Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 News Removes Belgian Newspaper

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the lookit-all-them-words-not-there dept.

381

CaVi writes "Following a judicial action (link in French) by the 'French-speaking Belgian Association of the press,' Google.be has removed all the French-speaking press sites from its index, as can be seen by doing a search. The court order to Google is posted at Chilling Effects. In summary, the editors want a cut of the profit that Google News makes using their information. No such deal exists for the moment. Google has been ordered to remove all references, or pay one million Euros per day if it doesn't comply. Net effect: they removed all link to the sites, from Google News, but also from Google's search. Will Google become irrelevant in Belgian, and be replaced by MSN? Or will the newspapers, which gain from commercials, and thus net traffic, change their position when they'll see the drop in traffic that it is causing?" There's also a link to a Dutch news article on the subject; one of the key issues was evidently that some of what Google was carrying was no longer available on the newspaper's website itself, so rather then linking to the newspaper, Google was displaying it on their own.

cancel ×

381 comments

Can we get some editing here please? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16129800)

Could the editors PLEASE edit these things for a little clarity? About halfway through the submission I just quit reading because it's so disjointed and repetitive that I can't tell if there's one event here or two or none.

Please, of the love of God, EDIT editors!

Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16129816)

riiight [google.com]

Re:Uh... (1)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129917)

Nice one, post a google.com link to disprove comments about google.be. Let me break it down for you. .com != .be

Why only google.be, not google.com/.fr? (5, Interesting)

Gregory Cox (997625) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130079)

Yes, but the poster makes an important point. google.be is blocking the sites, but google.com is not. google.fr is not either.

It seems like the block has no practical effect, since you can find everything by going to google.com or .fr instead. It would be different if Google were removing lesoir.be and other sites from all searches (including google.com searches) by computers with Belgian IP addresses, but are they? If not, Belgians will probably switch to google.fr/.com rather than MSN.

I don't know why they did this for .be. Could it be because .be servers are actually in Belgium, and thus are somehow legally affected? That's the only way I can think of that this block makes sense.

Re:Why only google.be, not google.com/.fr? (2, Insightful)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130181)

I don't see google doing this to be spiteful. If these papers are suing for reproducing their content, google is covering its arse by not repeating that offense by returning search results with an extract of the page. If google removed results unilaterally, of any site, for any reason, there would go their credibility.

Re:Can we get some editing here please? (5, Informative)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130040)

The problem was that the newssite of French and German speaking Belgium had articles indexed by google (I believe it's about Le Soir [lesoir.be] ), and that didn't pose any problem.

They changed the way the articles were accessible and made a "pay to view"-service, yet google had cached the newsarticles offering them "for free" (as the previously were offered publicly for free)

The problem for them was in how Google had a cache of something that wasn't free anymore, violating their copyright.

The link to the article on vrtnieuws [vrtnieuws.net] as a Belgian newssite is misleading as vrtnieuws is a Flemish (Dutch speaking) newssite. In the audio fragment the interviewer wonders wherever it's not "good publicity" to have google link to your content and the specialist agrees with that how newssites "like" that, but explains the articles didn't link back to the website to the updated or removed content which posed the problem: their content being cached, freely accessable when they charged for it, and no link back to their webpage.

Re:Can we get some editing here please? (3, Insightful)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130084)

Agreed - editors are the one thing why sites like slashdot are worthwhile compared with digg. If you only want to read random shit written by monkeys digg is unbeatable, slashdot should be different

Let's play BREAK THE INTERNET! (2, Funny)

Chas (5144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129804)

No linking. Gotta love it. Undermind the damn net! Undermine I say!

Lets sue (1, Offtopic)

Divx (716186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129813)

So google is sued for displaying content no longer available? Thus making the 3rd party source "less needed". Too bad the common american worker can't get together and sue big corporations for outsourcing jobs, thus making the american worker "less needed". Lets start a class action suite.

Re:Lets sue (2, Funny)

asylumx (881307) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130142)

Lets start a class action suite.
I prefer the honeymoon suite.

Ah, Belgium (3, Funny)

C4st13v4n14 (1001121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129822)

Someone "out there" is taking the piss, right? I once visited Belgium for three weeks and it became apparent quite quickly that there wasn't anything news-worthy going on. All they seem to have is really, really excellent beer.

