Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

French News Agency Sues Google News

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the media-watchdogs dept.

Google 441

n1ywb writes "CNN and others are reporting that 'News agency Agence France Presse has sued Google Inc., alleging the Web search leader includes AFP's photos, news headlines and stories on its news site without permission. The French news service is seeking damages of at least $17.5 million and an order barring Google News from displaying AFP photographs, news headlines or story leads, according to the suit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.' This means they're suing in America this time, not France, which means Google might actually care if they lose."

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

Even Google is not above the law. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984434)

Read the subject.

Congratulations (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984595)

A completely content free post.

And after the filters, a first post too!

Amazing.

Reading it is like eating cotton candy... at first you think there's something there, then its gone and you realize it never had content in the first place.

AFP will be the ones to lose (5, Insightful)

Tet (2721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984435)

Even if they're successful, AFP will be the losers here. Why can't people see that far from stealing their customers, Google drives visitors to their sites? By removing themselves from Google, all AFP will do is reduce their number of visitors, and hence the overall value of their site. This is particularly strange as AFP sells subscription based premium content, which isn't available to the masses anyway. Thus the only parts of the site that Google will be able to index are the loss leaders that they use to try and entice people to subscribe. As a business, I'd have thought you'd want that content to be made available to a wider audience at no extra cost to you...

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (2, Interesting)

pbranes (565105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984453)

Exactly they are shooting themselves in the foot. This is just like Apple suing their fan base, and other companies suing sites for deep linking - all of this merely reduces their fan base and reduces their advertisement dollars - they are the losers.

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984483)

Exactly they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Yes, and neither can a baboon. So what?

This is just like Apple suing their fan base

Ermm, with that kind of attitude, it will not stay your current job for long...

and other companies suing sites for deep linking -

Then do, instead of looking for silly excuses!

all of this merely reduces their fan base

Not the same way as with IE, for sure. But that doesn't mean it is impossible. At our site, we use a perl-based configuration file generator to achieve the same goal. And once set up, it's not really that difficult to use!

and reduces their advertisement dollars -

Well, we've build a web front-end for our config-file generator, so that's click of a button too. Even a baboon could use it!

they are the losers.

Remote administration has been standard in Unix since what... 1969? Welcome to the real world, latecomer! Yes, indeed, Microsoft are the losers!

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984563)

Exactly they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Wouldn't shooting a baboon in its foot violate the "cruelty against animals" statutes?

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (0, Troll)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984566)

Apple is suing their fan base? Wow, that's news to me! Could you give me some details on this? I've been using Macs since the early 90s; should I keep my eyes open for a process server?

Or were you referring to Apple suing Fiona Apple for trademark infringement [divisiontwo.com] ?

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984605)

Well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so obviously the people breaking their NDAs on projects Apple hasn't released yet must be huge Apple fans, for doing the industrial espionage to let everyone else imitate Apple that much quicker!

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (5, Interesting)

ccady (569355) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984460)

I'll play the devil's advocate: If you had a product, wouldn't you want to be able to control where it is advertised? Pretend you don't like Google, and think that it presents your product in a bad light (those tiny little images and all, right next to competitors' images.) Shouldn't you have a right to tell them to remove the ad?

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (1)

pbranes (565105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984509)

I differ in opinion with you. Can a company force gamespot.com to down a negative review of their game? No. Can a company force cnn.com to not report bad news about them? No. It's freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984548)

I differ in opinion with you.

Who cares? Apart from the baboon?

Can a company force gamespot.com to down a negative review of their game?

Well, I guess it won't stay your job for too long then, hehe.

No.

Yes. Yes, do install it. Rather than looking for silly excuses!

Can a company force cnn.com to not report bad news about them?

Not the same way as with IE, for sure. But that doesn't mean it is impossible. At our site, we use a perl-based configuration file generator to achieve the same goal. And once set up, it's not really that difficult to use!

No.

Yes. With the web-based front-end that we built for our config-file generator, it's only click of a button too. Even a baboon could use it!

It's freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Remote administration has been standard in Unix since what... 1969? Welcome to the real world, latecomer!

Dear Moderator... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984593)

I see you have some mod points. Would you be so kind of applying them to this comment [slashdot.org] , which is in dire need of 6 (six!) full Redundant moderations. I know that you only have five (sorry, 4...), but it would already be a good start, and lead by example.

