×

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 Found Guilty of Copyright Violation

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the de-index-belgium-in-retaliation dept.

Google 223

schmiddy writes "A court in Brussels, Belgium, has just found Google guilty of violating copyright law with its Google News aggregator. According to the ruling, Google News' links and brief summaries of news sources violates copyright law. Google will be forced to pay $32,600 for each day it displayed the links of the plaintiffs. Although Google plans to appeal, this ruling could have chilling effects on fair use rights on the web in the rest of Europe as well if other countries follow suit."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

223 comments

HHGTTG reference (4, Funny)

Bazman (4849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011084)

So is this where 'Belgium!' becomes the most obscene word in the cosmos?

TIPPITY TOP TROLL TIPS! (1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011420)

Howdy folks.

It's time for todays top troll tip.

either
1)Act like you know about the subject and are an expert in the field.

2)Act like you know nothing about the subject whatosoever.

In either case you can either be so condescending that when you start to spout untruths they will fail to spot it,

or

Ask leftfield questions that arent really related and will piss people off no end.

Here ends todays top troll tippery!

see you next time, you bunch of wankers.

Saw This Yesterday (1, Redundant)

ShedPlant (1041034) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011086)

Is this any different from http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/13 44248 [slashdot.org] yesterday's story or has Google been involved in multiple court cases in Belgium?

Re:Saw This Yesterday (5, Funny)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011196)

The submitter tried to search for the story using google but couldn't find it.

Re:Saw This Yesterday (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011472)

that one was about google cache infringing on copyright. this one is about google news infringing on copyright.

so yes, multiple court cases.

What's good for the goose... (5, Insightful)

Xonstantine (947614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011090)

Maybe Google should just delink the sites altogether, that way the offended media organizations can watch their traffic plummet to zero?

Re:What's good for the goose... (2, Informative)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011290)

I don't some of the top newspapers in Belgium will see their traffic "plummet to zero" because their not listed on google.

Media organisations are in the unique position that they are able to readily attract hits without using search engines like google as they already have a massive advertising medium - themselves. Have you ever visited a national newspaper webiste by searching for "national newspaper" in google?

I know I haven't and I bet it is quite rare that people discover their sites that way.

Re:What's good for the goose... (3, Insightful)

GryMor (88799) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011436)

No, but I've seen a lot of users go to www.cnn.com by means of entering www.cnn.com in google's search box.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011450)

I imagine it is quite rare. However, what is not rare at all and is actually pretty common is that people just type in the name of the organisation (and also quite often the entire url) into a Google search. Now, maybe those people would change their habits if they couldn't find the site they typed in, but maybe they'll just choose a "close enough" result from the results that were returned. I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for potentially not only killing a lot of traffic to my company's site, but maybe even directing said traffic to my company's immediate competitors...

Re:What's good for the goose... (4, Interesting)

Daemonstar (84116) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011452)

I know that my mom and wife both use Google as their "address bar". My wife wanted to go somewhere the other day (she had to use my Linux box; I playing around with Vista on the Windows one), and I told her to just type the address in the address bar (it was like JcPenney's or something). She said, "I don't want to type it in the address bar, I just want to type it in Google." Google is the default page on my Win PC. My mom does the same thing; she never uses the address bar. She usually asks, "How do I do that?" when I tell her to just type it in.

Back when I was employed at an ISP, we had a Google search box on our main page. Whenever our main page was down for updates or screwups, we *always* got calls from users asking when the page would be back up so they could surf the web. They would use the Google search box to get around the Internet instead of using the address bar or using a different search engine.

It's not far fetched that they will lose traffic if Google doesn't index them in their search results.

Re:What's good for the goose... (3, Insightful)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011678)

This would work both ways though. People only use Google as their address bar because they are pretty certain the website will come up. National newspapers and other mainstream media websites are normally some of the highest traffic websites (in terms of unique hits) on the internet for any specific country, therefor by not linking to the media websites Google would also be doing themselves quite a lot of harm.