Re:Ah, Belgium (1)

muszek (882567) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129962)

It's not about the whole world reading about what's new in Belgium: it's more about people from Belgium reading news about their own country or getting international news served by their own papers/news sites.

100% of my income comes from (google) ads. ANY source of traffic is presious and those newspapers will feel the lack of that extra money. To me, all those stories about newspapers demanding money form G always sounded like extortion. Something like "if you won't give me half of your lunch, I will blow that bomb and hurt both of us".

Re:Ah, Belgium (3, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130138)

I once visited Belgium for three weeks and it became apparent quite quickly that there wasn't anything news-worthy going on.
You didn't happen to spot the European Union Parliament Buildings did you? ....oh wait.

Re:Ah, Belgium (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16130166)

You forgot waffles.

Nathan

Re:Ah, Belgium (1, Insightful)

Nicolasd (875160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130177)

Being Belgian I feel offended by what you just said... Could you define news-worthy? Just because our country is not waging war all over the world doesn't mean we don't have anything news-worthy happening...

Re:Ah, Belgium (4, Funny)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130186)

I don't know... looking on google, I don't find anything happening in Belgium.

Better than over inclusion of "News" Sites (5, Insightful)

Hellad (691810) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129826)

I am more concerned with the over inclusion of "news" sites. The news feature on Google has been flooeded with blogs and other "new" media sources. I enjoy reading blogs, but they are often so scewed to the blogger's opinion that they need some additional context. I realize that mainstream media is often accused of bias as well, but at least I know who those stations are. The news feature is useless to me if I need to get past 200 blogs to find one legitimate source.

Re:Better than over inclusion of "News" Sites (2, Interesting)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130100)

Maybe they could create a feature to sort by mainstream media and all other sources. However, I like having all available sources show up because you get to see news stories develop for months sometimes before the mainstream media reports anything on it.

How important is French to the Belgians? (0)

richdun (672214) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129831)

Will Google become irrelevant in Belgian

Well, I doubt all Belgian language entries in Google were removed, especially since the summary said only the French speaking press in Belgium was removed. The question next is how big is the French speaking press in Belgium? I'm not an expert on Belgium, so I can't really say, but if it would like removing the English-speaking press in America, it may actually be a good thing :)

By the way - I'm assuming the submitter meant "Will Google become irrelevent in Belgium" not the entire language, though the average /.er's grasp on geography makes me wonder sometimes.

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (4, Informative)

TheAngryMob (49125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129868)

There's no such thing as a language called 'Belgian.'

They speak Dutch (Flemish), French, and German.

I sometimes wonder about the average /.er's grasp on geography AND foreign languages.

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16130033)

I sometimes wonder about the average /.er's grasp on geography AND foreign languages.


Hey man, this is America! Love it or LEAVE it!!!

Damn foreigners.

;-)

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (3, Insightful)

esme (17526) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130112)

If you would look at the submitter's text, and the fact that the submitter's URL is .be, it might occur to you that the submitter isn't a native Engish speaker, and figure he made a simple mistake. In fact, you might even surmise that the submitter is Belgian, and would therefore not be likely to be confused about what languages are spoken in Belgium.

Even if you're going to be a pedant, in the sentence "Will Google become irrelevant in Belgian, and be replaced by MSN?", 'Belgian' could just as easily be read as a mistaken use of the adjective form instead of the noun form, i.e. "Will Google become irrelevant in Belgium...".

I sometimes wonder about the average /.er's grasp on geography AND foreign languages.

And I sometimes wonder about the average /.er's grasp on basic logic and common decency.

-Esme

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130127)

GP was not replying to the submitter, but to a reply to the story. That reply said:

Well, I doubt all Belgian language entries in Google were removed,

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130151)

Yeah that whoosh sound should have been a dead giveaway, but apparently not. Thanks for clarifying my post though. I too thought someone with a .be address should have known that Belgian is not a language, but alas...

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (3, Informative)

CaVi (37216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130209)

Actually, I submitted the story, previewed it, to only discover later that I typed 'Belgian' instead of 'Belgium'. Sorry for the confusion. Sorry also if the text was not clear. Wouldn't it be good if there were any editors at Slashdot to correct obvious mistakes? ;) And yes, I'm not a native english speaker. Thanks for defending me!

