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!

Newspaper Lobbyists Take Aim at Google News

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the get-off-of-our-lawn dept.

Google 331

Hitokiri writes "Now that Google News is out of beta the newspaper publishers are starting to take notice. It's important to note that no legal action has taken place yet, but still, there seems to be a battle on the horizon." From the article: "'They're building a new medium on the backs of our industry, without paying for any of the content,' Ali Rahnema, managing director of the association, told Reuters in an interview. 'The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article -- it's for the courts to decide whether that's a copyright violation or not.'"

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

Fair Use (5, Insightful)

elbenito69 (868244) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611232)

I'd call it fair use, advertising for the news sources even, but of course I'm probably biased because Google News is just so damn convienent.

Re:Fair Use (4, Funny)

rmoehring (949487) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611245)

Quiet down and pay for the rights to see the same AP or Reuters article on 200 different web sites. It's the Capitalist way.

Re:Fair Use (3, Insightful)

grogdamighty (884570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611252)

Yeah, I fail to see how this is really any different from a newstand: headlines and teasers are used to lure you to the publisher's website. Why complain about free advertising?

Re:Fair Use (5, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611282)

I'd tell the newspapers to be careful of what they ask for - they might just end up getting it:
'The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article -- it's for the courts to decide whether that's a copyright violation or not.'"

Don't be surprised if at least quoting the first few lines ends up being fair use. Besides, how do they expect their own online content to be seen if it isn't indexed - google could charge them instead of doing it for free. Its not like I'm going to go and find all these news items on my own.

Re:Fair Use (5, Insightful)

sirnuke (866453) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611430)

I wonder if the newspapers have considered that a majority of Google News reader probably won't go to their site unless the user see an interesting article on google news? Why pay for advertising when you can get someone else to do it for you for free?

Re:Fair Use (1)

Buzz_Litebeer (539463) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611568)

What they should do is put a policy that if a site does not like their content to be indexed, then google will remove it. If they want their content re-indexed at a later date, it will cost them a 10000 dollar maintanence fee.

Robots.txt (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611330)

The internet has ways that the news companies can use if they don't want Google crawling them.
By not stopping Google by using the standard mechanism, I'd agree that it is fair use for Google to use the data they provide.

Re:Robots.txt (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611593)

And not just Google. A properly formed robots.txt will let any search engine worth its salt know how you want the site to be treated.

Re:Fair Use (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611398)

I would think that the newspaper sites are getting more visits because of Google News. Perhaps Google can start extorting money from them if they want hits coming from Google. Let's face it, there are several other news outlets that Google can use and therefor send browsers their way.

Re:Fair Use (1, Informative)

rodentia (102779) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611432)


The relevant statute -- United States Copyright law of 1976 [17 USC 107]:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USC sects 106, 106A] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


There is a real question of law here, but I consider that there is a case against Google. Indexing does not fall into any of the protected classes of use, has obvious commercial value and a clear, negative effect upon the value of the copyrighted work.

Re:Fair Use (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611563)

There is a real question of law here, but I consider that there is a case against Google. Indexing does not fall into any of the protected classes of use, has obvious commercial value and a clear, negative effect upon the value of the copyrighted work.

The courts have already ruled that Google cache qualifies under this, and have ruled a system nearly identical to Google images is fair use. Providing a thumbnail and a few sentences so that people can find something is almost certainly fair use in keeping with existing precedent. That is why no one has bothered to sue them over it.

Re:Fair Use (1)

gid13 (620803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611605)

I thought it was in beta so long because it DIDN'T have obvious commercial value. If the commercial value is so obvious, how does Google News make money? Also, wouldn't providing such a service potentially bring more viewers to the news site, thus increasing the value of the copyrighted work?

Lastly, although you're right that indexing is not covered in what you quoted, perhaps they could argue that their purpose is reporting? Shrug.

What does Beta have to do with anything (4, Insightful)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611247)

Honestly, Just cause google called it beta before and now it doesnt did not change anything legally. They were still open for legal attack just as much then as now (which is yet to be determined) In all likelyhood they have nothing to worry about since they are simply aggregating data and well that is a use under copyright. Newspapers, quite bitching,. most people wouldnt even read your particular site if it werent for google News.

Re:What does Beta have to do with anything (2, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611305)

Because google traditionally takes drops beta when its time to start making REAL money off of it ... expect to see some changes in Google News in the future. Maybe newspapers will have to PAY to be on Google News ...

Copyright violation? (3, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611249)

Last I checked, citing a few lines from a newspaper article had a term: 'fair use'.