If people typed in searches like 'www.nytimes.com', 'www.cnn.com', 'www.bbc.co.uk' into google and it didn't mention the respective websites then a lot of people would probably start switching their homepage away from Google.

I therefore doubt Google will consider de-listing mainstream newspaper websites. It would give Google an immense commercial disadvantage to their rivals!

Re:What's good for the goose... (2, Insightful)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012092)

I therefore doubt Google will consider de-listing mainstream newspaper websites. It would give Google an immense commercial disadvantage to their rivals!

Yes, but if these rulings stand (through the appeal process,) you can bet that EVERY news aggregator / search engine will ALSO have to remove content / links to the pages, therefore no competitive disadvantage.

Without news aggregaters, there will be no way for major media sites to attract NEW customers / readers, and non-ahole media sites will end up with larger readership levels.

The "cache" issue is those sites that want google to index their articles, but want readers to pay for the content. In essence, they want "free" advertising / marketing via google. I say, Delist the cheapskate bastards.

Re:What's good for the goose... (2, Interesting)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012470)

When I said about a commercial disadvantage I meant towards other search engines, portals and start pages; not News Aggregation websites.

For example if typing 'CNN' (and all the others) into Windows Live Search brings up the CNN website but Google brings up nothing (because google have de-listed CNN after refusing to let google aggregate their news) then Google certainly will have a commercial disadvantage to Windows Live Search and others. After a while people will stop using Google as their start page or even as a Search Engine if prominent media websites (which as previously stated have amongst the highest unique hit rates) are absent from Google.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

Xonstantine (947614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011482)

Media organisations are in the unique position that they are able to readily attract hits without using search engines like google as they already have a massive advertising medium - themselves. Have you ever visited a national newspaper webiste by searching for "national newspaper" in google?

No, I have not. But I have gone to news sites I never would've otherwise gone to or known about due to stories on google news. While the top newspapers in Belgium probably won't see their traffic plummet to zero, they probably would see an adverse traffic impact, which will correspondingly hurt their advertising revenue. Given the financial difficulties of running a newspaper these days (at least in the U.S., European papers may be fairing better), reducing your online traffic flow doesn't seem to be a very intelligent move when that traffic flow in turn drives advertising revenue.

Re:What's good for the goose... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011520)

I know I haven't and I bet it is quite rare that people discover their sites that way.

In my experience, you'd be betting wrong. Since browsers started autosearching "i'm feeling lucky" google results*, people have indeed been just typing in e.g. "Irish Times" and indeed relying on google to get them to the relevant site, at least here in europe.

(* firefox is at least 20% of european browsers (source: Xiti), though it's lower worldwide).

Personally, I oppose copyright laws full stop, and I'm all for european unity, I just oppose the EU in particular. Belgium/brussels is the EU equivalent of washington d.c. , it's no surprise they've pulled something as assinine as this.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011654)

I don't some of the top newspapers in Belgium will see their traffic "plummet to zero" because their not listed on google.
If that an example of how their wrote, I'm surpressed the have any traffic too start with.

Re:What's good for the goose... (3, Informative)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011438)

Maybe Google should just delink the sites altogether, that way the offended media organizations can watch their traffic plummet to zero?

From the article:

Google carries advertising on its general Belgian site, Google.be, but not in its news index. Links to the publications represented by Copiepresse have already been removed from both.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011874)

Redirect be.google.com to lycos.com in their dns. There are just going to be some countries that they can't do business in and I'm sure the citizens of those countries will be just as happy to use some other search engine.

Re:What's good for the goose... (2, Informative)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012110)

Lycos will end up getting sued too - it's not just google. Google is just the largest target at the moment.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

Catil (1063380) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011932)

Although this sounds like a reasonable retaliation, Google's priority seems to be keeping sites indexed and cached by all means; otherwise they wouldn't even have gone to court and try to win this case.
Perhaps they will find a semantic solution to this problem.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

jedaustin (52181) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011970)

I think they should delete the indexes for every site in Belgium.
For 99% of the word we wouldn't even notice.
You can't be too careful!