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130122)


I sometimes wonder about the average /.er's grasp on geography AND foreign languages.


Maybe because they are too busy grasping something else?

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (5, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129890)

Belgians do not speak Belgian. They speak either French or a dialect of Dutch known as Flemish.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1604253, 00.html [timesonline.co.uk]

KFG

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (2, Funny)

katsiris (779774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130153)

'Dutch'?!?! Don't the Dutch speak Hollondaise?

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (4, Informative)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129921)

By the way - I'm assuming the submitter meant "Will Google become irrelevent in Belgium" not the entire language, though the average /.er's grasp on geography makes me wonder sometimes.

Belgium is a country with three official languages and three main regions - the Flemish-speaking Flanders (6 million people), the French-speaking Wallonia (3.3 million people) and the mostly-French-speaking, officially-bilingual capital Brussels (1 million people). Plus to add to the fun, there are 70,000 German-speakers in the east of the country.

There are some pretty harsh rivalries between the currently-financially-stable Flanders and the recession-hit Wallonia - it's impressive that the country hasn't split apart already. The situation is ... complicated, politically.

But then Belgium's really dull and nothing happens here, right? I know otherwise, because I live here.

Re:How important is French to the Belgians? (1)

PastaLover (704500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129955)

Wikipedia says it's 60/40 in favor of the dutch speaking part which sounds about right. Google indeed didn't remove all results, try googling for le soir and scrolling down:

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 3 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.

Anyway, personally I don't know if I oppose this ruling. The way copyright is defined today it definitely sounds to me as if the newspapers have the law on their side in this. Google is effectively republishing their information. I think Google is most likely trying to justify it under citation rights which sounds about right to me, but we all know the interpretation by the courts is getting more and more conservative, following a worldwide move (led originally by the US btw) to a stricter copyright system. Which probably has a lot more to do with the music and movie industry than the print media.

Block IPs? (5, Funny)

DzugZug (52149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129833)

Google should block the Newspaper's IP addresses so that their reporters cannot use Google in their research.

MOD PARENT UP (2, Insightful)

iendedi (687301) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129860)

Excellent suggestion. Imagine? Reciprocity...

Re:Block IPs? (5, Informative)

h00pla (532294) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129878)

Nah. The newspaper's webmaster should just learn how to use the 'NOCACHE,NOARCHIVE' tag.

Re:Block IPs? (5, Insightful)

OECD (639690) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129958)

The newspaper's webmaster should just learn how to use the 'NOCACHE,NOARCHIVE' tag.

Bingo. If " one of the key issues was evidently that some of what Google was carrying was no longer available on the newspaper's website itself, so rather then linking to the newspaper, Google was displaying it on their own." is accuarate, they failed to avail themselves of the quick, easy, and cheap solution. Obviously, that's not what it really was about.

I don't understand why news outlets get so upset when sites like google point people to their content. They should think of it as free advertising.

Re:Block IPs? (0, Redundant)

daigu (111684) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129884)

The suggestion to block the newspaper's IP address so they cannot use Google - pretty much defines evil. That kind of behavior is what makes Microsoft so loathed in this forum, and here you are suggesting they should do it. If they went that route, what's to stop them from using the same tactic in other situations? Imagine Google didn't like something the company you work for is doing and cut off your access to their email, search or whatever. How would you personally feel about it? Does this strike you as good business practice? You need to think a little further on this issue.

Re:Block IPs? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16129940)

I think you missed the point of the comment.

The newspaper is upset with Google because they link to their site without sharing in any of the profit the make through advertising; but google links to everyone's site without sharing any advertizing and if everyone reacted the same way these newspapers did it would become impossible to search the internet for anything.

Anyways ...

Like most people (I imagine) I rarely remember the address of sites I wish to visit and usually google for them; now that these papers decided being refrenced by google was a bad thing I bet their site viewership goes way down and they lose a lot of money from advertizing.

Re:Block IPs? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16130018)

Let me guess, you are a socialist? I couldn't imagine a capitalist speaking in any such fashion.

So let me get this right. What you are suggesting... is that companies that cannot manage to keep their information available.. and who cannot figure out how to use tags, they should be able to screw over another company that picks up the slack and keeps the articles around.

On the other hand, you think that the company that does these things shouldn't have the right to do anything about it.

