigidity of laboratory experimentation—because they are not truly controlled experiments it is impossible for us to conclusively establish that the exposure to violent media caused the change in behavior. This is a valid criticism. Observing subjects in uncontrolled environments means you cannot say with the same certainty that the independent variable caused the change in the dependent variable.

  You can see where I am going with this. Scientists may observe a new species of microorganism evolve in the laboratory under controlled, experimental conditions. The creationist will scoff and say "Ha! This proves nothing! Just because you contrived what you call evolution in the forced confines of a laboratory does not mean such phenomena take place in nature!" This is a valid criticism. Just because it happened in the lab does not mean it happens in nature. The map is not the territory. However, when scientists discover new forms of microscopic life in nature, new forms that coincide precisely as Darwinian evolution would predict, the creationist shouts "This proves nothing! Unless you observe the creation of new species in a controlled laboratory setting there is no reason to believe that this new species had not been around the whole time! You only just discovered it!" This, again, is a valid criticism.

  These criticisms are not against one branch of scientific inquiry, they are against science itself. There is virtually no scientific question which is immune to both criticisms. These are problems inherent to the scientific method, and they shall be with science forever; but to reject both laboratory experiments and naturalistic observation because of these problems is to reject science. In practice, both forms of investigation, along with correlational data, complement one another. It is the strength of laboratory experimentation that it is rigid and controlled, just as it is the strength of naturalistic observation that it is open to real-world impressions of the science. One must either embrace that science—the objective, empirical observation of the world—is the best way to arrive at conclusions of reality, or you may deny all science and empiricism in favor of perpetual ignorance. There is a difference between being a denier of a particular science and being a denier of the scientific method itself. If you deny all science, then there is no evidence that can change your mind. There is no hope for you. However, if you only deny one branch of science due to being uninformed, then I hope these data will have given you cause to reconsider.

  Yet there is more science to review. Exposing people to violent imagery has been known to desensitize them to violence. If you display a picture of a mutilated corpse, it will have less of an effect on someone who enjoys gory movies than it would on someone who has never seen blood outside the doctor's office. Those who are desensitized will show less emotional reaction to the suffering and death of others. This phenomenon likely contributed to the rise of animal-rights activism, because people are not exposed to the suffering of animals as they were in the past. Before the industrial revolution, most people were exposed to animals being treated cruelly in their largely rural farm-lives. With so many modern people living in cities and buying their meat prepackaged without any resemblance to an animal, seeing a PETA video of farm cows being beaten has a much greater effect on them. The fact that a person raised in a farm environment, where animals are exposed to cruelties, is much more comfortable and inclined to repeat those actions as a farmer than someone who has never been exposed to it is compelling evidence for desensitization (these issues are explored in the book "Meat: A Natural Symbol" by Nick Fiddes). It is believed that desensitization to violence will lead to violent acts against other people, or it may cause inaction when another suffers preventable violence.

  Consider a study where children who were exposed to a violent film were slower to call for help from an adult when they saw other children fighting compared to the control group (Huesmann, Page 558—Drabman and Thomas, 1974 1975; Thomas and Drabman, 1975). Another experiment with adults found increased acceptance of violence towards women after watching violent sex scenes (Anderson, Page 21—Malamuth and Check 1981). An important experiment studied desensitization with the effect of violent and non-violent video games and other imagery. As we may predict, those exposed to violent video games showed more aggression. What makes this study interesting, however, is that scientists also used an EEG to measure the neurological reaction to violence and thus indicate desensitization. Scientists could predict which subjects would display the most aggression based totally on scans of their brains. Most worrisome, however, was that the scientists could also tell whether or not the subject had been heavily exposed to media violence in their past. By looking at your brain, scientists can now tell how much violence you have been exposed to and predict how violent a person you are. Think about that. The revelation that what is seen on television will physically change human brains and numb them to the suffering of others does not just encourage us to keep violence away from our impressionable children, it makes even the most sober of us to think twice about what we expose ourselves to ( ).

  The final study I shall cite is a 2006 meta-analysis. The meta-analysis surveyed 431 studies involving 68,463 subjects and included such media as television, movies, video games, music, and comic-books. The whole of this body of evidence affirmed the scientific consensus that exposure to violent media causes an increase in both short-term and long-term violent and aggressive behavior ( ). This is not the first study of this type. Many have been performed to the same conclusion. It is no wonder that the American Psychological Association, in reviewing the evidence back in 1993, said:

  There is absolutely no doubt that higher levels of viewing violence on television are correlated with increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behavior. Three major national studies ... reviewed hundreds of studies to arrive at the irrefutable conclusion that viewing violence increases violence. In addition, prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence. (Page 33. [] )

  In his essay, "Nailing the Coffin Shut on Doubts that Violent Video Games Stimulate Aggression" ( [] ), Huesmann writes:

  "It requires a tortuous logic to believe that children and adolescents are affected by what they observe in their living room, through the front window of their house, in their classroom, in their neighborhood, and among their peers, but not affected by what they observe in movies, on television, or in the video games they play. Yet many have argued just such a view in opposition to researchers who conclude that media violence stimulates aggression.

  "... I expect that it will not change the expressed views of the many purveyors of violent video games or their ad hominem attacks on researchers ... will not change the minds of the many psychologically unsophisticated journalists who write glibly in the popular press about this topic; will not change the minds of the many psychologically unsophisticated popular culture scholars who write about this topic; and, most disturbingly, will not change the minds of the few psychologically sophisticated researchers who deny that media violence can have any important psychological effect on the risk for aggressive behavior ...

  "Generally, I would argue that they eliminate entire segments of research on false grounds (e.g., experiments are artificial and can never study "real aggression"); selectively examine the remaining literature; identify correctly small flaws in studies; magnify those flaws with false logic into indictments of most of the research; uncritically accept the few flawed studies or meta-analyses that show no effects as true indicators of the population; and cite other flawed reviews as facts. Most importantly they mostly ignore observational learning theory and the general research on imitation. ...