Thanks.

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (1)

ccady (569355) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984553)

It will come down to that. Is Google news really a review? I don't think so--it is a small size picture and the first few lines of the article. There is no "review" content that is being generated. And the only reason Google is doing that is to drive traffic through the Google site.

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (5, Insightful)

Surazal (729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984518)

Fair use allows Google to do Google News in the first place. Sure, some people may *want* that control. That doesn't mean they automatically get it. Also, Google News does not have ads, check for yourself: yourself [google.com]

It's that kind of thinking that got SCO in its current position. I honestly don't think AFP has a chance on this one. That's my personal opinion. :^)

Disclaimer: I am not a blah blah blah...

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (5, Insightful)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984573)

I'm not at all positive that fair use applies.

It's not personal use; it's being redistributed to the whole world.

It's not editorial use, because Google isn't writing -about- the articles.

It's not educational use, because there's no broader educational context in which Google can claim to be using this for teaching or research purposes.

And it's commercial, because they're using this to get viewers to access their other services which DO have advertising, as eyeballs are their business model.

But it ignores the obvious (5, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984623)

When you attach your web server to the internet, you're letting everyone look at it.

Part of that process is that people will look at it, classify it and judge it.

It inherent in attaching a web server. If you don't like it, the best thing to do is unplug the ethernet cable from your web server, and tell people to dial directly (or through Minitel) to your server, because you feel that putting it on the internet places you in a difficult position.

I don't see how you can have it both ways...they want wide exposure, so they place it in the most public place on the planet, then they complain that it isn't viewed in precisely the way they envisioned.

I really don't understand the beef.

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (5, Insightful)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984642)

robots.txt?

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984465)

Well, we all know how the French fight wars...we shouldn't expect any different.

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (0, Troll)

cotyx (699460) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984624)

by Anonymous Coward.... Well, we all know how the French fight wars...we shouldn't expect any different. Im sure you got some french blood inside your body.

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (4, Informative)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984470)

Some people are stupid. AFP seems to be stupid.

However, the CNN article does state that AFP asked to be removed from Google News and that Google did not remove them, thus the lawsuit.

AFP's prime business isn't their web site (2, Insightful)

no parity (448151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984485)

They're a press agency, selling content to newspapers, and -- tada -- web sites. Of course they're not happy about google taking what they sell, for free.

Re:AFP's prime business isn't their web site (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984611)

But google just has headlines and links. To read the story you have to go to an AFP authorized news site.

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (2, Informative)

zemoo (582445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984486)

AFP is like the AP and Reuters in that they are a News Agency, not a news outlet. They primarily sell their content to other outlets, such as CNN. Having individuals directly read their content is simply not important.

Re:AFP will be the ones to lose (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984517)

I think you got that wrong. AFP doesn't have a "news site" to speak of. AFP licenses its stuff to OTHER news sites, but keeps the copyright. Google links to site X. This is advantageous to site X, we agree, but AFP gets to decide whether it's advantageous to THEM as they own the copyright.

NAH! (0, Troll)

xcfx (844022) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984438)

naha, first post! Oh, and by the way what the fuck is going on? suddenly suing is the "shiznit"

Security! Security! (5, Insightful)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984439)

AFP sells subscriptions to its content and does not provide it free. Google News gathers photos and news stories from around the Web and posts them on its news site, which is free to users.

If Agence France Presse didn't want people to view their content for free... ...why didn't they properly lock it down?

It's not like Google's impersonating a paid user account to get the information!

Re:Security! Security! (2, Insightful)

ccady (569355) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984497)

One word: Copyright. It doesn't matter that I let people see it: it's the right to make a copy that's being enforced here.

Re:Security! Security! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984515)

One word: Copyright. It doesn't matter that I let people see it: it's the right to make a copy that's being enforced here.

Bloggers are non-profit, just like Google News. They quote other news stories all the time - and mostly without attributing them to their source, unlike Google News. So why aren't they being clamped down on?

Re:Security! Security! (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984621)

One, there are a bloody lot of them and it's not worth the time to go after any unless they're very high profile.