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

NoDude! (944514) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012158)

It's not that simple. The main idea behind the google algorithms, is that there is no direct human interaction in the choice of what should be displayed and what not. If they start deleting sites who complain from their database, they might as well give in to all the "protect the children" crap and delete all porn links by hand.

Do socialist countries just hate big business? (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011100)

And people complain about American copyright. Sheesh

Re:Do socialist countries just hate big business? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011304)

Yes. Yes they do. Socialism has always been "big business OMG EVIL CAPITALISTS STABBITYSTABSTAB DIE DIE DIE" regardless of the particular merits or vices of the business in question. Except when the Big Business in question is The Government. Then it's all okay.

Re:Do socialist countries just hate big business? (1)

edward2020 (985450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012794)

Oh, but the government has our best interests at heart. Who knows better than a faceless bureaucracy? On a side note - I imagine that many /.ers who currently rail against capaitalism would have a complete turn-around with their first IPO.

Re:Do socialist countries just hate big business? (3, Informative)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011626)

Belgium isn't a socialist country. I'll refrain from the usual anti-american comments, though they've rarely been more adequate.

Belgium [wikipedia.org] is a constitutional monarchy, and it's current prime minister [wikipedia.org] is a member of the VLD party [wikipedia.org] , which started out as a right-wing party and has since moved towards a centrist view.

You can read it all on Wikipedia if you spend 30 seconds looking for it. Provided you don't consider reading a socialist skill.

Re:Do socialist countries just hate big business? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011778)

Belgium isn't a socialist country.
If wikipedia says so it must be true. However I actually live there, and I'll tell you it has 1) very high taxation 2) bureacracy everywhere and 3) a huge public sector that mostly does sod all, most of which would be associated more with socialism than capitalism. I'll concede there's a fair dose of corporatism thrown in the mix too.

The presence of a monarch and/or prime minister makes no difference at all in practice.

Re:Do socialist countries just hate big business? (2, Informative)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012032)

You live in Belgium, excellent.
Have you ever lived in an actual socialist country, to compare?

I'm a German, we've had an excellent long-term experiment in socialism in a part of our country. My family has friends from Russia. An ex-girlfriend of mine was from Poland and my wife's family is from Romania. I'm entirely certain that in order to consider western European countries "socialist", you have to have an extremely tainted, simplified and biased view of the world - and absolutely zero first-hand experience of actual socialist countries.

Re:Do socialist countries just hate big business? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011866)

Do you automatically label other countries as being "socialist" purely because your own views lie on the right of the international political spectrum?

Re:Do socialist countries just hate big business? (1)

bogjobber (880402) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011934)

Do socialist countries just hate big business?

Well, yes, by definition socialists are trying to take control of production out of the hands of large businesses and into the hands of the workers. That being said, Belgium is a pretty moderate country as far as Europe goes.

Please debate on the merits of the case, not on stereotypes and idealogical generalizations.

Re:Do socialist countries just hate big business? (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012456)

Well, yes, by definition socialists are trying to take control of production out of the hands of large businesses and into the hands of the workers.

You are confusing communism with socialism, which only shows how effective the dis-information campaign of the "conservatives" has been over the years. Socialism is merely concerned about organizing things in such a way that some basic functions of society take precedence over personal greed. It is quite possible to have small/medium sized private enterprise in a socialist country, the criterion is not the word "private" but the overall offect on society such operations have. Since gigantic mega-businesses do impact society in significant ways (mostly negatively) that automatically produces a desire to counter-act these activities by the socialists. That is why socialists are likely to be for nationalization of major assets such as natural resources, roads etc. But they will not be so inclined when it comes to bakeries, grocery stores, muffler shops and the like.

And the Belgians win (0, Redundant)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011116)

Or to put it another, more accurate way, they lose.