  "Rather than engage in another round of similar debates, let me suggest that some important individual difference variables may explain a lot of the variance in the debaters' positions. Among those psychologists who have actually done empirical research on the topic of media violence or video game violence and who understand the theory of observational learning, there is great consensus ... that media violence increases the risk for aggressive behavior. Among those scholars with a vested interest in video games, either because playing them is an important part of their identity (e.g., Ferguson; Jenkins) or because they have been funded by the media industry (e.g., Freedman), there is a lasting expressed disbelief that media violence can cause aggressive behavior. Their disbelief seems to be compounded by their failure to grasp observational learning theory. Of course, such disbelief may also be indirectly fueled in all of us by our American distaste for anyone telling us what we should look at or play. Freedom of speech and publication is an essential element of our free society and any discussion of 'inappropriate content' in the mass media inevitably primes our negative reactions to censorship or control on free speech."

  Huesman and another author offer a wider rebuttal of deniers in the piece "The Case against the Case against Media Violence", cited previously and again here ( [] ).

  Who can still deny this science? Who can still claim that violent media simply cannot cause harm? Is it your opinion that, in surveying the evidence, all this science is fabricated bunk? Or perhaps you believe, as some do, that there is evidence on both sides—that the jury is still out on this question. There are two options here, either violent media can cause harm or it cannot. Just as a gun can cause harm or it cannot. In light of all the evidence, it is impossible to be agnostic about the answer. For the true denier to say "violent media doesn't cause harm" is to make an utterly extraordinary and unbelievable claim, and here is why:

  Imagine a world where there is no violent imagery in the media. Imagine a world where all of the imagery ever produced by mankind, since the dawn of civilization, had been devoid of violence. Imagine if Homer's works were G-rated. Imagine if the Vikings had no warrior poets. Imagine if there was no murder or killing in all of Shakespeare, no acts of slavery and genocide in holy books. Imagine if the artists of the Renaissance never glorified war in their art. Imagine if every novel you read, every film you watched, and every game you played contained no violence. Imagine even that the news did not report violent actions. Imagine even that the words "war," "murder," and "torture," had never entered the dictionary. Imagine a world where every child is raised without the concept of violence entering into their experience from any medium other than fist-hand experience. All violence is gone from the media and for all time. What the true denier has to believe is that nothing would change in this world. People would still go out and kill each other exactly as they do now, no difference at all—not even a small difference. Human history would have an equal amount of blood, no difference of a drop, than it does today. The true denier must believe that in this world not a single life, in the whole of human history, would have escaped cruelty or death from the hands of another. You don't need to be a psychologist to see that this is an utterly extraordinary claim which demands extraordinary evidence. The scientist sees, however, that this imaginary world would be STAGGERINGLY different to our own, and those differences would be in the form of human lives saved and suffering averted. This imaginary world would be a better world to live in. We don't know how many lives would be saved, but can you say how many lives would be an acceptable sacrifice to keep our violence? It would be a shame to give up so much human culture—the Iliad would be pretty boring if no one got killed in it—but can you argue for a moment that these changes to our culture would not be worth the saved lives? You may try to argue that our enjoyment of violence would be worth it, but what you cannot do is claim that no human being has ever suffered or died because of violent media.

  The moral debate is the question of those two worlds. To support violent media you must support our world over this imaginary one. You must not only declare that you would prefer to live in our world of violence and raise your children in it, you must not only convince me to do the same, but you must also be morally comfortable inflicting that world on every human being who has ever lived and ever will live.

  That said, whether you want us all to live in a world of violent media is not the question this essay has addressed. The purpose of this essay was to dispel those who deny science. To believe that violent media is not responsible for human suffering and death is not a tenable position. You have been shown more than enough for any rational person to change their minds on this issue.

  To still believe that violent media is harmless is to suffer from a literally psychotic denial of reality. The kind of mind you need to believe this is a twisted mind indeed. You can imagine yourself sitting in the living room of a particular home in Dallas, May of 1999. Professional wresting is on the television. You see one wrestler clothesline another. The 7 year old child in the room sees it too. Then you see that child approach his 3 year old brother and clothesline him in the same way. The 3 year old dies ( ).

  Imagine the kind of mind you need to see this happen, then to cross your arms and say the wrestling show did not cause the death. Imagine the kind of mind it would take to deny that nothing would have been different if wrestling had never been shown in that house. Imagine the twisted, perverse mentality that would declare "This was a coincidence! The boy would have died no matter what!" or to say that the 7 year old who says his favorite wrestlers are "'Stone Cold' Steve Austin" and "The Undertaker" was just predisposed to violence, perhaps a born psychotic; or that he was planning to kill his brother all along but only waited until wrestling was on the television so that he would have a scapegoat. You can say it is the 7 year old's fault, you can say it is the parents' fault, or you can say it is the WWF's fault. What you cannot say, however, is that this innocent child would still be dead today if his brother had not watched wrestling. To deny that violent media changes our behavior, to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence, to ignore decades of research and the consensus of psychologists—to look at the evidence and to believe otherwise does not mean you just have a different opinion, or are misinformed, or are ignorant...

  To believe otherwise means you are insane.

Re:Proof video games cause violence! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702689)

Waouh that was bad... Can I get 10 minutes of my life back please?

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Interesting)

GrpA (691294) | about 2 years ago | (#41702559)

No, a better idea would be to still have them, except when you click on the link, it takes you to a page where it asks for your credit card details before taking you to the link, and identifies the person responsible for the law.

*that* would be poetic...


Re:careful what you wish for (0, Troll)

blarkon (1712194) | about 2 years ago | (#41702585)

Google is making money on this content - and isn't giving the creators of that content a cut of the money that they are making. Put it this way - say you wrote an amazing article. I summarize it and slap advertisements on it and provide a link to your original article. Lets say that my summary of your work brings me a ten thousand bucks. Shouldn't you be entitled to a cut of that ten thousand bucks? It was your work, I just summarized it and provided a link. Or is my only obligation to you a link that may or may not provide you with revenue?