Yes, you must be socialist.

As to Microsoft, most people on /. don't loathe them because they fight strongly to succeed. Most loathe them because it makes them so cool and different... much like being goth, right? Nerds unite, for the common cause of Linux and to bring down those bastards at MS!

Re:Block IPs? (2, Interesting)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130015)

Now, that's not a bad idea at all... don't know why it's modded Funny; If I had mod points, it would get modded Insightful.

Tit for tat... if we can't link to your articles, we won't give you links to help you write those articles.

Re:Block IPs? (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130116)

Because Google's motto is 'Don't be evil' and not 'Don't be evil unless someone pisses you off, then do whatever the fsck you want.'

Google has done the very un-evilest thing they could in that situation. To attempt to further penalize those companies could (and probably would) be considered 'evil'.

Re:Block IPs? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130110)

Damn, that's a great idea. Either that, or they could just start charging the paper $10 per search.

-jcr

Don't worry its Belgium (2, Informative)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129849)


As the old challenge goes, name 10 famous Belgians. Nice country and all but not exactly news central. In effect this is like Des Moines doing the same, and not even people in Des Moines would mind if they just had OTHER peoples news.

Maybe its the start of something, all really dull places will sue to have their very dull news removed. After all, if something interesting happens there then one of the majors will cover it.

$1m a day... nice sense of perspective.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129861)

Dude, be nice to the belgians. They have Hercule Poirot, and they're not afraid to use him!

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129898)

ice country and all but not exactly news central. In effect this is like Des Moines doing the same, and not even people in Des Moines would mind if they just had OTHER peoples news.

Hmm, you have a very different perspective than I. I've always viewed Belgium as one of those countries with disproportionate influence. As the location for the NATO headquarters, they've always been sort of representative of Europe, and now with the headquarters of the EU there as well, it is semi-official. I've always viewed it as sort of a hub, where influential Europeans meet to make decisions. But, I've never been there, so maybe my perspective is skewed.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16130162)

Yea but thinking that they actualy proposed to replace thier army with a voice-recording at the major bordercrossings reading: "Welcome to Belgium, please don't make a mess while passing through." I think they aren't quite as relevant.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16129903)

Easy:

Erasmus, Descartes, Brueghel, Van Dyck, Georges Lemaître, Henry Spaack, Karel V, Mercator, Jacques Brel, Sax, Django Reinhardt, Jansenss (farmaceutica), Damiaan ...

I know, all from the past. I'm quite sure that 100 years from now lots of present Belgians will be known. Belgium is the European epicentre for science, politics and art.

Hey, it's not my fault you don't know any history.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (1)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129990)

Erasmus was Dutch [wikipedia.org]
Descartes was French [wikipedia.org]

Mercator do you mean the German [wikipedia.org] cartographer or the German [wikipedia.org] mathematician.

Anonymous Coward's do history, its like Dan Quayle spelling.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16130041)

Typical example of different point of perceptions and the problem of Wikipedia:

Erasmus was Belgian but Belgium was part of the Netherlands back then, hence the misconception that he was born in the "southern netherlands".

Same deal with Descartes (and I'm talking about the cartographer). He was definatly Belgian, you can even visit the house he was born here.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (2, Funny)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130175)

Same deal with Descartes (and I'm talking about the cartographer). He was definatly Belgian, you can even visit the house he was born here.

He is so famous in fact, everyone who read that first thought of Rene Descartes, who is arguably much more famous and very much not from Belgium.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130064)

>Van Dyck
His cockney accent was pretty poor in Mark Poppins though.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (1)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130147)

Erasmus: Actually, wikipedia seems to indicate he is from the Netherlands. He is considered Dutch, which last I checked is generally considered Netherlands.
Descartes: If you are talking about Rene Descartes, he was French.
Van Dyck: Score, you 1, me 2.
Lemaitre: You tied the score...good job.
Spaak: I really should deduct points for you not knowing how to spell his name.
Mercator: Can I deduct you two here? Nicholas was born in France and did work across Europe including Netherlands, again not Belgium. Gerardus was born in Flanders, technically Belgium, to parents who were from what is now a town in Germany. So, maybe we can give you a half-point afterall.
Jacques Brel: Oooh, you got another.
Janssen: Can I dock you another point for spelling?
Damiaan: So does that mean like two of your choices are Catholic priests? Interesting...