This is what happens when business is run by those who fail to understand it, or indeed to even know what their actual core business IS. C'est la guerre.

I agree completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011534)

Computers, and the Internet, have changed the world. It works differently now. Unfortunately, a great percentage of the population got left behind. Even more unfortunately, most of our lawmakers and even business owners are in that group.

The end result is this kind of logical absurdity. Good guys being punished for doing reasonable and beneficial things.

I wish that generation would hurry up and die off.

Fair use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011118)

this ruling could have chilling effects on fair use rights on the web in the rest of Europe as well if other countries follow suit
Especially that fair use is a very american law concept which doesn't exist in many countries.

Re:Fair use (1)

edward2020 (985450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012892)

Sure, but other countries have similar code. Things like "fair dealing" and "Limitations and exceptions to copyright." Of course IANAL, and some of my info came from wikipedia (that bastion of truth and NPOV).

Slashdot found guilty of editorialism violations (0, Offtopic)

Vivieus (676170) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011126)

Re:Slashdot found guilty of editorialism violation (0, Offtopic)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011160)

They can't look back that far for articles, it was posted NEARLY 24 hours ago.

Re:Slashdot found guilty of editorialism violation (0, Offtopic)

Vivieus (676170) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011352)

At least they have the excuse that it was not on the front page anymore ;)

Re:Slashdot found guilty of editorialism violation (0, Offtopic)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011504)

similar headline, but not the same case. that one was about google's web caching, this one is about google news.

Fair use vs. copy of? (5, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011150)

I'm not sure how much aggregation Google news does, but I'd think if they're copying in less than 10% or so of the story and providing a link to the original they'd be safely in the "fair use" arena.

I suspect this has more with newspapers getting annoyed that people are starting to type in "[MyCity] news" in Google more often than looking up their local newspaper's web site. The newspapers also would like to restrict access to their "archives" (which they regard as a pay-to-see resource).

Re:Fair use vs. copy of? (4, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011530)

Fair use is a US concept. The 10% if it exists is probably a US thing as well. In the UK it's 5%, and only a single article. In belgium it's probably something different.

Google news is unashamedly breaking copyright.. there's no argument there - the real question is why anyone would prosecute over something that's driving hits to their page and generating ad revenue?

Re:Fair use vs. copy of? (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011852)

Google news is unashamedly breaking copyright.. there's no argument there - the real question is why anyone would prosecute over something that's driving hits to their page and generating ad revenue?
For control. The sense of losing control scares them so much, they instinctively react. They figure that once they have everything in hand, they can then arrive at whatever arrangements they want (possibly similar ones to the status quo until a few days ago).

Re:Fair use vs. copy of? (1)

mrcdeckard (810717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012604)


and it seems that, in general, this ruling is un-european. it almost seems like their anti-american brain beat out their pro-european brain with this ruling.

mr c

Some important facts.. and Microsoft..? (1)

Dretio from Belgium (1003555) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012708)

Fair use & copyright are "unkown" terms in Belgium (and most of the non-anglosaxon world), but we have equal (or more) rights for authors AND users. It's only a difference of naming the whole thing.

Authors, artists & producers.. have a lot of rights in Belgium, but users (listeners, etc..) can freely use excerpts, quotes, etc.. for schools, reports, books, scientific research. We even have the right to copy a cd for personal use..

Other important things about this topic :

  • it's only a minority of the Belgian press who went to court
  • the others (Flemish part) all have nice deals with Google
  • Google has a lot of legal ways to counter this ruling, this is not the end..
  • the expert who assisted the judge was a former MICROSOFT employee

And please, stick to the main topic. Belgium is a small, but beautifull country full of the best beer in the world [usatoday.com] , best chocolate.. and a governement existing of socialists AND right wing liberals.

Re:Fair use vs. copy of? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011568)

Fair use is not a universal legal concept.