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Insightful)

Derekloffin (741455) | about 2 years ago | (#41702609)

Then put it behind a pay wall, or a robots.txt. If you can't be bothered with either of those two things then don't bitch that it gets indexed by a search engine.

Re:careful what you wish for (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702971)

well said. They just don't want to charge and lose their oligarchical control over news. Why make customers pay, and have to endure new cheaper competition when you can make Google pay. Also, these media companies are free to use ad sense and other advertising platforms are they now, and recoup a lot of the money??

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702631)

> I just summarized it and provided a link.

You make it sound so simple. If you think you can do that better, do it. And get those ten thousand bucks yourself.

Google is doing something that _no one else in the world is able to do half as well as them_. I think they deserve their money for that. The "simple summary work" that you point out is way more complex than you make it sound.

So no, you are not entitled to a piece of that simply because you wrote an article.

Re:careful what you wish for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702633)

How is it my fault you have terrible marketing, and did not get the traffic in the first place?
If I have spent ten years building a loyal a army of readers through indexing, rather than creating, why should you benefit from my ten years of work out of my own pocket

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 2 years ago | (#41702671)

That's a completely backwards approach.

People don't use google because they know you write great articles. They use google because they are looking for something. The people writing on the other hand, really want people to see what they wrote. Google provides a free service to those writers, bringing in viewers without charging them anything. How can google do this? How can they provide this amazing service for free with all the hardware and bandwidth required? They charge advertisers.

If a site is so popular and so important that people do just want information from them - they wont be going via google, they'll be coming straight in.

If google were rehosting the full content - I could see it. But if they are just linking to things on the WEB - well, it should be obvious that what this law does is break the web. That's what really gets me. These news outlets see the web as a way to make money but they don't want anyone else to benefit from the information they provide unless they get a cut.

Following this logic, investors who read the business page should pay a percentage of their profits to the newspapers as well.

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41702717)

Following this logic, investors who read the business page should pay a percentage of their profits to the newspapers as well.

Don't give them ideas, you know they'll try it. They have a failing business model to prop up. Just look at the recording industry...

Re:careful what you wish for (-1)

cryptoluddite (658517) | about 2 years ago | (#41702771)

People don't use google because they know you write great articles. They use google because they are looking for something.

What you described is a middle-man. Google is a middle-man between users and authors. A middle-man pays the source and charges more than they paid. They provide some value-add like "search".

But that's not how Google works. They take the content for free then charge money for it (indirectly through advertising), giving nothing back to the source. They're a middle-man that never pays their suppliers.

People say that if Google had to actually pay for content they wouldn't make any money. That's not true at all. They just wouldn't make as much, but there would still be profit. Just as the net effect of advertisers competing is to raise the price of ads the net effect of content people competing would be to lower the price they charge. Creators that have really valuable content could get a larger price from Google, whereas junk sites or blogs would change less to get more visitors. But it wouldn't be zero universally, highway robbery, like it is now.

Paying newspapers and investigative journalism is *more important* to society than Google employees getting a free lunch.

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Insightful)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about 2 years ago | (#41702905)

They take the content for free then charge money for it (indirectly through advertising), giving nothing back to the source.

They direct millions and millions of people to the websites of those publishers.
And the publishers want those hits. Otherwise they could easily stop Google from doing so by using the robots.txt.

What actually happens is that the publishers want BOTH: Google redirecting people to their sites and getting money from Google for doing so.

Re:careful what you wish for (3, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about 2 years ago | (#41702911)

It isn't highway robbery when you hand someone your money and say "please take this, I want you to have it"

Don't want google's "highway robbery"? change one line on your site and it's done, google won't be a problem any more for you.

these sites should pay google, these newspapers get valuable traffic thanks to google, they have ads on their pages which they make money from every time google provide a new set of eyes to look at their page. But they don't pay google, they expect to get this service for free.

Re:careful what you wish for (3)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41702967)

viewers are how they pay back. you pretty much need to visit the source sites.
besides, all those french newspapers could easily exclude themselves from being searched.

but they want to be indexed, because they want the viewers. but they also want money for spamming their headlines with popular search terms, that's whats fucked up about them.

Re:careful what you wish for (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41702867)

If a site is so popular and so important that people do just want information from them - they wont be going via google, they'll be coming straight in.

Actually, that's not always true. There's a lot of people who use Google (or whatever the default search engine is) for everything. Even if they want to go to, say,, they'll type "cnn" into the search bar and go there that way. Or worse, you'll find people who actually type "" into a google search. Don't ask me why.

Even so, this doesn't mean the destination sites should be getting a cut of Google's advertising profit. If they want money, they can put up a paywall, or have their own advertising on their site.

Re:careful what you wish for (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702673)

Google is making money on this content - and isn't giving the creators of that content a cut of the money that they are making. Put it this way - say you wrote an amazing article. I summarize it and slap advertisements on it and provide a link to your original article. Lets say that my summary of your work brings me a ten thousand bucks. Shouldn't you be entitled to a cut of that ten thousand bucks? It was your work, I just summarized it and provided a link. Or is my only obligation to you a link that may or may not provide you with revenue?

Bullshit. Google pretty much includes the headline and half a sentence. To call that a summary is extremely misleading. I would like you to name one person who reads Google News just to see these headlines and never click on the links. Google makes money from usefulness of its aggregation of these links, not the content, which remains on the website of whoever owns it.

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Interesting)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41702699)

If you wrote an amazing article, and no one ever read it because they couldn't find it, why did you write it?

You then complain that a search engine is making money from your content and not compensating you, when they have told you exactly how to stop your articles from being put in their search results already (robots.txt) You want to have your cake and eat it too.
If you expect a search engine to pay for your content, expect them to ignore it completely. Watch as your userbase disappears and nobody reads your content or views your ads. You should be paying Google for every visitor they refer to your website, not the other way around. They spent resources crawling your website and indexing it and they sent your visitors to you, who click on your ads. You should be compensating the search engines.