Why wait this long? Google News has been running for YEARS, albeit with the 'beta' moniker.

Re:Copyright violation? (5, Informative)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611354)

The fair use doctrine has been described as a murky concept in which it is often difficult to separate the lawful from the unlawful [stanford.edu] .

Also, most fair-use cases [stanford.edu] fall under comment-and-criticism... eg. it's okay to use one image of Homer Simpson on the Homer Simpson Wikipedia page, because that's one way to identify Homer while commenting about him.

Also, fair use says that companies that profit off of other's copyrighted work, and especially companies who diminish the profits of the copyright holders, is unlikely to have a judge rule in their favor.

Re:Copyright violation? (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611429)

Also, fair use says that companies that profit off of other's copyrighted work, and especially companies who diminish the profits of the copyright holders, is unlikely to have a judge rule in their favor.

If you look at Google News, though, you'll see that they don't have any ads in that section - they aren't making any revenue off of it.

Re:Copyright violation? (1)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611453)

Also, fair use says that companies that profit off of other's copyrighted work, and especially companies who diminish the profits of the copyright holders, is unlikely to have a judge rule in their favor.

But Google doesn't profit off of it (yet) and it not only doesn't diminish the profits of the copyright holders, it increases their profits. I certainly go to news sites I never would have in the past because of a link from Google News and eyes on ads is their business model.

Re:Copyright violation? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611485)

"companies who diminish the profits of the copyright holders"

And there's the rub.

How is Google News diminishing the profits of these copyright holders? If anything, it increases the traffic to the site, and so increases their profits.

If anything, a ruling that Google News is illegal would be a Pyrrhic(sp?)victory for the copyright holders - they will maintain strict "control" of their content, but lose revenues by Google not sending traffic their way.

My guess is this is a play to force Google to license the content. This will work as long as they all hang together in a cartel. As soon as the first one lets Google index for free, scads of traffic will be diverted to that site, and the rest of the content holders will come begging tyo Googkle to be included.

Re:Copyright violation? (1)

HairyCanary (688865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611569)

I'd expect Google to freely remove any news site that does not want to be represented on Google News. If they do that, instead of holding out for the news organizations to band together (assuming that would actually occur), then the demonstration will be very quick and to the point. As others have mentioned, I have definitely gone to many news sites via Google News that I would never have bothered going to otherwise.

Re:Copyright violation? (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611388)

Internet Lobbyists Take Aim at Google Search
Hitokiri writes "Now that Google is popular, website publishers are starting to take notice. It's important to note that no legal action has taken place yet, but still, there seems to be a battle on the horizon." From the article: "'They're building a new site on the backs of our hard work, without paying for any of the content,' Ali Rahnema, managing director of the association, told Reuters in an interview. 'The site crawlers are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of a site -- it's for the courts to decide whether that's a copyright violation or not.'"


It's amazing how ridiculous it seems if you just change a couple words. The solution is the same, though. If you don't want to be crawled by Google, don't let Google crawl you! There's a very simple technical fix to this if you don't want it happening.

Oh, but then your competitors still get free advertising from Google? Shit, better make it legal action, then.

Re:Copyright violation? (4, Informative)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611403)

Last I checked, citing a few lines from a newspaper article had a term: 'fair use'.

It depends on the use. Quoting a few lines of a newspaper article in the middle of your own text is clearly protected. Stitching together multiple headlines, photos and first paragraphs to make a freestanding "newspaper" is not, although I don't think Google News rises to that level. At any rate, I'm sure they can afford plenty of attorneys.

The issue is whether the excerpted part loses the overall impact of the whole. The closest ruling that comes to mind is that porn thumbnails were ruled to be sufficiently arousing in their own right that copying them is infringement, not fair use.

Re:Copyright violation? (2, Funny)

guspasho (941623) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611422)

Probably because Google News wasn't news until it came out of beta. Knowing how archaic most newspapers are when it comes to new technology, I bet they had to read about it on Google News.

Re:Copyright violation? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611435)

Yes, but it isn't as simple as that. It's not just about how much is used from a given article, but the nature of the use, and the effect on the market for the original.

3 lines from a newspaper is fair use in most cases. But what about 3 lines from every single article in the newspaper? When you start making a copy of that much of it, it can clearly have an effect on the market. And Google isn't doing this entirely out of the goodness fo their heart. They're a business trying to make money.

Huh? (4, Informative)

saikatguha266 (688325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611251)

I thought the courts did decide: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004344.php [eff.org]

"A district court in Nevada has ruled that the Google Cache is a fair use."

