Google News Found Guilty of Copyright Violation 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."
What's good for the goose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair use vs. copy of? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its more insidious then any terrorist group, or rouge nation.
Re:Do socialist countries just hate big business? (Score:1, Insightful)
reminds me of France and iTunes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair use vs. copy of? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What's good for the goose... (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
robots.txt (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Belgium IS NOT FRANCE!!! FFS (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's good for the goose... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The problem is one of money. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Lazy belgian webmasters (use robots.txt) (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
News aggregates illegal in belgium? (Score:3, Insightful)
The courts should not address issues it has no understanding of. It should consist of younger people for technology-related rulings.
It doesnt even fit this particular scenario. Google News is almost unreadable already, the snippets they cut from each news source is just a few words, and most often not even complete sentences. It is more of a free advertisement for the News agencies, because to get the story, or get any meaning out of it, you need to click the link. Such short snippets should be ruled as fair use, and the Google News should really be longer to be actually readable, but IANAL or a judge for that manner, so who can fathom the reasoning behind it?
But of course, there will always be rulings going against common sense, but today, it will get more light and fame, so there are really more checks and balances today than say 100 years back.
Maybe Google should just stop the feeds for those agencies that are suing, and when they see their traffic fall, they will beg to be listed on Google again. I remember this happened for some similar scenario of linking to news a year ago or so.