Re:careful what you wish for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702701)

Let's say you write an amazing article. You put it up on your own website (let's call it )

Nobody can find it, so nobody reads it. You just wasted your time.

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Informative)

infinitelink (963279) | about 2 years ago | (#41702709)

I have mod points and I would mod you down because your logic stinks rather than because I disagree, but I think it is worth commenting on:

Google is not making money on their content. Google is making money on the key words entered into their search engine, returning relevant advertisements to...the key words. The people go to the search engine to find content, but Google serves LINKS to others' content (not the content) most relevant to their search terms in order to ancillarily have the chance to serve ads relevant to the users' searches: note that there is an exchange going on here, though intangible and only conceptual: as per the user agreement between users and Google, the user gets to use their search mechanism, and Google gets to serve ads: only the users, therefore, could possibly claim to be owed anything, except they're being provided service, so rather it's they who should be paying (and are with their eyeballs).

What all this means, is exactly what others are saying around here: they just drop the French media, and not do those numbskulls the favor of facilitating contact by other eyeballs with their content: Google provides them with value, not vice versa: I would find poetic a de-listing by Google adding facilities that they may, for a recurring fee, opt-in to the search engine results.

Google only wants the few seconds they get with a visitor to serve ads, and these days they've plenty of their own content (and services, and deals with other content providers e.g. on Youtube) that they don't perhaps need to index and serve results pertaining those other media: I doubt they want to do that because it would make their searches slightly less useful to some, but when people start attacking a big dog to get a cut for something those attackers aren't due any share of, and syndicate with just-as-greedy politicians (who just want more money to spend), then it is time to say "bye bye".

Also, when Google actually puts ads relevant not to keyword searches but content itself, it is by the permission/request of the owner, and the owners are compensated on the click-throughs according to the terms of their agreements. Thus, we see here mere greed, gross ignorance, and unsurprising indignation at sensing a situation unfairness that could only be understood as such by the ignorant.

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Informative)

Sun (104778) | about 2 years ago | (#41702785)

I have mod points and I would mod you down because your logic stinks rather than because I disagree, but I think it is worth commenting on

I, too, have mod points. I do not agree with the above statement. Does that mean I should mod you down? In fact, I'm discarding all of my moderation done so far just so I can point this out to you.

You do not mod someone down merely because their logic stinks. If the person was trolling, that would be something different. GP did not seem to be, however.

The idea behind mod points is not to decide who is right. The idea is to weed out those comments unhelpful to constructive discussion, and keep those that promote it.

Now, had GP been marked "+5 insightful", I might be tempted to hit that "overrated" button. At the time of this writing, however, GP is +2 with no visible moderation, which is, in fact, a little below what it deserves, considering I'm sure others feel the same way, and considering the responses were reasoned and to the point (not that I can fix it now, that I've answered you, of course).

Don't abuse the moderation system. If someone writes a comment you don't agree with, just leave it alone. Disagreeing with you is not the same as trolling.


Re:careful what you wish for (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702837)

Wow! Somebody actually understands what the mod points are for! If I had any mod points I would of modded this up as insightful as I don't think many others actually understand this system - they all seem to think they have points exactly so they can click -1 on anything this they disagree with in any way to try and hide it so that others don't see something that might be an opinion which is different to theirs.

Re:careful what you wish for (4, Interesting)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#41702753)

Or is my only obligation to you a link that may or may not provide you with revenue?

Actually, not even that.

Lets say that my summary of your work brings me a ten thousand bucks. Shouldn't you be entitled to a cut of that ten thousand bucks?

When newspapers do a review of a movie or TV show, do they give a cut of ther advertising revenues to the producers? Actually, the film makers will give the papers al kinds of inducements to help them do more articles. same for book reviews. How about restaurant reviews? Should newspapers pay the restaurants when they do them?

This whole thing is idiotic. Google just gives a sentence or two at most of the article. It's fair use in any country that recognises the concept.

The French media could block Google with Robots.txt and set up their own news search portal and then they can sell ads and divide up the income, if there's so much money to be had.

Re:careful what you wish for (3, Informative)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 2 years ago | (#41702757)

It's like you wrote it on a huge billboard on a main street, and did not expect passers by to pay, but when someone put up a sign pointing to it then you want to charge them....?

Re:careful what you wish for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702763)

Summarizing implies doing actual work. Google does not do this- they only use basic citation rights.

Re:careful what you wish for (1)

imkonen (580619) | about 2 years ago | (#41702775)

If my link to your article increases the number of people reading your article (and increasing your ad revenue) then no, I don't think you're entitled to a cut of my earned revenue. Business relationships don't have to be zero sum andsearch engines are earning their keep here by providing added value (to the consumer by helping them find articles, and to the newspaper by bringing more eyes to their products).
There's some gray area where so called aggregators basically paste the entire article into their site and probably do steal readership, but its pretty hard to imagine Google's single line quotes do that. More importantly, we don't have to speculate. Any site that doesn't want to show up in search can use robots.txt to test for themselves whether search engines are a net win or loss for readership. What they can't do ask a fee to be listed and then complain that Google is "threatening" to not purchase the product. If you want to charge for something, your potential customers are allowed to say no.

Re:careful what you wish for (1)

pantaril (1624521) | about 2 years ago | (#41702851)

Google is making money on this content - and isn't giving the creators of that content a cut of the money that they are making. Put it this way - say you wrote an amazing article. I summarize it and slap advertisements on it and provide a link to your original article. Lets say that my summary of your work brings me a ten thousand bucks. Shouldn't you be entitled to a cut of that ten thousand bucks? It was your work, I just summarized it and provided a link. Or is my only obligation to you a link that may or may not provide you with revenue?

What prevents the author of the article to make a deal with the news agregator to get some share of his profits? If the news agregator doesn't agree with the deal, the article author is free to block access to the article for the news agregator.