Two, the wire services are different from most news providers in that there business does not depend primarily on eyeballs driven to their site, but instead subscriptions from other news services to be allowed to redistribute their content -- the right that Google is partly appropriating for free. The NYT cares about end-user eyeballs, but Reuters, AFP, AP and UPI care about newspaper editors.

Three, in various countries such as the United States merely quoting small excerpts for the purposes of editorial commentary may be protected. It's treated a lot differently than providing excerpts with NO comment or other treatment. Mere aggregation, IIRC, is not protected.

Re:Security! Security! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984645)

Because you're not going to be able to get 17.5 million dollars from a private individual.

Re:Security! Security! (1)

no parity (448151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984500)

And I thought we'd left that "if it's on the internet, anyone can use it for any purpose" crap behind at least 5 years ago...

Re:Security! Security! (2, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984533)

That is very funny, that all they have to do is drop Googlebot requests. Instead they go to court!

Re:Security! Security! (5, Insightful)

Keruo (771880) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984550)

from AFP website:

Copyright:
©AFP 2005 . All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of contents from this website for personal and non-commercial use only, provided they do not remove any copyright, trademarks or other proprietary notices. Except as provided above, users may not reproduce, publish, sell, distribute or in any way commercially exploit contents from this website without the prior written consent of AFP. AFP and its logo are registered trademarks.

I think that locks it down properly. Google just violated their copyright by reproducing and publishing their content without consent.

Re:Security! Security! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984577)

I think that locks it down properly. Google just violated their copyright by reproducing and publishing their content without consent.

Well then, AFP better go after every blogger that ever quoted them, as well.

Re:Security! Security! (1)

nukeindia.com (463153) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984625)

Google just violated their copyright by reproducing and publishing their content without consent.

Google neither reproduced nor published their content. They simply put a link on their website pointing to the original content on the AFP site.

You're right, but... (1)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984628)

I concede the legal point about copyright, which is what the whole lawsuit is about. That part of it is pretty cut-and-dried. However, that's not my main concern. One of the points the the article (though not necessarily AFP itself) seems to make is that AFP wants its content to only be able to paying customers. Unless that content is locked down on a technical level, this objective is dead. Several companies, amazingly, still have not realized just how easy the Internet has made the dissemination of information. Heck, even with paid user accounts, it's all too easy for someone to copy, paste, and reproduce, either privately or commercially. Obviously the ease does not justify the act from a legal standpoint, but it nevertheless presents a logistical reality that companies need to take into account when making any sort of information available online.

Re:Security! Security! (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984637)

Whoopdie-doo. Just because the AFP website makes some demands doesn't mean it's the law.

AFP is the Fox News of France (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984448)

I read their stories on Yahoo, and I can tell an AFP headline from that of a reputable source every time.

I guess the French... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984450)

... are still a little touchy about such [tcnj.edu] things [archives.gov]

Re:I guess the French... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984596)

Add no sense of humour and in denial about the sins of the past to that list.

Don't go there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984451)

ROBOT.TXT

Re:Don't go there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984462)

Actually, they do disallow all robots: http://www.afp.com/robots.txt

Re:Don't go there! (1)

sboss (13167) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984506)

but when did they put that up? they probably put it up after the lawsuit started or literally imediately prior.

Re:Don't go there! (4, Informative)

xiando (770382) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984527)

Looking at http://www.afp.com/robots.txt which looks like:
User-Agent: *
Disallow: /beta
Disallow: /francais/news
Disallow: /english/news
I find it very strange that they do not disallow the entire site if they mind Googles robot finding and showing their news... I would understand them being upset if Google ignored or disrespected their robots file, but it does look very much like they are suing them for doing something they allow?

Re:Don't go there! (2, Informative)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984528)

If you read the robots.txt file, you'll see they block english/news, but the headlines, and part of the story leads (which the news agency is sueing them for displaying) are presented on their main page, above the english/news subdirectories. They didn't disallow search engines to crawl that main page in the robots.txt file, therefore it is fair game. The images might be questionable, but most of the suit looks like garbage.

Re:Don't go there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984567)

Wait, so you're saying because they didn't say you couldn't take it, it's fair game? You didn't tell me not to kill you, thus your life is fair game.

*grabs rifle* The hunt is on.

Boycott France! (-1, Redundant)

tscrum (829068) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984455)

The truth in the matter might be that they only built their network out for those wearing cheeky glasses and surfing on low bandwidth cell phones to read their news. In an attempt to stop the virtual DOS attack from new Google users they're suing.