Or does every industry want to file a separate suit asking the court to decide whether caching that industry's content is fair or not?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611268)

Google Cache and Google News are two compltely different things.

Re:Huh? (1)

grungebox (578982) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611318)

This isn't about Google caching newspaper articles, so yes, it's a different issue.

MOD OFFTOPIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611530)

At least read the summary. sheesh.

Who cares? (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611253)

Now if its similar to /. where a few lines from the article is posted in a headline, and a pic I see no reason for a problem should there be a link back to the original story. This generates traffic and possibly new users to your sites. If however said site is trying to plagarize [SIC] a whole story that is very different.

FIRST POST :^) (0, Offtopic)

NetRAVEN5000 (905777) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611259)

No, seriously, though. . .

So Google News is a news portal. So what? Who cares?

Don't they know that that's the whole point of a news portal?

Oops. (0)

NetRAVEN5000 (905777) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611294)

It didn't show the other posts when I first replied. Oh well.

Anyways, it doesn't make any sense to me why they're complaining about Google News being a news portal.

BREAKING HEADLINE!!! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611262)

BREAKING HEADLINE: Newspapers Still Doing Dumb Shit, Continue To Put Selves Out Of Business

Re:BREAKING HEADLINE!!! (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611603)

And it's all the fault of all that P2P news trading.

We need rights management systems for watercoolers.

KFG

Google does as paper does (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611263)

you mean Google is doing what every media outlet has done?
Built a news medium on the backs of other people lives, without paying for any of the content. When was the last time the news reporter payed you after publishing an article reporting your car accident, or that you were being sued.

Re:Google does as paper does (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611458)

Completely agree. In fact... people should sue the media for reporting on them without paying for the content! Then the media should sue Google News for reporting their articles! Then Google News should sue Slashdot for reporting on them! Wooohoo! Make everything louder than everything else! ;-)

Re:Google does as paper does (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611576)

The news outlets are writing up their own articles on specific events. Google news is taking those articles' first few sentences and title and putting them on its site. I don't think there is a problem with that, as long as the news outlets can opt-out. But what Google is doing is different from the other news outlets. Nobody owns the knowledge of a public event, but they can own the words used to describe it.

Am I missing something? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611265)

Am I missing something or doesn't Google News only link to new sites that have free content anyway?

Re:Am I missing something? (3, Funny)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611335)

No, didn't you know? They have a bot which goes onto password protected new sites, bute forces the password, scrapes all the new articles and media, copies it to their Google clusters, reformats the information into pages which decree that the stories have been investigated, reported, and brought to you by Google.

Re:Am I missing something? (2, Insightful)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611586)

"Am I missing something?"

Yes, the ads, you must be using adblocker or something.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611592)

Free? Well, it doesn't cost money, but there are advertisements which aren't transferred to Google News.

I'll remember this statement. (1, Insightful)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611274)

The Paris-based World Association of Newspapers, whose members include dozens of national newspaper trade bodies, said it is exploring ways to "challenge the exploitation of content by search engines without fair compensation to copyright owners."

I'll rmember that the next time I see an article in their papers that's almost verbatim to the Reuters or AP wire feed.

Fucking hypocrites.

Re:I'll remember this statement. (4, Informative)

welcher (850511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611351)

They pay for the Reuters or AP wire - that's how wire services make their money

Re:I'll remember this statement. (1)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611386)

I'll rmember that the next time I see an article in their papers that's almost verbatim to the Reuters or AP wire feed. Fucking hypocrites.

First, AFP more probably. Second, they bought the right to copy it so they are not hypocrites. Google didn't bought that right.

Re:I'll remember this statement. (2, Informative)

undeadly (941339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611463)

First, AFP more probably. Second, they bought the right to copy it so they are not hypocrites. Google didn't bought that right.

In civilized countries the article is clearly marked as comming from a "news" agency lime AP or Reuters. No doubt about it.

Re:I'll remember this statement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611395)

Umm, you do realize that newspapers pay AP and Reuters for the right to print the story, right? So, in fact, the copyright holder is compensated when a newspaper prints a wire service story.

When google publishes part of the newspaper's web site, the paper only has the chance to get compensated if users follow the story link. Personally, I think that's perfectly reasonable. I often click through on Google News links to get to the originating web site. More often than I would visit their site without Google News. I would think most papers should view this as a boon. If not, then they should work out with Google a way to be left out of the program.