The proposed law is stupid, easily circumvented and will only lead to google droping the search results for your article alltogether. Remember that the news aggregators don't have to be server side, you can have client-side news aggregator (aka rss clients).

Also, why does profit matter? If google wouldn't include ads on its news agregator, you would be ok with it? Why?

Re:careful what you wish for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702857)

In this case Google is finding the customer for you. Traditionally, the finder of the customer takes a big cut of the revenue. For example Apple takes a 30% cut off the revenue of the apps in their closed garden. Google is providing a service to the newspaper - notice that they already have the option of making Google not index their content. They want the service from Google and then they also want Google to pay them for giving them a service that they need. If anything, Google should charge them a fee for referring customers to them, not the other way around.

The creators of that content don't deserve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702869)

The creators of that content don't deserve a cut of the money. Copyright doesn't work that way.

Re:careful what you wish for (4, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41702919)

Your right, Google is making money off the content. They are using your work in the process. It's sort of like a taxi driver putting a sign on his cab saying he will take people to your out of the way poetry readings and not waving the cab fair. Maybe he puts a few lines of your poetry on the sign to catch the eye of your fans too.

Does he owe you money? Or is bringing customers to your venue enough?

Re:careful what you wish for (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702713)

Google will not do that because the law will not be passed. Our politicians have stupid ideas every 5 minutes. They shout them out, and if someone shout back saying it's stupid they start thinking about something else.

Re:careful what you wish for (5, Interesting)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#41702789)

The Washington Post was absolutely livid about the Drudge Report "deep linking" to stories on its Web site in the late 90s. It tried blocking him at first, but he'd find ways around it. Eventually they realized he was driving a huge amount of traffic to the site, which resulted in advertising dollars for them. But they were so used to being "the only game in town" in Washington DC (The Washington Times doesn't count; it's a church-funded instrument that has never operated in the black founded in 1982 by a guy who claimed to be the messiah) that they had this mentality that they drove traffic places, not the other way around. Eventually they recognized that they had no choice but to look the other way while Drudge continued deep linking, but a few people on staff still grumbled about him being a parasite profiting off of their work.

France and the U.S. have very different ideas about the media and intellectual property (for example, publishers in France set book prices and the bookstores can't discount them). There's a reason bookstores aren't dying there like they are in the states -- in fact, physical book sales are up [] . TFA in this case doesn't specify whether the complaint is about Google scraping entire pages from the site (for previews) or just displaying the brief summary, but that would seem to be where a line might need to be drawn. If a Google user can read an entire news story by squinting at the preview on Google's site without ever visiting the publisher that paid for the content to be written, I could see the French having an issue with that. But if their complaint is that you can search the text of their articles, see a brief summary of the article that directs you to the publisher's site, they're going to need to wake up and realize that Google (and similar search engines) are driving visitors and euros to them without having to make payments directly.

Would a restaurant complain about trademark infringement if the city put up signs with their logo directing people to the restaurant? Well, maybe in France.

Re:careful what you wish for (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41702809)

Couldn't Google or other search engines opt into placing a pay wall themselves for searches on french news sites?

I mean they could offer the results as a paid service to comply with French law, do the banner as you mentioned, and just pass the costs onto the searcher for that specific information.

If I were Google (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about 2 years ago | (#41702483)

If I were Google I'd wait for the law to become effective and then switch off France altogether. Not allowing other search engines to take over beforehand but still serving the French right.

The finest form of Internet cleansing. Everyone's a winner.

Re:If I were Google (1)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41702745)

Who would take over anyway? If Google doesn't make enough profit from them to justify paying them to index, no one else will.

Looks like a train wreck in the making... (2)

paenguin (311404) | about 2 years ago | (#41702485)

Google isn't reading the newssites. The general public is reading the newssites.

Google is helping them by sending more readers. They really think that they get that service for free?

Are they really that dense?

I expect Google to flip that switch off when the law is passed.

Re:Looks like a train wreck in the making... (3, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41702545)

I see you are still young, padawan.

Yes, they would cut their noses off to spite their faces. Happens all the time.

Ever have a boss who denied a reasonable request that the rest of the team needed fulfilled before continuing work, if only to exercise his / her arbitrary powers of decision? For some people, it's less about the money, and more about the power. Why serve in heaven when you can rule in hell?

Re:Looks like a train wreck in the making... (1)

paenguin (311404) | about 2 years ago | (#41702759)

I wish I was as young as you think I am...

Are you saying the French would cut off their nose to spite their face over power or that Google would?

What does Google have to lose by cutting off the French? In my opinion, nothing. Quite the opposite. Google would soon have a perfect example why a foreign government shouldn't do insipid things like that. Useful for parading in front of the next would be power grabber.

What does the French have to gain by invoking a new law and Google cutting them off? They lose power because they were seen as inconsequential. The newssites lose readers which means they lose profit. I'm not seeing the real win here for the French politicians or the newssites. Oh, they can stand on principal. They've done that before. But that won't stop the huge internal pressures for the French politicians to redact the law. It would be a hell fire for the politicians that plunged their population into the internet stone age.

There's power and there's wanna be power. Guess who has which?

Re:Looks like a train wreck in the making... (2)

Idaho (12907) | about 2 years ago | (#41702581)

Of course they're not that dense.

This is all about getting the government to help you put your hand in the next guy's pocket.

Re:Looks like a train wreck in the making... (1)

gadget junkie (618542) | about 2 years ago | (#41702675)

Google isn't reading the newssites. The general public is reading the newssites.

Google is helping them by sending more readers. They really think that they get that service for free?

Are they really that dense?

I expect Google to flip that switch off when the law is passed.

Yes. Or at least, they have a "politician solution", let me amplify.
the content providers talking heads go to their IT department and say "Google is making a killing selling ads on news searches in which we're in. I want some of that money coming our way!" ..."Well, we could make a free abstract, and put the articles behind a paywall." ...."No. if the abstract is good, the article won't be bought, and if it's lousy, the article won't be bought. And I want to sell Yearly subscriptions, not case-by-case articles; my shareholders value them more."......"I do not have any solution then."..