Re:Fair use vs. copy of? (2, Funny)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011856)

but I'd think if they're copying in less than 10% or so of t
*beep* comprehension error. Please re-read article. Please note especially the word "Belgium". Please repeat the states of the USA and check if "Belgium" is on that list. If not, remove reference to USA copyright law from argument before continuing.

Re:Fair use vs. copy of? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18012730)

Maybe the poster thought Belgium copyright law was sane and had a fair use clause. There was no need to be an asshole about it.

The exponents hurt my brain (2, Funny)

Shard013 (530636) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011154)

Slashdot said $1250/day yesterday and $32,600/day today. Will hate to see how much they loose a day for copyright violations in about a week!

Re:The exponents hurt my brain (1)

Teresita (982888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011222)

Slashdot said $1250/day yesterday and $32,600/day today. Will hate to see how much they loose a day for copyright violations in about a week!

That's about right. If you're in a bittorrent swarm you share less than 1% of a file, but you owe MPAA $150,000 and your first-born child.

Re:The exponents hurt my brain (1)

Shard013 (530636) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011276)

Lucky I live in Australia, the MPAA has some other name here with which to sue me.

Re:The exponents hurt my brain (1)

emag (4640) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011424)

The $1295/day yesterday is for ongoing fines, the $32,600/day is apparently retroactive fines, according to the article linked in yesterday's story. Said story also mentions an ealier judgement had the retroactive fines at $1,300,000/day...

MY new business model (5, Funny)

aepervius (535155) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011170)

1) make any sort of "news alike" copyrighted content. Does not matter quality as long as there is quantity.
2) MAKE SURE that my robot.txt allow google.fr to index
3) wait
4) leave the content at the same place but put a password
5) sue google.fr for copyright infringement.
6) profit


Strange, I think I forgot the ?? step somewhere...

Re:MY new business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011410)

?? goes between 5 and 6, as usual. It is the look on the judge's face.

Heh heh captcha: reproof
That's about right.

Belgium IS NOT FRANCE!!! FFS (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011666)

slashdot: Belgium
aepervius: google.fr

I'm guessing you're one of the 75% of Yanks who thinks "passport" is a request to share fortified wine, right?

Clue: google.be [google.be] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium [wikipedia.org]

Differences between France and Belgium:
* Most Belgians speak Dutch, not French.
* In Belgium's extremely long varied history of occupation, the French occupied it for less than 25 years.
* Belgium still has a King. France killed all of theirs more than two hundred years ago.
* Belgium is NOT famous for good food. Trust me on this one. Typical menu: Ham and cheese with fries. Cheese fries with ham. Ham and fries with cheese. Pick any combination of the three. The fries are more like British "chips" except they are fried twice to make them crispier.

Re:Belgium IS NOT FRANCE!!! FFS (3, Insightful)

Saint V Flux (915378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011890)

You might want to learn to read - he merely used France as the country for which he'd exploit his idea. He never said it was Belguim or even referenced TFA. I'm guessing you're one of the 95% of modern liberals who can't follow basic logic, right? :)

Re:Belgium IS NOT FRANCE!!! FFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18012202)

Chocolate
waffles
french fries (they are invented in Belgium, not in France...) ...

belgians do NOT eat fries with cheese and/or ham. Only the British do that.

But yes, we do put mayonaise on our fries :-)

Re:Belgium IS NOT FRANCE!!! FFS (1)

breckinshire (891764) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012246)

I'm guessing you're one of the 75% of Yanks who thinks "passport" is a request to share fortified wine, right?
Oooh, burn!

Re:Belgium IS NOT FRANCE!!! FFS (1)

P. Niss (635300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012942)

I'm guessing you're one of the 75% of Yanks who thinks "passport" is a request to share fortified wine, right?

Of course not!!! How insulting! All of us "Yanks" know that "passport" is the most delicious Scotch [seagramindia.com] money can buy!