Re:I'll remember this statement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611514)

Why? Because they don't want to get left out! They want to be included but have Google pay for the ability to advertise them! You just aren't thinking through a filter of greed.

Re:I'll remember this statement. (1)

grungebox (578982) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611404)

Papers pay to have access to Reuters or AP wire feeds. They aren't free. In that way, the papers are compensating the copyright holders. If Google is listing thesea papers' articles for free without their permission then it's not really hypocricy.

Of course, it's easier to jump the gun and yell at the newspapers. I agree that this lawsuit is not in their best interests as an industry, but your specific point is quite ridiculous.

Re:I'll remember this statement. (1)

RedSteve (690399) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611542)

I have mod points, but I can't find the "terminally clueless" rating. Can anyone give a brother a hand?

As others have already pointed out, the papers pay for the Reuters and AP feeds, so it's no wonder their stories looks almost verbatim to the feeds.

That said, I can't believe that the papers want to take on Google when they're doing nothing more than pushing eyeballs to the papers' sites. Of course, in a golden goose scenario, the papers probably think they'll make more by making Google license those snippets of the story instead of capitalizing on the users who are visiting their site that wouldn't have, had it not been for the most ubiquitous search engine.

I predict... (5, Insightful)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611279)

...that Google's response will be, "If you don't want to be listed, you don't have to be listed. Bye."

It amazes me how willing people are to shoot themselves in the foot.

Re:I predict... (2, Interesting)

OrangeDoor (936298) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611324)

Precisely, they could opt out by by saying nobody is allowed to quote their articles. I doubt any paper would choose to opt out of it. This is just a struggling entity flailing around for something to hold onto. It's just them fearing the new technology and therefore fighting against it... (This is my first post on slashdot from a linux machine, it feels like a significant step for me).

I suspect (4, Insightful)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611418)

"...that Google's response will be, "If you don't want to be listed, you don't have to be listed. Bye."

It amazes me how willing people are to shoot themselves in the foot."

I suspect the larger news sources would rather have the practice halted completely. This would force people to go to a major news site (them) rather than google which sometimes leads people to lesser news sites. Slashdot has been linked from a Google headline more than once. Big news sites don't want people to be aware of any alternatives.

Smaller news sources probably like the publicity Google provides them. Larger news sources probably don't like the publicity Google provides those smaller competitors.

They don't want to opt out, they want it all to just go away.

"Shooting themselves in the foot" is right (5, Insightful)

GPS Pilot (3683) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611490)

Thanks to Google News, I've made hundreds of visits to news organizations' web sites that I wouldn't otherwise have made. And on all of those visits, I've viewed ads for which the news organizations earned money.

Silly journalists...

Re:"Shooting themselves in the foot" is right (1)

beedle (884951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611591)

The funny thing is that the news companies just cant opt out of it...without making every other person that comes to their site sign up for an account or something similar that would effectively close the news site off to pretty much everyone and everything on the web. Anything that is open content on the web is 100% legal to re-use on another site provided that it is referenced properly.

The news companies cannot win here because they are fighting two different battles with opposing goals: one to protect their online content and one to preserve its already shrinking customer base, and it seems that in this case they just will not be able to win one without losing the other.

Re:I predict... (1)

LupusUF (512364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611560)

If/When it comes to this it will be interesting to see the responses of the major news sources. Since most news articles seem to be cut/paste jobs of AP and reuters stories, google could easily cut out those that complain and still be getting all the stories. Of course then some of the bigger media outlets could try to pressure the smaller outlets to stop letting google utilize their variants of the AP stories.

My guess is overall they will have a tough time fighting the text excerpts, but with effort could likely prevent google from using images from stories.

Though, there is a real danger for the big newspapers if they go after google in court. If they win, they may shut down google news...but piss off readers who might go to google news clones that are likely to pop up. Online papers are already loosing people to the news blogs.

The even bigger risk is if they go after google and fail. If google news is able to stay in business, they could easily push the people who went after them to the bottom of the results, or take them out all together. Since google news doesn't contain articles, but only links to articles this would be a huge deal. As google news got bigger, more and more traffic would be driven to the sites that didn't piss of google, and away from those who did. People may question the ethics of this, but google could always say that they are simply respecting the wishes of the news sites who don't want to be included in the program.

Snow crash? (1)

jotok (728554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611295)

It's been a while since I read it, but isn't this exactly what happened to the print media in Snow Crash?

Ie, they could not adapt to the new technology, tried and failed to challenge it in the courts, and then gradually became obsolete, to be replaced by the aggregations of thousands of independent news agents?