US fork:"Fine, I am off to the golf course then."

French fork:."Fine. I'll go to the minister and see what we can do".

Now the minister has two course of action available: send these people off saying "it's the economy, stupid", or.....
"Wait a minute. If it does not work, the only people damaged, in a sense, are these people clamouring for it in my anteroom. They'd hardly come calling out in public that it was my fault, because A. they'd asked for it in the first place, and B. this measure is a gross distortion of objective realities, but they had it wrong first, and any French minister knows that no public figure will EVER admit that a plan of his was botched from the start, let alone someone as public as a newspaper editor. And who knows, maybe there will be some money coming the government's way."

Re:Looks like a train wreck in the making... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702795)

Google is helping them by sending more readers. They really think that they get that service for free?

So consider wikipedia. What if Google couldn't display any results for wikipedia but Bing could? Basically every search on everything has a wikipedia link in the first page. If Google couldn't show wikipedia but Bing could, Bing would have a huge advantage.

Sounds like Google is the one that's getting the service for free now, doesn't it?

Re:Looks like a train wreck in the making... (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#41702941)

Google is making money from indexing their sites. The newspapers believe that without them, Google will be substantially less competitive, and so feel they can extort Google for a cut if the money it makes from their information.

Perhaps they're wrong, so Google can stop indexing the newspapers. If, however, indexing French newspapers is considered an important requirement for web users, and their rivals offer that functionality, then Google will suffer and their rival will benefit.

This is just a pissing match between media giants.

Just do it... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 2 years ago | (#41702489)

they'll soon come crawling back...

Government != people (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702511)

Please stop saying "the French" and say "the French government" instead.

Being governed by incompetent morons doesn't make us so.

Re:Government != people (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702529)

Being governed by incompetent morons doesn't make us so.

Actually, it does.

Re:Government != people (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702665)

By your logic, Americans are all incompetent morons.

Re:Government != people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702767)

Not all, but the majority (and hence the country as a whole), yes! I would not use the exact adjectives mentioned above, I wouldnt call Americans in generally incompetent, but morons yes.
I also believe that the first step in getting the country better is recognizing that, we are not exactly number one.

Re:Government != people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702877)

Actually, they are.

Re:Government != people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702541)

Tell that to the Amuricans!

Re:Government != people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702563)

Don't take the mindless French bashing that's going on here too seriously, the people around here seem quite butthurt at... something French? I don't know what.

Regarding this news, groups of companies bullying each other through government lobbying, news at eleven.

Re:Government != people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702715)

They're just bitter at all the assistance they received from France when creating their own country out from under the British. They don't get taught about Lafayette or the amount of munitions and money they received. []

All they get taught is that France owes them for WWII and that they are snooty and should be trivialized.

Re:Government != people (1)

lxs (131946) | about 2 years ago | (#41702593)

Who voted for these particular incompetent morons into power? Your incompetent morons are a product of your society and culture, just as the incompetent morons that rule me are a product of my society and culture. As horrible as it seems, they are a part of us.

Re:Government != people (2)

SeeSchloss (886510) | about 2 years ago | (#41702605)

Have you missed the part where this laws doesn't exist and it's just a bunch of companies trying to get the government to write it? And another company trying to get the government not to write it. What does it have to do yet with the incompetent morons who were voted into power? We can talk again once the law actually exists (which won't happen).

Re:Government != people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702739)

Please stop saying "the French" and say "the French government" instead.

Being governed by incompetent morons doesn't make us so.

I have to second that. The current administration is the worst in decades. In my lifetime, definitely, and possibly going as far back as the last moments of the defunct 4th republic.

They mind blowingly suck. Even their long time supporters are starting to have trouble finding excuses, to the tone of: "they are not incompetent, they are just beginners" (definitely NOT reassuring). Others who voted for the incumbent president (some of them close friends) just "don't want to talk about French politics any more" (looks like it's less fun for them when it's not about saying all sorts of nasty crap about the former president Sarkozy...).

But somehow, and in a strange way, fortunately, this administration are also a bunch of cowards, who have already backed out of a couple of measures unpopular with remarkably small but vocal lobbies. So I don't doubt they will yield again on that one.

I am very worried about the state of France when these clowns get kicked out (even though I haven't lived in my home country for years I am still caring).

Re:Government != people (5, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41702947)

"Every country has the government it deserves (Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite) "

-- Joseph de Maistre

Genius in France? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702519)

Adios France!

No one drives Renault's except in France anyway.

Cross Reference Weird Al Yankovic - Genius in France.mp3.

Let them burn (-1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41702537)

France shot itself in the head awhile ago, it's just taking awhile for it to die. They allowed such a massive influx of immigrants in such a short time that they're now struggling to maintain any sense of cultural identity... and when you couple that with exceptionally high rates of unemployment and a lackluster economy, it's just a matter of time before "french" culture slips under the waves.

They're trying with the language police, trying to legislate their way back to having a cultural identity... doing whatever they can to show they still have some influence. Even now, they threaten Google hoping that agreeing will show they still have some -- but it's a gamble. If Google decides France isn't worth it, if they call their bluff, then a formerly mighty nation will have been turned away by a company that wasn't really even on the map 10 years ago.

I wish them luck, I mean I really do... but... they're playing from a position of weakness. I have my doubts they even have enough influence left in them to convince an internet search provider to help them. This isn't a case of France surrendering... this is a case of France being dead broke, financially, economically, and culturally.

Re:Let them burn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702683)

It's going to take France a decade or more to undo the damage that Mitterra... er... Hollande is doing. They did the same thing to themselves in '81. Once a generation they elect another hard core lefty and have to relearn the lesson. That's how it goes when you train your citizens from birth to be entitled malcontents.

