Newspaper Lobbyists Take Aim at Google News 331
Hitokiri writes "Now that Google News is out of beta the newspaper publishers are starting to take notice. It's important to note that no legal action has taken place yet, but still, there seems to be a battle on the horizon." From the article: "'They're building a new medium on the backs of our industry, without paying for any of the content,' Ali Rahnema, managing director of the association, told Reuters in an interview. 'The news aggregators are taking headlines, photos, sometimes the first three lines of an article -- it's for the courts to decide whether that's a copyright violation or not.'"
Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
What does Beta have to do with anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use (Score:3, Insightful)
Google does as paper does (Score:4, Insightful)
Built a news medium on the backs of other people lives, without paying for any of the content. When was the last time the news reporter payed you after publishing an article reporting your car accident, or that you were being sued.
I'll remember this statement. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll rmember that the next time I see an article in their papers that's almost verbatim to the Reuters or AP wire feed.
Fucking hypocrites.
I predict... (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me how willing people are to shoot themselves in the foot.
Not very clever of them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Some companies PAY for a little link to their site to appear when there is a relevant Google search. These newspapers get indexed, and linked to, from a high traffic site, for FREE, and they are complaining. Instead of throwing lawyers at the problem, they should engage their brains for a moment and figure out which option is better for their business.
The problem with most newspapers (Score:5, Insightful)
So while it's sort of simplistic to say that this is all fair use, the reality is that Google News, by making a better mouse trap (dynamic news aggregation) is--probably without even realizing it--competing head to head with local newspapers.
Robots.txt (Score:2, Insightful)
By not stopping Google by using the standard mechanism, I'd agree that it is fair use for Google to use the data they provide.
Why do I get the feeling... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The problem with most newspapers (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me how willing people are to shoot themselves in the foot."
I suspect the larger news sources would rather have the practice halted completely. This would force people to go to a major news site (them) rather than google which sometimes leads people to lesser news sites. Slashdot has been linked from a Google headline more than once. Big news sites don't want people to be aware of any alternatives.
Smaller news sources probably like the publicity Google provides them. Larger news sources probably don't like the publicity Google provides those smaller competitors.
They don't want to opt out, they want it all to just go away.
Re:Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
if i go to a newstand (Score:3, Insightful)
if i go to google news, same thing: i can scan the front page headlines of about 10 different newspapers without visiting the newspaper's site. but if i am interested in knowing more in depth, i'll click on the link and go to the newspaper's site
are newspapers now going to prohibit people from looking at newsstands unless they intend to buy a newspaper?
this is utterly ridiculous. do newspaper sites want no traffic? how the heck do they expect people to find their stories?
Other sites (Score:3, Insightful)
"Shooting themselves in the foot" is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly journalists...
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the ads, you must be using adblocker or something.
How is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, Google is still directing web traffic to their sites. There are a lot of news articles on various sites I would have never read if it weren't for Google news. I don't have time to track thousands of different online news outlets, so Google does it for me. I have even *gasp* clicked on ads after being redirected to the news vendors website. Even more shocking, there has been a few (5 actually) news outlets who's RSS feeds I have subscribed to after reading a few articles of theirs linked to from Google News.
Oh well, there are no laws against stupidity. This is almost as dumb as book publishers getting in a panic over Google Book Search, which is free advertising as far as I'm concerned. Or do they fear people will be satisfied with the page shown on Google Book Search and not buy the full book? Generally, when I want to read a book, I want to read the full book. The same thing with the news. I don't read the Google News homepage and not go to the full source.
Re:The problem with most newspapers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use (Score:1, Insightful)
Which side would YOU rather be on ...
Re:Fair Use (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Google does as paper does (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if whether Google's usage is "fair use" or not. But it's not fair to say that journalists "built a news medium on the backs of other people lives, without paying for any of the content". They maintain their medium by researching the events and describing them for people who weren't there, and that's a service that many people (myself included) find valuable and willing to pay for. Journalists don't just regurgitate whatever they're told*.
* Certain former New York Times reporters (*cough* Judith Miller *cough*) excepted.
These people are stupider than the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Google News. Google news gives them free pagehits which exposes
their newspaper and their web page ADVERTISERS to a larger audience.
If I were a newspaper publisher I wouldnt be angry about my newspaper
being in Google news, I would be angry about my newspaper not listed
among the first three sources.
All google news is a News search engine with links to news sites.
My god Google news is GIVING YOU BUSINESS without charging you....
Google news has your newspaper websites RELEVANT again...more so
than TV news. Are you newspaper publishers really that fracking
STUPID as to punish them for it?
Re:I suspect (Score:2, Insightful)
But I'd rather see if this is ruled fair use.
Re:Fair Use (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee, let's see. Would I rather pay 50 cents (or whatever it is) to get a space-wasting dirty tree-killing truck-polluting pile of paper with an erroneous "Miners rescued alive" headline, or view the news, no clutter/pollution/tree-killing required, online, with the CORRECT INFORMATION?
Plus, I can read what I want, be linked to other sources, read in the order I want without having to make piles all over the floor, worry about pages being out of order, and I can even easily e-mail links or text of stories to others.
Gee. I think I'll stay a web reader for a good long time.
Theft, pure and simple (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like being indexed, put a frigging robots.txt file on your site and watch how much you'll be saving in bandwidth costs afterwards as your traffic plummets.
The newspapers not only need to lose on this one -- they need to lose big!
Re:Copyright violation? Why wait? $$$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Google has lots of money now, and they want to get their hands on it. Rule number 1 in laywer school: Don't sue poor people because they can't pay.
Re:you're very confused (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not a very accomplished liar are you? Show me one advertisement on news.google.com and you might have a point.
Since when have you ever paid for an AP or Reuters news story online. The news sites posting them pay for them, and use advertising to subsidize.
Yes, and they create almost no news of their own. In other words, what Google is showing is that all of these so called 'NewsPapers' are nothing more than distribution channels for syndicated news. Or to put it another way, there is no reason to buy one newpaper as opposed to any other.
I think the real issue here is that the concept of the 'Newspaper' is dying. With the Internet, news is obiquitous, instantaneous and democratic. One can invision a future where consumers will subscribe to a single news service and then filter by region, topic etc. All journalists will then be working for the syndication companies.
This turns the whole news business model upside down. Currently, "The New York Times" is a brand that is used to sell advertising space to corporate advertisers. There is a huge vested interest in sustaining this model for a number of reasons.
1) Advertisers influence the type of news that is printed. In other words, the flow of information is influenced, nay corrupted, by the corporate world.
2) Huge amounts of money have been invested into these news 'brands'. Changing the model dilutes the value of the brand,effectively causing a capital loss.
3) Following on from (1), information flow influences political thought. If the newpaper influences political thinking, and advertisers influence the newspaper, then the advertisers (corporations) indirectly influence political thought. This is a powerfull lever that nobody would want to give up.
YMMV
Re:What does Beta have to do with anything (Score:1, Insightful)
nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, please, how naive can you be? The NYT web site was created by highly paid, experienced web designers and developers. Of course, they know about robots.txt, and any court would expect a company of that wealth and publishing experience to hire people that know about it.
And even if the NYT employees were so incompetent that they don't know, Google tells them about it [google.com]. Google even gives you a means for removing your site immediately [google.com].
Re:Fair Use (Score:2, Insightful)
The ironic thing is, if Google had simply "charged for the privelege" of being listed on Google News, as opposed to listing them for free, we probably wouldn't be hearing a peep.
It's all about perception.
Re:The problem with most newspapers (Score:3, Insightful)
It is odd, though, finding interesting Superbowl articles in the Xinhua Times...