I better go get "Greatest swordsman in the world" appended to my business cards pronto!

Re:Snow crash? (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611323)

I better go get "Greatest swordsman in the world" appended to my business cards pronto!

I dont know...

Are you also an ubercool, black-japaneese, katana-trained, avatar-hacking, underground-acid-music-promoter as well?

Re:Snow crash? (1)

jotok (728554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611486)

Shit, no. I just want to cash in on the future version of domain squatting before anyone else!

"Are you HIRO PROTAGONIST? Purchase your identity back for the low low fee of $5,000..."

Re:Snow crash? (1)

OrangeDoor (936298) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611364)

Google hasn't parsed Snow Crash yet? If I recall, it's been a while for me too [since reading the book], you are correct. There was some derogatory word for people who were "reporters." They basically were walking computers recording everything in hopes of stumbling upon something sellable.

Re:Snow crash? (1)

Kaimelar (121741) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611445)

They basically were walking computers recording everything in hopes of stumbling upon something sellable.

People with the wearable computers recording everything they could were called 'gargoyles' in the novel, as I recall.

Re:Snow crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611504)

The word you're looking for is "Gargoyles", by the way.

Instead ... (1)

karvind (833059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611309)

The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article --

I bet they instead want: Nothing for you to see here. Please move along

Seriously though, does it mean that I can not read few headlines from the newspaper at the bookstore ? I think the news websites should be happy if their website are referenced at a place which is read by millions and chances are that the reader may actually click on the story and go to their website. Google news gives a quick way to compare the stories as well. If all of them have the same first few lines, why should I bother going through all of them (e.g. when there are articles written by a certain journalist).

Who's doing who the favor? (1)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611316)

Google just collects news stories and allows people to search them. When the user clicks one they are brought to their website to read the story! It sounds like some good free advertising to me. Stories like this just make me scratch my head in disbelief!

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Not very clever of them. (4, Insightful)

microarray (950769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611317)

From TFA:"The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article -- it's for the courts to decide whether that's a copyright violation or not."

Some companies PAY for a little link to their site to appear when there is a relevant Google search. These newspapers get indexed, and linked to, from a high traffic site, for FREE, and they are complaining. Instead of throwing lawyers at the problem, they should engage their brains for a moment and figure out which option is better for their business.

Re:Not very clever of them. (1)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611342)

But this is not a little link, this is a whole paragraph + picture + competitors. I don't say it is good or bad but it is not simple to answer without the stats.

Re:Not very clever of them. (5, Interesting)

amazon10x (737466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611416)

I think the reason they are so upset with this is because it makes the competitors more available.

Let's assume that Bob enjoys reading news on the internet. However, Bob does not know of these things referred to as "portals". Rather than pulling up 10 different windows (using internet explorer (Bob is an idiot, BTW) which makes it worse) for NYTimes, Washington Post, MSN, Yahoo, his local paper, and some others, Bob takes the lazy way out and uses only the NYTimes site because he doesn't like swapping windows.

Now Bob's friend comes along and tells Bob to go to news.google.com to get his news. Bob acquiesces and reads Google News from here on. Now Bob gets to see hundreds of different news sources rather than just the NYTimes. This is bad for the NYTimes so they sue Google.

I am not saying I agree with them suing, I believe it is fair use. However, I do see why they're suing.

Stupid (1)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611524)

Google should send a bill to the next paper that sues them and demand $X for continued links to their stories and say that if they don't pay then Google won't continue to link to them and drive new readers their way. I can't believe how stupid the (legal department at) the papers are in this.

The problem with most newspapers (4, Insightful)

w3woody (44457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611328)

I think the problem with most newspapers is that by and large, they are news aggregators, not news reporters. Most local newspapers have a staff of reporters who go out and report local news--but for the bulk of their content they rely upon content that is not written in-house. (Wire services such as Reuters, AP and UPI, along with syndicated columns, form the bulk of most newspapers today--which means that many of the national articles in the Fresno Bee, say, are the same articles that appear in the Washington Post.)

So while it's sort of simplistic to say that this is all fair use, the reality is that Google News, by making a better mouse trap (dynamic news aggregation) is--probably without even realizing it--competing head to head with local newspapers.

Re:The problem with most newspapers (2, Interesting)

urbaneassault (233554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611373)

I'm a huge supporter of Google News, but keep in mind that newspapers pay top dollar to syndicate UPI, AP, and Reuters - costs that Google doesn't incur. But, considering the aggregation side of what Google does, I think it's completely within fair use. If they started charging to view the aggregate feeds, or hosted the full text of the articles without permission, that would be a much different story.