Seriously, two of yours were downright wrong, a third was sketchy, and several others fame outside of Belgium could seriously be questioned.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (2, Informative)

teslar (706653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129941)

As the old challenge goes, name 10 famous Belgians.

Amélie Nothomb
Hergé
Jacky Ickx
Charles the Great
Adolphe Sax
Lara Fabian
Jacques Brel
Raymond Devos
Cécile de France
Helmut Lotti

That's on top of my head (and no, I am not Belgian)
Just because you don't know any doesn't any doesn't mean they don't exist :) Why do people always call places they have no clue about 'dull'?

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (1)

big ben bullet (771673) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129998)

well, i'm belgian

and i'm not exactly proud of Helmut Lotti

but you left out Django Reinhardt ! ;-)
and Toots Tielemans

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (1)

teslar (706653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130049)

Well, he isn't exactly famous for being a person to be proud of either - but he is famous :)

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16130103)

René Magritte
Victor Horta
Eddy Merckx
Kim Clijsters
Justine Hénin
Jean-Claude Van Damme (if Lotti counts, he does too :)

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (5, Funny)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130128)

No, you're talking about the wrong kind of famous person. I think the grandparent post meant the kind of famous people that most people have heard of.

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (3, Funny)

AxminsterLeuven (963108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130078)

As the old challenge goes, name 10 famous Belgians.

Here goes (in random order):

1) Dirk Frimout, 1st Belgian astronaut
2) Adolphe Sax, inventor of the saxophone
3) Justine Henin-Hardenne, tennis player, current no. 2 in the WTA Tour
4) Kim Clijsters, currently 4th ranked female tennis player in the world
5) Tom Boonen, 2005 world cycling champion
6) Paul Van Ostaijnen, influential Modernist poet
7) Doctor Evil, evil doctor
8) The Smurfs (all of them)
9) Tintin, reporter (French-speaking, so all of his writing is now probably off Google)
10) Mark Dutroux, psychopath (Famous? Yes. Nice guy? No.)

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130137)

You left out Leopold and his most famous icon, Wagon-Lits

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (1)

MareLooke (1003332) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130199)

Just wanted to add a couple:
  • Jacques Rogge, current president of the International Olympic Commitee
  • Eddy Merckx, pretty famous in about every country with something of a bicycling history
  • 2 Many DJs/Soulwax, they're apparently pretty famous outside Europe too
  • Stefan Everts, motocross racer, has become 10 times worldchampion and has won 100 grand prix races, currently racing his final season

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (0, Redundant)

N3TW4LK3R (841526) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130114)

err... Belgium isn't exactly dull, but it is very small, so I can understand why it wouldn't show up on the news very often

About the famous Belgians:

Present:
Eddy Merckx (5 times Tour de France winner)
Kim Clijsters
Justine Hénin
Amélie Nothomb
Thoots Thielemans
Jaques Brel

Legends:
Father Damien (long time ago, but nevertheless)
Ambiorix (even further in the past :) )

Fictional:
Hércule Poirot

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (2, Informative)

big ben bullet (771673) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130133)

well, i'm not the first to give you a list... but these just have to be mentioned

- adolph sax
- toots tielemans
- django reinhardt
- jean claude van damme (hmmm... i know i know... you said 'famous' not 'great')
- anouck lepeire
- kim clijsters
- justine henin - ardenne
- audrey hepburn
- rene magritte (ceci n'est pas ...)
- peter paul rubens

Re:Don't worry its Belgium (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130149)

As the old challenge goes, name 10 famous Belgians.

The only one that springs to mind isking leopold II, who was responsible for the biggest mass-murder in African history.

-jcr

Let me say this as a belgian (-1, Flamebait)

guruevi (827432) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129853)

I live in the States now but the French part of Belgium is inherently dumb. They're stereotyped like the southerners here in the states. Their whole government is a leech to the dutch-speaking part and services that come from that part of Belgium are much higher in price compared to the same services coming in through the Netherlands, France or Germany.

But hey, if they sue Google and Google removes all reference to them, then that is pretty good payback. Should happen more often. The papers in general have to learn to play nice with new media. Same is going to happen to RIAA etc.

