Engineering Lifestyle
Comment
Jack.L
It is both the snippets in search results as well as the consolidated news ...
mikesh311
While I don't disagree, we finally cancelled the Sunday only delivery at my ...
What were they thinking: Newspapers want a cut of Google’s pie
Brian Bailey
11/30/2012 1:16 PM EST
People who know me know that I am not a Google fan. I keep clear of their products and services whenever I can because I don’t like the companies ethics. But today I am going to take their side in a crazy piece of potential legislation that is going on in Germany. If it should succeed, it would have serious consequences for the Internet as we know it. Apparently, other European countries (France and Italy) are hoping the Germans do succeed because they are waiting in the wings to try and claim their piece of the pie as well.
This is basically about wanting Google to pay publishers for the right to show news snippets in search results. At first blush it may seem as if that is reasonable until you realize the snippets we are talking about are basically the verbiage that the news peddlers wrote especially for the search engines and that the content is being provided for free to the Internet. They believe that they are entitled to a share of the advertising revenues that Google gets on those pages. Of course, if this were to pass it would mean that Google would have to pay every content provider for the information used in search results.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if you have a website, you would want Google including your results. In fact some people are willing to pay to have their results displayed more prominently. That drives more traffic to their site where they can then either sell product or sell advertising. If we continue to use the news publisher as an example, would this not mean that if Google were to drive a reader to a newspaper site, then isn’t Google entitled to a share of their advertising revenue given that they created the lead?
So, if Germany is successful, I hope Google just stops indexing those publications and then we can wait and see how long it is before they place lawsuits trying to force Google to carry their content. It seems as if some German politicians are angry that Google is trying to defend itself with regards to this pending legislation.
So, I hate to say it but Google – I am with you on this one!
Brian Bailey – keeping you entertainedIf you found this article to be of interest, visit EDA Designline where – in addition to my blogs on all sorts of "stuff" – you will find the latest and greatest design, technology, product, and news articles with regard to all aspects of Electronic Design Automation (EDA).
Also, you can obtain a highlights update delivered directly to your inbox by signing up for the EDA Designline weekly newsletter – just Click Here to request this newsletter using the Manage Newsletters tab (if you aren't already a member you'll be asked to register, but it's free and painless so don't let that stop you [grin]).
|
|
|
|
|
jbusco
11/30/2012 6:57 PM EST
Is the lawsuit about just displaying a line or two of text, or is about scraping a significant part of the article's content, as is done on news.google.com ?
If the former, I agree it should be allowed because it's an essential function of search. If it's the latter, I can sympathize with the content creators, since they are losing out on eyeballs and ad revenue.
Sign in to Reply
Jack.L
1/22/2013 9:53 AM EST
It is both the snippets in search results as well as the consolidated news news.google.com, etc.
This could be as much a bargaining ploy, i.e. there should be payment for news.google.com, but perhaps not the snippets.
To a comment below, it is about following the money, and it is tough I think for news services today. I think most of us appreciate the news, but the system has not "worked out" the cost/value of quality news. Let's face it, the average blog is somewhat biased and often poorly researched .... case in point this article which does not go into enough the most basic of details.
If this is what will pass in the future for "reporting", then that is not good. Democracy thrives on the free and somewhat unbridled flow of quality information.
Sign in to Reply
Battar
12/2/2012 2:12 AM EST
I think this is just another example of the lawyers ethic which states "follow the money".
Sign in to Reply
EREBUS
12/2/2012 6:17 PM EST
Newspapers are trying to prolong the inevitable. Printing hard copy and delivering it by hand is inefficient, wasteful in resources and time. Plus it is quickly reaching the end of its product life.
On demand, digital news is the new standard. The days of waiting for news is over. Long live the newpapre, all hail digital media.
Just my opinion,
Sign in to Reply
mikesh311
12/6/2012 4:11 PM EST
While I don't disagree, we finally cancelled the Sunday only delivery at my house this summer, it can be quite difficult to find an equivalent surface cover for those potato peels at Thanksgiving or painting project in the garage. Despite all unread newspaper I've recycled and tossed, it is sorely missed when needed.
Sign in to Reply
Buck-on-Bass
12/3/2012 8:16 AM EST
Google has a simple means to flag a page to not be searched. If the flag is not set, Google can claim the site wanted Google to include the site in the search. Furthermore, Google can argue that they are providing a service in providing free advertizing for the newspaper sites. Google is using the news snippits and links send readers to the newspaper site.
While I am not knowledgeable of European law, this case looks like a money grab by the newspaper publishers (or their lawyers).
Sign in to Reply