It is ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984457)

first post

Google's public now. Lawyers smell blood. (4, Informative)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984468)

Now that Google's a publicly traded company flush with cash, many potential litigants are smelling blood.

Google is both suing and being sued by so many parties now it's hard to keep track, as a search on Google will show. [google.com]

One of the cases involving images.google.com [itvibe.com] appears to me to be more of a publicity stunt by the plaintiff.

I think we can expect more such lawsuits.

Damages? (5, Interesting)

SteveXE (641833) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984472)

What Damages? Google doesnt make a cent off Google news. All Google does is provide a blurb and a link, if the user is interested they click the link and go to the originating website. How is that possibly bad?

Re:Damages? (1)

rastakid (648791) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984542)

What Damages? Google doesnt make a cent off Google news.

Hahahaha, nice troll, I'll bite. What about the Google ads? Do you think the companies advertised there get that service for free?

Re:Damages? (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984581)

Actually, Google news is still in "beta" and it has been for a long time, so they don't actually sell ads. People speculate that one of the reasons that Google news has been in beta for so long is they don't know how they would work the copyright issue if they were a commercial service.....

Re:Damages? (1)

SteveXE (641833) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984583)

There are no google ads on google news, try again.

Re:Damages? (1)

Predathar (658076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984584)

there are no adds on news.google.com, at least none that I see.

Re:Damages? (1)

deathazre (761949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984589)

wow. never mind the fact that news.google.com doesn't have any ads on it.

Re:Damages? (1)

rastakid (648791) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984613)

And do you all think that it will stay that way for ever? Remember Gmail's POP3 release? They said: "This service is free, for now.".

The problem is that too many Slashdotters don't see Google as a commercial company. Sure it's great that they take OpenSource seriously. Sure it's great that they are trying to outdo Microsoft. But they are still a company and they still want to make a profit.

If Google News comes out of beta it wouldn't surprise me if the page would include google ads.

Re:Damages? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984644)

If Google News comes out of beta it wouldn't surprise me if the page would include google ads.

Quite possibly, yes. However, I'm not aware of many jurisdictions in the USA where it's possible to successfully sue someone for something they might possibly one day do. Normally, if you want damages, it's considered polite to wait for someone to damage you first, right?

Re:Damages? (1)

cbr2702 (750255) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984634)

There are no ads on the "news" page.

Re:Damages? (2, Insightful)

PktLoss (647983) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984544)

Google's income, or lack there of, is irrelevant. If you steal my car, and let all your friends drive it for free, but by doing so prevent me from going to work I can sue you for damages, my lost wages.

What is important is the preceived lost income by AFP, not Google's possible income by replicating the news.

A possible leverage point for litigation may be if AFP photos were being used beside a headline from another news source. In which case AFP may argue (and IMHO rightfully so) that their photography enticed the user to investigate the story, but they were not the recipiants of the revenue generating click.

Re:Damages? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984582)

Nobody is stealing anything, what is wrong with you simpletons?

Re:Damages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984603)

The use of copyrighted materials without permission, except where there is a case for fair use, is potentially rather naughty, though.

Re:Damages? (2, Insightful)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984633)

You analogy is invalid. Google isnt depriving the French news site of its stories.

A better analogy would be that you are an auto rental firm, and Google is telling people that ask that you have the cars they are interested in, and to contact you to rent cars from you. How could this possible be undesirable to you?

In essence they are getting free advertising from Google. Google should apoligize for not charging them, send them a bill, and stop returning hits/links to their news site until the bill is paid.

Re:Damages? (1)

SteveXE (641833) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984606)

Google makes no money on Google news, there are no paid click throughs and no google ads, damn people get your facts straight.

Most web-litigious country? (0, Troll)

spaeschke (774948) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984478)

Does France keep Johnny Cochrane on speed-dial for all things web related, or is it just that they get reported on more?

They've gone after Yahoo, Google (multiple times now), and even taken swings at that incarnation of evil; Project Gutenberg. This has got to be the SCO of nation-states.

Nuke France. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984479)

Just get it over with.