And they say we have no taste. . .

hmm (3, Insightful)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011186)

Sounds like they're biting the hand that feeds them. There was a rush of articles a while back where web analysts were blaming google for being a sort of web vampire/leech, sucking the blood out of websites without providing anything back. Those claims have quited because businesses realized that when they changed their model to accommodate the search centric interweb, times were good.

You leave google, google leaves you. Buh-bye, thank-you for flying the interweb air, we hope you enjoyed your time on interweb and also hope to see you again soon.

IP Rights. (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011218)

Are going to destroy the world as we know it. ( well, that and the lawyers ).

Its more insidious then any terrorist group, or rouge nation.

Re:IP Rights. (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011298)

[IP Rights] Are going to destroy the world as we know it. ( well, that and the lawyers ).

Its more insidious then any terrorist group, or rouge nation.


Well, "rouge" [google.com] states [wikipedia.org] do tend to be more obsessed with IP rights.

Lawyers, unfortunately, are pretty much omnipresent.

Re:IP Rights. (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012060)

Yes, you have to really watch out for those rouge nations. You never know what those people with the bright red cheeks are going to do next. I mean, they put colored stuff on their faces! What kind of insane bizarro thing is that?

Copyright law in Belgium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011314)

The copyright law in Belgium is completely different than for the US (I presume). One of the problems is that Google cached the newsarticles instead of just linking to them. Another thing about the copyright although I posted this message in the public domain on Slashdot, I still reserve all rights to it and can sue anyone who even quotes this message. In real life I'll probably lose the case since when someone quotes this I won't lose any money over it. In the best case I win and receive a symbolic euro or something like that.

In google' case it was about lost advertising revenue (IIRC).

reminds me of France and iTunes (5, Insightful)

gravesb (967413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011336)

This reminds me of when France was going to force Apple to open iTunes, and Apple said fine, we'll leave. Or when the EU took on Microsoft. Once companies get to be a certain size, its really difficult for countries to control them, especially when the controls will end up hurting their corporate citizens, as in this case. When Google stops linking to their newpapers, the newspapers will feel the pain, not Google. Especially since all of Google's competitors will have to play by the same rules, and can't provide unique content. If the governments were right in these cases, and could take the moral highground, then they might stand a chance of winning. However, by continuing to fight huge tech companies in these areas, where they can't win, they stand to lose the power to fight when it really matters. Also, in each case, there were other ways of dealing with the problem. Don't like MS bundling? Move the government to Linux, save money, and encourage your population to do the same. Don't like iTunes and the way Fairplay is locked down? Start a competitor, or encourage the labels to stop their love affair with DRM. Don't like Google lnking to news stories? Update your robot.txt to prevent cache's and Google indexing your site to begin with. Of course, they know they can't do that. They want to come up on Google searches, but not have Google index their content as well. Would you like to have that cake you just ate, anyone?

Re:reminds me of France and iTunes (1)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011814)

This reminds me of when France was going to force Apple to open iTunes, and Apple said fine, we'll leave. Or when the EU took on Microsoft.
On this planet, MS didn't leave the EU, nor did they any other muscle flexing. On planet slashdot, a few people talked about the "we're a big american company, we can do what we want, if the commie europeans don't want us, we'll just leave" approach, but were generally ridiculed.

Large corporations are especially easy to control, because they've got so much to loose. Back when Google was a startup without assets in every other corner of the world, they were much more difficult to get for local courts.

Re:reminds me of France and iTunes (1)

gravesb (967413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011946)

No, but they completely ignored the intent of the court's ruling, then embarressed the EU by showing consumers didn't buy any of the unbundled Windows. So who really won the real victory?

Re:reminds me of France and iTunes (1)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012820)

So who really won the real victory?
I'm not quite sure. Who paid half a billion in fines? The EU or MS?

Again!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011366)

The same thing happened last week.

Scary! (0, Redundant)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011418)

So this quote:

South Korea and its partners in international efforts to dismantle North Korea's nuclear weapons programs welcomed on Wednesday the agreement reached in Beijing to shut the Communist state's main nuclear reactor.
... could be a case of copyright infrigement on the International Herald Tribune?!