Re:The problem with most newspapers (2, Insightful)

greenstork (676799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611410)

The key difference being that those newpapers you mentioned actually pay for AP and Reuters content while Google does not pay anyone for news featured.

To the media: (1)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611344)

Please piss off and stop crying. I come to your site and read your news while being distracted by your flashy advertising. This would not happen if not for Google News. Honestly, even if Google News advertised on their site and made a few bucks it's not going to harm you more than it helps you.

The medias reaction to the dropping of 'Beta' only further shows it's gross misunderstanding of technology, and the Internet. This is exactly what is wrong with the commercialization of News Media.

Why do I get the feeling... (3, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611358)

That by "newspapers" we're talking about the New York Times, the Washington Post, and not much else? It seems that, more often than not, the first link for a particualr news story is a smaller newspaper that doesn't exactly have a nationwide readership, giving their sites (and banner ads) far more traffic than they'd have without news aggregators. The only papers I could see complaining are the ones that already have their own national and/or global distribution channels.

Not really about the NYT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611552)

by "newspapers" we're talking about the New York Times, the Washington Post, and not much else?

The article makes it clear that this is a primarily European association, and the only specific mention of the New York Times in TFA is as follows: "Google ...has worked in partnership with some newspapers, serving ads to the Web site of the New York Times".

Re:Why do I get the feeling... (1)

t-twisted (937590) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611564)

Actually, TFA is reported from Dublin and is more Euro-centric than US-specific. Also, I would imagine The Washington Post and NYT are less concerned about Google News than, say, USAToday, which has little original content and acts more as a "news aggregator" (I don't know the euro-equivalent).

As for smaller, local newpapers being featured over larger ones, it's all rotated by time, anyway. The most recent article about a subject hits the front page, then drops down as other sources report it and get front-page space, so one can't even argue bias since it's automated.

T.

Re:Why do I get the feeling... (4, Informative)

sheddd (592499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611600)

I imagine you're mostly correct (Big papers hate google, little ones love them)...
Out of curiosity I googled a bit and the Lobbyist group is funded by The newspaper assn of america which has a bunch of big and small members [newsvoyager.com] , one of which is the New York Times... interesting robots.txt on their site:

# robots.txt, www.nytimes.com 3/24/2005
#
User-agent: *
Disallow: /pages/college/
Disallow: /college/
Disallow: /library/
Disallow: /learning/
Disallow: /aponline/
Disallow: /reuters/
Disallow: /cnet/
Disallow: /partners/
Disallow: /archives/
Disallow: /indexes/
Disallow: /thestreet/
Disallow: /nytimes-partners/
Disallow: /financialtimes/
Allow: /pages/
Allow: /2003/
Allow: /2004/
Allow: /2005/
Allow: /top/
Allow: /ref/
Allow: /services/xml/

User-agent: Mediapartners-Google*
Disallow:

robots.txt (1)

cabinetsoft (923481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611360)

or even <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"> ... it's not like if you want to protect something you can't. How can they complain about any news aggregator when all it does it draw traffic to their publications?

Google News:Real News :: Google Earth:GIS (4, Interesting)

stanwirth (621074) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611375)


Much as I like Google, I've stopped reading the Google News much at all. First of all articles get the /. effect, and it's much the same coverage as you see in the NYT and BBC anyway. Worse, because it has a "popularity" filter on it. If I were in a field that relied on any more accurate coverage of world events, I'd have to go to primary sources anyway.



I tried Google Earth the other day too, and it has the same kind of "filter" -- eye candy for Africa, but if you have to look at a non-tourist spot, you're pretty much SOL. Since I'm in a field that does rely on more accurate GIS, I use real GIS software and data.

Re:Google News:Real News :: Google Earth:GIS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611462)

"I tried Google Earth the other day too, and it has the same kind of "filter" -- eye candy for Africa, but if you have to look at a non-tourist spot, you're pretty much SOL. Since I'm in a field that does rely on more accurate GIS, I use real GIS software and data."

Google Earth shouldn't be considered for something as important as proper GIS software and information would be used for. It is a toy, generally, though useful at times too. I definitely wouldn't goto my boss and tell them I'd rather use Google Earth though.

let me finish your sentence for you, Mr. Rahnema (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611380)

"The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article"

Let me finish that sentence for you, Mr. Rahnema:

"...and using it to send viewers to Association member's webpages, bringing us new readers, and generating ad revenue we ordinarily wouldn't have. Sadly, it means we all have to compete against each other, whereas before, we enjoyed regional favoritism. We're absolutely terrified that someone in Boston might find better coverage of a story on the BBC's website, or Washington Post. Or that they can find as much as they want about Elephants, instead of having to read an entire paper, or poke around our site. And they won't pay for the privledge of searching our archives. Especially since much of the time, all we do is parrot an AP/Reuters wire story, word for word....we're terribly concerned about all this."