Re:Nuke France. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984630)

AFP pictures on Yahoo! too (2, Interesting)

netdur (816698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984481)

see it [yahoo.com]
one of two, Yahoo! took it legal or France hates google

Why can't they be unlisted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984484)

Why can't they unlist themselves like on the regular Google search engine? If google is forcing their content to be on there, I personally have a problem with that.

robots.txt (1, Redundant)

n0dalus (807994) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984487)

Google's indexes the web.
If you have a problem with that, put a robots.txt file on your site. Google even explains how to do that in it's own help pages.
This is all just a publicity stunt.

Re:robots.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984512)

They disallow ALL robots in their robots.txt file. View it yourself: http://www.afp.com/robots.txt [afp.com]

Next time, think before you speak.

Re:robots.txt (1)

ebrandsberg (75344) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984635)

Ah yes, but the news sites that post their articles don't blacklist. As it was pointed out, the AFP stories and photos. In addition, they don't restrict all directories, just some, and from what I can tell, those are honored.

Re:robots.txt (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984540)

Legally speaking, there is absolutely no reason why I should have to put a robots.txt file on my site to keep my copyrighted information from being illegally duplicated by Google.

Or would you like to have to put a police.txt file on your door to prevent arbitrary search and seizure?

The search engines need a blacklist (3, Insightful)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984488)

MSN, Yahoo and Google need to blacklist any company that sues them over something this stupid from ever being returned favorably in their results again. There is no reason that this French company's news should be returned now when any source from the U.S., Canada, Britain, Germany, etc. is availible on the same topic.

Re:The search engines need a blacklist (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984496)

If any search engine censors ANY results, instantly they become an unreliable search engine. As who knows what else they would censor.

Re:The search engines need a blacklist (1)

hazee (728152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984636)

Then they'd probably get sued for *not* including them...

Why would you attack Google? (4, Interesting)

xiando (770382) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984489)

Perhaps I am stupid or ignorant, but I still do not get why corporations figure it is bad for them to be promoted by Google and their services. It is not like Google shows the entire article, them linking sites and showing headlines has only one effect: People learn about the sites they show and click the links, meaning the news agency gets more visits and therefore more money. Isn't cutting off your major biggest referrer kind of shooting yourself in the foot?

NOTE: News agency != News site (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984502)

Please note the difference between a "news agency" and a "news site"!

It's not trivial to filter out press reports from a news agency.

News agencies sell their raw-stories to news sites. Google can easily remove a news site from their news index, but excluding some articles from a news agency appearing on various news sites is difficult...

IANAL, but don't news agencies and aggregators (2, Informative)

EggyToast (858951) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984505)

have numerous laws set up to explicitly avoid such situations?

Maybe I've been misled, but when a news agency publishes a story, that story can be used and published by others as long as the source is cited. Google cites all of their sources, links to the original source, and essentially are providing pre-search engine usefulness. They're collecting news that people are interested in or has general appeal and displaying it like they would a search, and there's already numerous laws that state it doesn't violate copyright to index information like that.

More importantly, if this lawsuit goes to court, EVERY online news aggregator would be forced to stop, and it would likely have repercussions for all major news agencies. CNN's stories are only about 1/3 CNN's -- the rest are pulled from other sources, AFAIK. How many times have you read a story somewhere and it says at the top "REUTERS" or "AP WIRE" ?

Ultimately it wouldn't surprise me if Google has this case dismissed under the grounds that Google is not providing the news, rather is simply providing an index of different news sources.

Re:IANAL, but don't news agencies and aggregators (2, Interesting)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984555)

CNN and your local newspaper most likely subscribe to the wire services and have a deal that permits redistribution.

If Google does not, then by providing excerpts for a non-editorial, non-educational, and rather commercial purpose they may be unfairly infringing.

Re:IANAL, but don't news agencies and aggregators (1)

EggyToast (858951) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984591)

As stated above, there are no ads on google news, so Google is running the service at a loss. How much of a loss is unknown, but as it is, Google News is essentially "google" for news. That may sound obvious, but if this suit sees the actual courtroom, how is the news service different from Google's regular searches?

Re:IANAL, but don't news agencies and aggregators (1)

mellonhead (137423) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984622)

I thought companies like CNN paid Reuters and AP to use their content.

Sigh... (3, Insightful)

kclittle (625128) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984507)

Another example of the growing and insidious meme "since digitial information is so easy to steal, it must be OK to do so".