Besides, why are these guys trying to stop Google from linking to their web site?

Reserve the right to refuse service (0, Redundant)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011454)

Google should just stop listing the offended site. I know it sets up precedence in court, but Google should just stop crawling the site. See how long before the sites' hits drop so low they start begging Google to list them again.

Re:Reserve the right to refuse service (-1, Flamebait)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011768)

So in other words, you think it's ok to use force in order to make a point, regardless of whether you're right or not - or in this case, even though an impartial judge has already declared that you're wrong?

Did anyone forget to tell you that the Wild West has been over for a century or two?

Re:Reserve the right to refuse service (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011930)

So in other words, you think it's ok to use force in order to make a point
Yes, and he eats babies too, lightly smoked over a smouldering strawman.

Now, who started getting antsy and throwing their weight about? The tinpot newspapers, that's who. So it seems fair enough to me - they cried that google linked to them, so if google stop linking to them they can stop with the boo-hoos already. Be careful what you wish for.

Re:Reserve the right to refuse service (0, Troll)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012626)

Yes, the newspapers cried.

However, they didn't use their de facto powers to attack Google, they used the court system as our society intents, because that (resolving dispures) is what the court systems are for.

Google is welcome and planning to use the same means to get a different ruling. They've been acting restrained and responsibly in all those cases.

I also think the jerks on /. who project their dreams of power on Google or MS ("leave europe!") are probably working minimum wage jobs for a good reason. Shooting someone just because you happen to have the gun isn't how society works anymore.

Re:Reserve the right to refuse service (0, Flamebait)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011942)

Google's motto is "don't be evil". Abusing their power in this way because of a disagreement with a legal judgement would be stretching the concept of "not evil" a little.

Where do I begin? (1)

beerdini (1051422) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011460)

My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery.
What else would you expect from the country that gave us Dr. Evil's (adoptive)father? Its still not enough to make me quit eating their waffles or chocolate. MMMMM....chocolate Belgium waffles

conversation (1)

fuliginous (1059354) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011484)

I find it difficult to reconcile because I think of the internet far more as a conversation than a transmission. And so passing on links and summaries is more like repeating in abbreviated form something you overheard (or were in the audience for) in your own words but with enough extra info they can go and look for themselves.

Ho8o (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18011512)

it will be 4mong all parties it's world-spanning

Why Not Use Real Nerd Numbers? (1)

quadra23 (786171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011516)

Google will be forced to pay $32,600 for each day it displayed the links of the plaintiffs.

That's awfully close to a nerd number: 2 to the power of 15 = $32,768 [google.ca] [1]. We are talking about computers here, and there's nothing computers like more then binary numbers! Maybe the court was being generous by choosing a slightly lower number. What do you think Google will do with that *extra* $168 dollars a day they are not being charged?

[1] For the fun of it, I used Google Calculator to give the proof, and yes the Caret [wikipedia.org] symbol is really a bitwise operator but not according to Google Calculator. I suppose one could say that Google is guilty of "Bitwise Violation" also...but that's for another article ;)

Re:Why Not Use Real Nerd Numbers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18012332)

$ echo "2^15" | bc
32768

idiot

Re:Why Not Use Real Nerd Numbers? (1)

raynet (51803) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012566)

I would assume that the fines are in euros (wouldn't know, didn't read the article) and $32,600 is about 25000€.

Fair Use? (1, Informative)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011548)

This has nothing to do with fair use. Google is using copyrighted material to turn a profit. We're not talking about some not for profit blogger here or a journalist sighting portions of an article on some other site to further a point. This is Google using copyrighted material to turn a profit in the form of increased advertising revenue and the company in question has every right to sue to prevent others from profiting from content that they have created.