Re:Let me say this as a belgian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16129942)

If you'd be a follower of the Vlaams Belang, I wouldn't be surprised at all... (For those who don't know what I mean, it's a very popular political party in Dutch speaking part of Belgium that is based on racism and hate of anyone who is not Vlaams speaking (Dutch language spoken in 60% of belgium), including their "french speaking" compatriots)...

Re:Let me say this as a belgian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16129978)

If every Fleming who thinks Wallonia is a crappy socialist hellhole was a follower the VB, the VB would have a complete majority by now.

Can I sue google for GPL violations? (1, Insightful)

Raphael (18701) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129881)

Using the same logic as described here, I could probably sue Google for some GPL violations.

Some web sites incorrectly send all their contents as text/plain or text/html, including binary files, images, etc. It looks like Google tries to automatically correct this, but is not always successful (this may depend on the amount of plain text contained in the binary file). Anyway, regardless of the reason why it happens, it seems to be possible to find a few binary files in the Google cache (not easy, but possible if you are lucky). And now comes the problem if one of these files is protected by the GPL: if Google distributes the binary file but not the sources, they would be violating the GPL.

Who is going to start a frivolous lawsuit against Google for GPL violations?

Re:Can I sue google for GPL violations? (2, Insightful)

BKX (5066) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130004)

The GPL isn't quite so assholic as that. They don't necessarily have to give out the source themselves. They simply have to either make the source available at no extra charge or tell people where you can get it (though, this third party source must provide it for free and the source must be the same as you used for your binary). This is why it's quite common for people to put up patches and tell people to get the standard tarball and patch it (see udpcast for an example concerning busybox). When's the last time you could use Google's cache to find a GPL'd binary but couldn't Google up the source?

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16130188)

Why? Chances are if Google's cache contains a link to the binary; Google also has a link to the source.

google.fr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16129882)

Most likely the affected people are simply going to use google.fr instead, which appears to still list the sites.

"As can be seen by doing a search"? (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129886)

What does "As can be seen by doing a search" mean? When I click the link I see lots of results from the site - I assumed that there were no results to be expected. Don't tell me the newspapers caved in so early...

Guess what? (2, Interesting)

Syncerus (213609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129888)

Belguim is irrelevant anyway. Now that we can't find it through Google, it will quietly disappear in the back of the wardrobe, lost between Tanganyika and Cluj-Napoca.

Syncerus

French? (5, Funny)

evil agent (918566) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129892)

Stupid Flanders...

Big loss? (3, Insightful)

HatchedEggs (1002127) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129895)

I think not for Google. It is funny.. that the newspapers don't keep their content, but are offended when somebody else picks up the ball for them.

In reality, there is value to keeping articles around, and I really wish that newspapers would take the initiative and do a better job with that.

Regardless, this is unfortunate. Perhaps the companies should just keep the articles around... and then they could make all this "money that google is making from the articles" for themselves.

Re:Big loss? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130051)

Many newspapers do keep content around online. I guess the fact that these people don't, and then go on to sue what is probably the most popular websites that links to their own sites, speaks volumes about their grasp of economics. They must be stuck in the belief that if someone else benefits, you must somehow lose...

Re:Big loss? (1)

honkycat (249849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130109)

Well, many (such as the New York Times) have recent content online openly, then move it to an archive that you must pay to access later. In that case, they would certainly be upset if google was mirroring their content later.

Abusing monopoly (0, Troll)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129909)

This is not entirely clear, but it seems Google is abusing their near monopoly on search to strong arm their position in a new market of News.

Their have been ordered to remove other peoples news from their news service, and have decided to additional punish the source by also removing them from the search index.

I really thing Google should be allowed to link any news together in a news service, but escalating the issue to searching is really abusive and something I am quite sure they will be punished for in Europe. (Besides the obvious fact that it IS EVIL).

Re:Abusing monopoly (1)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129930)

Well, ther really is no monopoly here. And the barrier of switching to some other search-engine is very low, so it's not like Google could force anyone to use their service. And like it or not, Google is under no obligation to serve those newspapers. Apparently they don't want to work with Google, so why should Google work for them?

And besides, payback is a bitch.

Re:Abusing monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16129949)

that would be true if they had a monopoly

http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=21 56431 [searchenginewatch.com]

google have about 40-45% of the whole search market. That is not a mononoply.