Uh, it's not.

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984559)

In what way is google indexing news stories depriving anybody of anything?

Uh, you're a moron!

Re:Sigh... (1)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984601)

Steal? What steal? They are helping to direct visitors to the french news site. Presumably, the site wants visitors (if it doesnt, why does it exist?)

People scheme and scheme of ways to get their site into results returned by Google. It boggles the imagination why anyone would sue for getting for free what so many are willing to go to great lengths to get.

France bashing (1, Troll)

doudou42 (691076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984513)

Only 15 replies and 5 criticizing France or french people...
Why so much hate ? This story has nothing to do with countries but with companies !

Do we hear 'America sucks' on every Microsoft or SCO story ?

Please, don't mix anything...

Re:France bashing (-1, Troll)

ticklish2day (575989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984549)

Welcome to /. where hordes of informed geeks post only intellectual arguments and rejoinders.

Re:France bashing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984560)

We hear "Microsoft sucks. Linux r0x0rs!" everytime there is a Microsoft or SCO story. Plenty of hate.

How is this different from /.? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984522)

Have there been any cases where someone has been able to keep one site from linking to another? I seem to remember someone suing on that basis but I don't remember hearing the verdict.

SEO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984535)

You'd think France had seen a /. article on SEO's or something, they've now got 3 out of 6 of the news stories that show up when I visit google news...

Go chines...french politicians!

Sick and tired of these law suits (0, Troll)

Rac3r5 (804639) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984541)

Why is it that everytime someone in France decides to sue Google. If I were google, I would just say shove it, no more business with you France. Toodles...

Re:Sick and tired of these law suits (1)

doudou42 (691076) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984569)

This has nothing to do with France...
Business is business, whatever the country...
The fact that there are some lawsuits involving french companies may only be the proof that there are french companies!
Just try to see how many lawsuits there are between US companies...

Re:Sick and tired of these law suits (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984604)

and show that Google thinks they have monopoly power and are ready and willing to abuse it?

Napoleonic Code (1, Troll)

putko (753330) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984551)

Continental Europe has a legal code derived from the Napoleonic code.

It is particularly irrational and inflexible, and nowhere near as abstract as English Common Law.

E.g. people in Continental Europe need to carry ID papers with them when in public. Cops can stop you and interrogate you -- because. The law says you are free, but you better carry ID. And watch your mouth (you might break the law).

Thanks Napoleon!

So it is entirely "reasonable", to the mind of a Continental European, that a respectable media company like AFP can sue to stop some upstart from doing something novel and innovative, just because technology allows it -- the law is inherently pro-status quo.

In Germany, a British retailer dared to have a sale. This was deemed illegal -- the state argued (on behalf of the German retailers) that the temporary nature of the sale would COMPEL Germans to buy more stuff. Really it was just that German retailers can't compete with Anglo-retailer Kung Fu, and the state was happy to do their bidding, with the result that the German consumer lost out.

Re:Napoleonic Code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984592)

What planet are you from, mate?

can't we just like nuke france? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984602)

i fucking hate the french

Fuck that noise. (1)

zecg (521666) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984616)

Putting aside whether AFP has the right to control who aggregates their content, where and how it is displayed, this is just idiocy.
It's just another chapter in the constant war between the forces who would lock content down, draw users to their sites and than burn down all semantic bridges, against the very nature of the Internet. Connectedness, restructuring and copying information is here to stay. We can cry about companies who are losing money because they are selling information, but that does not mean that anyone can help them at this point. Their current business models are almost dead at this point.

Case will already be over. (4, Informative)

DarkMantle (784415) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984627)

There was a similar case shortly after the birth of the www. Site "A" sued Site "B" for quoting part of thier website and linking to it if readers wanted to read more. Imagine the horror, one site linking to another.

Anyway, the court decided it was not Copyright infringement because the original source was provided and given full credit, and some other factors.

Nothing to see here

Is it time to Nuke France? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11984629)

The last good thing to come out of France was mayonnaise.

the GTFO option (2, Funny)

justins (80659) | more than 9 years ago | (#11984638)

Why is google still doing business in France anyway? With the recent lawsuits the most reasonable option seems to be to blacklist the entire country. Let them use msn and suffer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?