Hey, if they don't like it- they can always redirect any hit with a referral from news.google.com to "Sorry, we don't support google news." There's also nothing stopping them from blocking all the googlebot crawlers- either by IP range, or browser ID.

Except that then they'd loose a lot of viewers, and become a black hole to the world's most popular search engine. So instead, they run to the legislature...

excuse me? (1)

joshsnow (551754) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611387)

"'They're building a new medium on the backs of our industry, without paying for any of the content,' Ali Rahnema, managing director of the association, told Reuters in an interview. 'The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article

A new medium? I think not. I see a photo, a headline and the first three lines of an article which interests me, I click the link and am redirected to the news-site hosting the story. When I get there, I get bombarded with their advertising and have to register to see other articles.

I mean, if google were to drive traffic to my site for free, I'd be all for it.

Now if I RTFA before commenting, I'd probably see the side to this complaint which I'm struggling to see now, so off I go to RTFA!

OK, I've RTFA (1)

joshsnow (551754) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611596)

Having read the article, it seems to me that it's a case of the print media having to modernise or die - and this action is an attempt to avoid doing either.

Most print publications tend not to offer all (or any) of their print content in the web version of their newspapers, using the website as a means of advertising the print publication or attracting people to take subscriptions to the print publication.

The problem for those who do, is that a service like google news allows web users to use the newpaper websites as sources of news (rather than advertisments or subscription bait) which said web users don't have to pay for.

At the same time, google will eventually be looking at ways of making a profit from the people using google news - none of which the sites providing the content will be able share.

So what do the newspaper publishers do? It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for them - web based news is already contributing to a fall in the circulation of printed newspapers. If a newpaper decides to run a full web version, how do they stop it from cannibalising sales of their print version, while selling a full edition on a regular basis to subscribers?

It's a bit of a cliche, but it's true that the web is changing the way we communicate. The era of print news (which survived the advent of television) may be drawing to a close. Meanwhile, newspaper publishers will have to be creative in the way they offer content to the public - maybe by making certain stories/pictures available for free to aggregators, and requireing subscription for a full web version of the printed paper. If memory serves, the Financial Times, and several other papers are using this model.

In the UK, all of the national broadsheets except the Telegraph have resized to tabloid size in an attempt to attract new readers.

Confounding (1)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611391)

After seeing this, and scratching my head (as I'm sure most other people have done) thinking 'Why in heaven's name would a news website get in a huss over another website directing traffic at them?', I can only come up with one reasonable conclusion.

Lawyers doing legal things because they can.

I've always guessed it was the lawyers who have convinced the *IAAs to keep pushing law suits despite overwhelming evidence that filesharing helps the industry.

So, it stands to reason that they would push to have places like Google news punished for helping their clients. What they are doing may be copyright infringment, which means that there may be room for a lawsuit, which means lawyers may get paid. That it's an incredibly foolish business practice is incidental; IP laywers, at least the ones who represent established orginizations, seem to always err by persuing those who do something technically illegal but benifet their clients.

I wonder what it's like to think like that.

Simple choice (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611397)

You can either leave Google News alone OR your worthless rag call fall off the earth as far as the rest of the internet is concerned.

Which part of that choice involves the legal definition fair use?

You turds need Google a lot more than they need you. Bunch of whiners.

Pot, kettle, black. (2, Interesting)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611405)


They're building a new medium on the backs of our industry, without paying for any of the content,


Last I checked, newspapers don't pay for the quotes they publish either.

Isn't news supposed to be the reporting of facts, not a creative work?

-- Should you believe authority without question?

cool (1)

beforewisdom (729725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611413)

I loved it when the RSS feed from slashdot ended up in the tech section on Google News. Along with articles from the New York Times, I got to read something published by "Pizza Face"

news.yahoo.com (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611421)

The better source of news, and they pay for the feeds. Plus it is organized much better. I used news.yahoo.com and quote.yahoo.com to learn of GOOG Earnings miss and yahoo shows me that GOOG is down near 70dollars now in AH trading.