Google's Biz Model (0)

blarkon (1712194) | about 2 years ago | (#41702557)

Google's Biz Model is to slap advertisements on content that other people create. Google makes a stink ton of money doing this. Just because Google has *indexed* the content doesn't some how give them the right to profit from that content (as they do) and not give the creators a cut. Google does not want to cut the creators a share of the money that Google earns by appropriating that original content. As usual they'll scream about it "breaking the internet" - but paying creators part of the profit that Google makes from indexing the content that other people generated really does is break Google's biz model.

Re:Google's Biz Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702597)

Actually they slap advertisements on search results they generate. News aggregation in this case. They actually pay content creators that display google's ads on their content.

Re:Google's Biz Model (3, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#41702635)

Personally I'm on the fence with this one. On one hand, if there was functional competition in searching market, and one company delisted sites hence reducing quality of service, people would flock to competitors and site would lose. Unfortunately google does in fact have a de facto (and at least according to some EU organs de jure) monopoly on search.

On the other hand, while being a monopoly isn't illegal, it does apply heavy limits to what you can do. For example, leveraging your monopoly to get better terms is often illegal. This is a clear-cut case of monopoly leveraging to strong-arm the media outlets. Granted, google is making a killing from its business model and is unlikely to be willing to part with a cut of a cake, especially considering that if it gives cut to one party, it will likely end up having to give such a cut to everyone. This would demolish google.

Either way, this is a very difficult case to call either way, there's far more to it then meets the eye on the first glance. Both sides have very compelling arguments to bring to the table.

Re:Google's Biz Model (1)

pantaril (1624521) | about 2 years ago | (#41702951)

Either way, this is a very difficult case to call either way, there's far more to it then meets the eye on the first glance. Both sides have very compelling arguments to bring to the table.

I dont' realy see what's difficult about this case. are you suggesting, that google should part with some of it's earnings just becouse he earns too much?

I understand that news creators have it somehow difficult, selling content in on-line environment, where everyone is used to get it for free is indeed serious problem. But the proposed law won't solve anything. On the opposite - it will make the situation for the content creators worse, becaouse google will just stop indexing them at all and number of their readers will drop. It would maybe work if the law forced google to index the content and pay for it as well but i don't think that would be constitutional.

Also, remember that the content creators are offering the content for free. If google stopped making aggregated newd feeds from it, users would just use client side news aggregators (RSS readers).

Re:Google's Biz Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702647)

If you think what google does is so simple - "Indexing" as you call it - why don't you do it yourself and get all the money?

Re:Google's Biz Model (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702651)

I call bullshit. Google doesn't "slap advertisements on content that other people create." Google slaps advertisements on their search pages, which link to content that other people create. Google offers up a number of tools to allow people to avoid Google links to their content. What's happening here is that they want Google to pay them money because Google is making money. However, here's the thing. Since the actual content is still on their servers, if someone wants to actually view the content, they have to go to the non-Google servers. People are welcome to put advertisements there.

Google should tell the French media that Google will be happy to pay a share of advertising revenues to the content holders as soon as the content holders pay Google for linking to their content. Until then, they're delisted. Who needs whom more?

Re:Google's Biz Model (4, Insightful)

whydavid (2593831) | about 2 years ago | (#41702653)

Your marginalizing of Google's role in driving traffic to these websites and making it possible for user's to find content suggests that you have no background in - or even passing familiarity with - the field of information retrieval. Google provides a service, of real value, with very real technical merit, and profits off of that by placing ads on the results page. They are not appropriating content for this beyond that necessary to allow a user to decide whether or not a search result is relevant. Meanwhile, these French news outlets benefit from billions of click-throughs and anyone searching for French-language news benefits from being able to find it quickly. And of course neither the users nor the listed web sites have to pay a penny for this service. There is a good reason these nuts are alone in challenging this business model. Referrals from Google probably make up a huge portion of their web traffic, while searches for French news probably contribute a small fraction of 1% to Google's ad revenue. Let's see how the fallout from this fight affects each party.

Re:Google's Biz Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702819)

Google provides a service

Which you have to opt-out of (and even then their bots keep coming)
All services should be opt-in by default. I don't care how good the service is or what it brings it is just good behaviour/netiquette to assume that not everyone wants what you peddle.

Re:Google's Biz Model (5, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 2 years ago | (#41702719)

Google's Biz Model is to slap advertisements on content that other people create. Google makes a stink ton of money doing this.

And some are just plain green with envy that Google's business model is more-or-less working and theirs hasn't really done so for a while now. This isn't about creator's rights, this is playground-like cries of "not fair!".

Since the first news papers media outlets have taken freely available information then charged for it and wrapped adverts around it in order to pay for the distribution of that information (and making a profit too). Now someone else is playing their game and playing it better than them they are crying foul. Google's adverts are no more wrong then their adverts, issue prices or subscription costs: in both cases someone is profiting from the act of making information easier to access for those who pay (which to my mind is fair enough in both cases).

Just because Google has *indexed* the content doesn't some how give them the right to profit from that content (as they do)

Are you suggesting that they do all that work indexing the content and giving you easy access to it for free? They aren't a charity you know.

Are you saying that news papers should not carry adverts either? Or charge for each issue more than cost price for manufacture and distribution? After all, all they've done is collate a bunch of information and by the same argument that doesn't give them the right to expect to profit from it.

and not give the creators a cut. Google does not want to cut the creators a share of the money that Google earns by appropriating that original content.

With words like "appropriate" you talk like they are pulling a FunnyJunk and taking all the content, deliberately removing attribution & all other links to the original. Google present the headline and perhaps the first sentence or so, along with where they go the news from and a full link to the originating site.

As usual they'll scream about it "breaking the internet" - but paying creators part of the profit that Google makes from indexing the content that other people generated really does is break Google's biz model.

Even if it doesn't break the Internet, it is completely unnecessary and will just add complication and therefore cost. If the news outlets don't want Google to use their content in the manner that Google uses content then they should just ask to be de-listed, or use the facility that already exists in robots.txt to tell Google not to index the content that they wish to keep for themselves. Problem solved. The thing is, this is not what they want: they want to be in Google's index but on their terms, terms that would help them perpetuate their out-of-date business model.