Re:Fair Use? (2, Insightful)

smartr (1035324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012016)

Automatic machine processes don't obey copyright law. Is your browser violating copyright law? Is each of the servers passing all the information between you and the content provider, copying the information without permission? Could Belgium sue AT&T? It seems pretty clear AT&T is distributing their information without permission for profit.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

manual_overide (134872) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012254)

what have they created? most of the news places that google links to are just repeaters for reuters and ap stories anyway. they are just pissed because people are reading their ap feed on google's site, thereby NOT clicking on their ads.

Re:Fair Use? (2, Interesting)

planetmn (724378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012346)

most of the news places that google links to are just repeaters for reuters and ap stories anyway

So then why doesn't google subscribe to these same services for the content, rather than piggyback on somebody elses subscription? They certainly have the money to do it.

-dave

robots.txt (3, Insightful)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011704)

If they don't want to be scanned by google, create the file.
If they do want to be scanned (and therefore indexed as well as cached) then don't.

Although, I for one, would prefer that we would have to *create* the file, and add entries that could say:
Scan=Yes
Index=Yes
Cache=No

If no robots.txt file is found, then do nothing for the site.

Re:robots.txt (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012960)

Iirc, there's also a

<noarchive>
parameter possible within the robot.txt file which prevents a side from being cached.

Time to tighten the belt (4, Funny)

sd_diamond (839492) | more than 7 years ago | (#18011806)

Google will be forced to pay $32,600 for each day it displayed the links of the plaintiffs.



FROM: Eric Schmidt



TO: All Google Employees



Beginning today, employees will no longer be eligible for free Kona coffee and hourly massages. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Lazy belgian webmasters (use robots.txt) (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18012274)

Why not just use robots.txt?

Could it be that they actually WANT to be available to search engines? Can't have it both ways.

[from google's blog]

If publishers do not want their websites to appear in search results, technical standards like robots.txt and metatags enable them automatically to prevent the indexation of their content. These Internet standards are nearly universally accepted and are honored by all reputable search engines.

In addition, Google has a clear policy of respecting the wishes of content owners. If a newspaper does not want to be part of Google News, we remove their content from our index--all the newspaper has to do is ask. There is no need for legal action and all the associated costs.

Re:Lazy belgian webmasters (use robots.txt) (1)

Keweenaw (897069) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012550)

A link to Google's full response [blogspot.com] on their blog.

I would tend to agree with Google that a lawsuit was not necessary. Too often I see a lawsuit where a simple direct contact would have been sufficient. I do not claim to be familiar with the specifics of this case...so sue me (that's a joke).

Re:Lazy belgian webmasters (use robots.txt) (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18012668)

How about lazy Google policies?

Maybe Google should be kind enough to ask permission in the form of webmasters creating robots.txt instead of just assuming that anyone who doesn't go out of their way to satisfy Google's policy is an open target?

This is like you crossing a stranger's property... in all human decency it's normally to ask before crossing, not crossing the land and bitching at the owner that if he didn't want people to cross his land he should be putting up fences.

It's this lack of common sense and common courtesy that is making society into the shithole it is today.

This looks familiar (1)

EzraSj (993720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012568)

I recall seeing this exact situation played out in some flash video that was trying to predict the future of the internet, google in particular. Anyone else see it? The only difference was that in the video it was the NY times that was suing google.

The problem is one of money. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18012588)

If I have a news article on my site, I want people to come to my site to read it. Why? Simple. I got advertising up there. However, when people don't come to my site, I lose money. And if they're going to google instead of my site for the story, then I do blame google. Personally, I've got my eye on Sentinel from http://www.blogwerx.com/ [blogwerx.com] - they were at the Demo Conference this year, and I'm looking forward catching me some sploggers!

links? (1)

Bizzeh (851225) | more than 7 years ago | (#18012866)

Google will be forced to pay $32,600 for each day it displayed the links of the plaintiffs


linking to an external site doesnt break a copyright, if the site that is being linked to has the system in place to disable a page after a certain amount of time (which is what the whole argument is over). so, google can link to the pages all they want, as long as they dont display any of the material longer than it is publicly available on the original site.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...