Slashdot too? (1)

eander315 (448340) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611434)

Slashdot doesn't use photos, but they often quote a few lines from the articles. Often enough that almost no one RTFA. Looks like the newspaper industry is about as forward-looking as the RIAA and MPAA. This whole Inter-Net thing apparently caught them off guard and they've just noticed it.

What sort of idiots... (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611436)

What sort of idiots turn down the massive number of referrals that Google News is sending their way? Before news.google.com, I would never have had a reason to read an online newspaper from Indiana, but now I do. Hey, if they want to lose my eyes and my ad impressions, I think Google should give them what they want. Fuck'em.

Google News Fights Back, Caches Everything (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611443)

The campaign comes as a pending U.S. court case pits Agence France Presse against Google. AFP sued the company last year, alleging that Google News carries its photos, news headlines and stories without permission.

Cache [eff.org] the latest news on Google. [google.com]

La France, toujours dérangée avec le logiciel des USA.

if i go to a newstand (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611460)

i can scan the front page headlines of about 10 different newspapers without buying a newspaper. but if i am interested in knowing more in depth, i'll buy the newspaper

if i go to google news, same thing: i can scan the front page headlines of about 10 different newspapers without visiting the newspaper's site. but if i am interested in knowing more in depth, i'll click on the link and go to the newspaper's site

are newspapers now going to prohibit people from looking at newsstands unless they intend to buy a newspaper?

this is utterly ridiculous. do newspaper sites want no traffic? how the heck do they expect people to find their stories?

Re:if i go to a newstand (1)

cswiger2005 (905744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611601)

The newspapers would like you to become a registered, paying user who has to sit through a full-page interstitial ad or two before getting to see the "real content", whatever that may be. Case in point: Times Select of the NY Times.

As others have pointed out earlier, Google honors robots.txt and the META noindex and nofollow tags, so any news site which wanted to keep some or all of their content private from webspiders, Google's cache, news.google.com, or anything else can do so trivially. Frankly, it's up to them to take minimal responsibility before publishing content to the entire world if they want to impose restrictions.

I've found that disabling image rotation ("animated GIFs") and refusing to install Macromedia's Flash player makes the web a far more pleasant place, with a lot fewer ads. Using ad-blocking tools which work with a proxy server like squid can help block most of the rest of the ads...

Other sites (2, Insightful)

Chowderbags (847952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611465)

What about a site like Drudge Report? Or even any blog out there? Sure, they may not be as automated as Google, but will the courts see it that way? I hardly see it as an issue of copyright if a site not only cites a source, but links back to get the whole story. Besides, this is the industry that thrives on AP and Reuters stories to fill most of it's content. Well, that and the random reporters that steal from Wikipedia: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/15/151321 6 [slashdot.org]

well... (1)

Run4yourlives (716310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611487)

Although I tried to RTFA, the orignial website is a mangled mess.

I believe Mr. Rahnema is looking for this page [google.com] , however.

Mr. Rahnema, my invoice of $100 is in the mail.

thx!

Why is this a problem? (1)

DrIdiot (816113) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611501)

You'd think that newspapers would like having pieces of their stories on Google News. You don't read the whole article on Google News, you read the headline and click the link. The link that goes to the newspaper's website.

Note to online newspapers: (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611507)

You might want to log the "referrer" tags of all the pages hits you get and notice what percentage of your traffic is actually being driven to your website by google before you start attacking them

Aim? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14611523)

Why is everyone shooting everyone today?

Hmmm....maybe I'm blind (1)

NickySantoro360 (931252) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611543)

But, I don't see any ads on any Google News pages.....So how is it Google is exploiting these papers for financial gain? -Santoro

How is this? (3, Insightful)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14611609)

Someone please explain to me how this is any different than Google Search indexing these exact same articles and making the first few lines available through their search engine? Or Google images making these exact same images available from Google's servers?

Either way, Google is still directing web traffic to their sites. There are a lot of news articles on various sites I would have never read if it weren't for Google news. I don't have time to track thousands of different online news outlets, so Google does it for me. I have even *gasp* clicked on ads after being redirected to the news vendors website. Even more shocking, there has been a few (5 actually) news outlets who's RSS feeds I have subscribed to after reading a few articles of theirs linked to from Google News.

Oh well, there are no laws against stupidity. This is almost as dumb as book publishers getting in a panic over Google Book Search, which is free advertising as far as I'm concerned. Or do they fear people will be satisfied with the page shown on Google Book Search and not buy the full book? Generally, when I want to read a book, I want to read the full book. The same thing with the news. I don't read the Google News homepage and not go to the full source.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?