Re:Abusing monopoly (0, Troll)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129973)

Neither does Microsoft on operating system. Yet their market share is significant enough that they have to obey monopoly rules.

Re:Abusing monopoly (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130063)

Neither does Microsoft on operating system. Yet their market share is significant enough that they have to obey monopoly rules.

Antitrust law is built around whether or not a company wields monopoly influence on a market. Many of the laws use 70% as the point at which such an influence should be investigated. Windows has something like 90% of the desktop market, and there are significant barriers to entry. Their monopoly influence is easily demonstrated by pricing that does not follow the curve of a free market.

Google has 45% or so and has gone out of their way to make sure they have not created any market lock-in or barriers to switching. You just point your browser to yahoo.com or msn.com. Their pricing is extremely competitive, and rigidly follows the free market influences. Lots of other companies make money in the same space.

Basically, antitrust laws should be applied to Microsoft to fix the broken market, but there is no evidence that they should applied to Google.

Re:Abusing monopoly (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129985)

This is not entirely clear, but it seems Google is abusing their near monopoly on search to strong arm their position in a new market of News.

The last numbers I saw placed Google as having about 45% of the search market. That isn't even in the running for being a monopoly.

Their have been ordered to remove other peoples news from their news service, and have decided to additional punish the source by also removing them from the search index.

As far as I can tell, there is no way in which this ruling applies to news.google.com that does not apply equally to google.com search. If one is ruled illegal by the courts, the other is probably just as illegal, so it makes sense to remove them from both.

I really thing Google should be allowed to link any news together in a news service, but escalating the issue to searching is really abusive and something I am quite sure they will be punished for in Europe. (Besides the obvious fact that it IS EVIL).

If Google had a monopoly, this could be an antitrust issue, but I've seen no evidence of that. There are a lot of players in the search market and Google has instituted absolutely no lock-in of any kind. Nothing stops Belgians from moving to something else, aside from the fact that the others tend to be lower quality. I don't foresee any antitrust action against them for this, nor any grounds for it. Since they don't wield monopoly influence in the market, I don't see how this is "evil."

Re:Abusing monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16130014)

"Their have been ordered to remove other peoples news from their news service, and have decided to additional punish the source by also removing them from the search index."

You can allso look at it from the other way : one hand washes the other.

Now that Google is not allowed to make some income off of what those companies produce (and freely gave to everyone) they have decided that those companies are not allowed (anymore) to make a income off of "gratiously accepting Googles services" that they do not pay for.

And yes, making a fist goes a lot better when you're at least equal in size your opponent.

RTF ruling (4, Informative)

LordEd (840443) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130036)

Order the defendant to withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order, under penalty of a daily fine of 1,000,000.- per day of delay;
All sites, not just news. It seems that the news site wants to punish itself.

Re:Abusing monopoly (1)

hussar (87373) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130059)

Their have been ordered to remove other peoples news from their news service, and have decided to additional punish the source by also removing them from the search index.


Or, they removed them from the search to preclude getting sued for news articles that show up in a general search (as opposed to showing up on the news.google.com site). Sounds practical to me.

Re:Abusing monopoly (1)

dlim (928138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130099)

First of all, I have no evidence to suggest that Google is not strong arming the entire French speaking population of Belgium (or at least their news services. I think it would be more reasonable, however, to consider that faced with a fine of $1 million a day, they took the most efficient route of removing the listings from Google News.

Also, IDNSF (I do not speak French), but the summary seems to suggest that the content needed to be removed from Google's "cache" as well. It may be that because of the language used, the ruling required removal of the listings from the search index as well...

Thats it. (0, Troll)

TheUser0x58 (733947) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129926)

Serve me up some Freedom Waffles, Americans have had enough of those snooty Belgians!

Freedom waffles? (1, Funny)

halivar (535827) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129960)

Would those have strawberries, whipped cream, and blueberries?

I want some.

Re:Freedom waffles? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130045)

"Would those have strawberries, whipped cream, and blueberries?

I want some."

The diner a block from me makes them that way in the vague shape of the US flag.

I'm not kidding.

And yes, they _are_ yummy.

To make this on topic, Google directs viewers at the Belgian newspapers, and the Belgian newspapers are then able to extract yet more money from their advertisers. I think to make a point, the other search engines should also boycott Belgian newspapers, because no good can come of this if this sets a precedent.