Re:Google's Biz Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702729)

I don't understand this. If I search google news, I get a two sentence abstract and have to click through to the content.

I get less than that when I do a regular web search, the bulk of their service.

Where is the problem here?

Re:Google's Biz Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702749)

That's like saying the phone book should pay the pizza joint for listing their number.

People are searching for something.
Google refers them to a business offering that something and makes some money putting an ad on the side of the referral.
The people find what they were looking for, Google gets some ad money, and the business gets more clients. Everyone wins.

For the business to then say they deserve a cut of Google's ad money is absurd. There is no opportunity cost to 'letting' Google send them more customers.
If they force it, they will simply lose the potential customers as Google refers people somewhere else.

But seeing the reality of that is often hindered by blind (selfish) greed. How dare they benefit from sending people our way, only we should benefit, and never anyone else!

Re:Google's Biz Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702871)

The phone book company does not pay me for the privilege of having my phone number in their book. I can opt out if I don't like it.

Re:Google's Biz Model (4, Insightful)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 2 years ago | (#41702887)

If only there was some way to nicely ask Google not to use a page [] that the content providers could use.

Re:Google's Biz Model (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702987)

Robots.txt only removes links to their content. I think they want to opt out while making sure everyone else is opted out as well so that Google doesn't send traffic to their competition instead.

A moronic law like this would achieve just that.

Re:Google's Biz Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702891)

Google's Biz Model is to slap advertisements on content that other people create. Google makes a stink ton of money doing this. Just because Google has *indexed* the content doesn't some how give them the right to profit from that content (as they do) and not give the creators a cut.

Google does not want to cut the creators a share of the money that Google earns by appropriating that original content. As usual they'll scream about it "breaking the internet" - but paying creators part of the profit that Google makes from indexing the content that other people generated really does is break Google's biz model.

If you are that worried about google making money from your content, why not create a robots.txt file and stop google from having anything to do with you? - All you need to do is create 1 file with 2 lines in it: User-Agent: Googlebot \n Disallow: / - bam, google stops making money from you.

Re:Google's Biz Model (1)

pantaril (1624521) | about 2 years ago | (#41702901)

Just because Google has *indexed* the content doesn't some how give them the right to profit from that content (as they do) and not give the creators a cut.

Why not? The content creators are providing the content for free.

And what about the content creators? shouldn't they give part of their profits to google, who provides free search services for them, driving more readers to their sites and thus increasing their profits?

Au Revoir! (0, Troll)

oldhack (1037484) | about 2 years ago | (#41702573)

Sayonara, froggy asses!

Re:Au Revoir! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702617)

Au Revoir, Shoshanna!

De Gaulle (5, Funny)

surfcow (169572) | about 2 years ago | (#41702611)

"How can anyone govern a nation that has two hundred and forty-six different kinds of cheese?"
  -- Charles De Gaulle

Re:De Gaulle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702645)

Why would anyone want to live in a nation without at least one hundred different kinds of cheese?

Re:De Gaulle (1)

Sperif (1005787) | about 2 years ago | (#41702761)

"In France, one plant civil servants, it will grows taxes" -- Charles De Gaulle

Re:De Gaulle (0)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#41702825)

"This line of crazy thinking is full of holes, Monsieur De Gaulle. It's so simple, it's Emmental [] !"
-- Swiss Cheese Makers

robots.txt (5, Insightful)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 2 years ago | (#41702663)

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

Re:robots.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702845)

robots.txt is more like recommendations/guidelines than actual rules. There is no punishment for breaking them.
Just because you tell it not to index, doesn't mean they don't index, they just don't display what you tell them not to index, but they still harvest the information regardless. If you don't believe me, play around with noindex,index,noarchive in your content and modify the content.. overtime you will find that they will bring up information you told them to not store.

Re:robots.txt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702909)

No it doesn't, grep your webserver logs, you will see that googlebot periodically requests your robots.txt file and if it has User-Agent: Googlebot
Disallow: / it stops there - it doesn't request anything else. I host many sites that I don't want indexed that are just internal company intranets and I can confirm that no, google makes no attempt to index them.

If robots.txt is ignored for you, you should post an article and send a link to Google - I'm sure they will fix it ASAP.

Re:robots.txt (1, Interesting)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 2 years ago | (#41702855)

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

They didn't say they didn't want spiders. Nor did they say they didn't want to be on search engines, they said they wanted to be paid for having their content displayed (even if it is just a sniplet) on another site. Your proposal does not match the circumstances in the slightest.

Re:robots.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702933)

But isn't that fair use? Google News has no ads, and just the beginning of a sentence from the article. Pretty small for me...

Re:robots.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702859)

robots.txt should be a firewall/webserver rule not a recommendation.

I will pay Google to (4, Funny)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#41702685)

remove French news paper content. Seriously just set up a donate link.... WE NEED TO SEE THIS. I got plenty of beer, dope and popcorn ready....

Who's riding on whose back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41702779)

The question whether Google is capitalizing on the content created by others or whether the content creators are benefitted by Google can be easily answered by answering two simple questions:

1. If there was no Google, would people still use (read) sites that provide different contents to them, and would the latter be able to make money?
2. If there was no content, would people still use Google (search for anything on the web), and would Google be able to make any money at all?

Now you know who's getting a free ride on whose back, and who should be obliged to pay a majority cut from its revenue gained through the symbiotic relationship of search+content to the other party.

search engine pay for access?!?! (1)

l3v1 (787564) | about 2 years ago | (#41702913)

Excuse me, but that's so freaking stupid, that blows all scales of measurement. What do these guys think, how will anyone find their content, if it won't be accessible by search engines? Do they want to go back to pre-search engine times with sites aggregating content sites into categories like a phone book? Go, bury yourselves under a rock and stay there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?