There are anti-crawl strings. Use them, guys.

--
BMO

Re:Thats it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16129986)

During World War The First, it was 'Liberty Cabbage' instead of Saurkraut... its not just a neo-con bushism. Last time I checked, Wilson was a Democrat. just saying.

Probably will be reversed (1)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129963)

by the European court. Heck, it violates freedom of speech in essence. And, more importantly, linking/quoting has been proven to be not illegal in previous cases in the EU. Either they are all wrong, or the belgians are wrong. In my case, I come from the Netherlands, we know the answer ;=)

it's not this bad over here (2, Funny)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 7 years ago | (#16129967)

at least i live in the states, where you can't just sue companies because you are too dense to learn the rules (such as robots.txt)

oh wait..

Google is taking risks (2, Insightful)

bfree (113420) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130011)

The bottom line is that any creative work is copyrighted such that only the "author" can authorise copies. Google is depending on authors not enforcing their rights against them to prevent them from making numerous copies (and from providing a service to provide those copies to anyone with Google cache). If I was to setup a site which simply allowed visitors to search (and download) all the binaries online would Linus/FSF/Microsoft not be justified in challenging me for illegally distributing their copyrighted works?

What about robots.txt? (3, Insightful)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130031)

I'm literally sick of all this people who don't like being indexed. If you don't want to show up in google, adjust robots.txt so that google won't search it. This is not a problem of "companies entering into your house because you left the door opened". Web sites are supposed to be there to be visited, if you don't like being indexed use robots.txt

Re:What about robots.txt? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130184)

I'm literally sick of all this people who don't like being indexed. If you don't want to show up in google, adjust robots.txt so that google won't search it. This is not a problem of "companies entering into your house because you left the door opened". Web sites are supposed to be there to be visited, if you don't like being indexed use robots.txt

The point is that copyright owners still have a right to exert control over their copyrights; whether or not they use a robots.txt file. Searching and displaying results is different from caching and offering up the content independent of the original site - in the former Google is not redistributing the material but acting like a research librarian - something the site may want; but once the stuff is pulled then Google can't offer it up unless they have permission.

As you said - they are their to be visited, which is what a search supports.

This could be the tip of teh iceberg - given the increased desire to make money off of web content; which means limiting free access through such things as Google cache.

The problem is Google Cache, I think (4, Informative)

reynaert (264437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130038)

If I understand this correctly, the principal problem is not Google News but rather Google Cache. It seems that when news articles move from public to subscriber-only, Google retrieved the contents from its cache, instead of removing the article. So the issue was that Google was distributing articles instead of only linking them.

dont pee your pants (1)

Mofaluna (949237) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130047)

The biggest joke of the whole affair is that these newspapers apparently never heared about a robots.txt file and neither did the 'expert' that adviced the court in this matter. If I were google I'ld setup a little farm that would visit every single page on their website every millisecond, just to make sure that the moment the newspaper takes an article offline it gets removed from google cache as well. :o)

As with all things.... (1, Insightful)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130058)

...greed is the great destroyer.

Well. (0, Flamebait)

kirk26 (811030) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130071)

Who listens to the French anyways? They just sit a home and watch Jerry Lewis all day.

IAAB (I Am A Belgian) (1)

FreshnFurter (599451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130144)

So why does this still work http://news.google.com/news?ned=fr_be [google.com]

I still see "La Libre Belgique" a french speaking newspaper

But when I do this: http://news.google.be/news?ned=fr_be [google.be]

It's not there anymore.

Guess what Belgians will do next? BTW there is no such thing as Belgian waffles, Canadian Bacon, or Filet Americain. Right about the beer though!

GASP!!! (2, Informative)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#16130190)

You mean I can't read earth-shattering news exclusively put on french-speaking, .be domains anymore? Whatever will we do now? Dear Jesus.. how will I survive when such a huge part of the internets has been torn away? How many tubes are left, oh harsh harsh world?

In all seriousness, I didn't know the french-speaking press of the Belgian world was so damn stupid. Most of their traffic probably comes from people accidentally clicking on links from google. Why would they do this? Money?

That's like kidnapping Dubya in Egypt and asking the Arabs for a ransom.

Belgians ...hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16130210)


Quite a language you got there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...