Google Relents, Publishes Belgian Ruling 226
gambit3 writes "Google on Saturday published on its Belgian website a court order which forbids the Internet search engine to reproduce snippets of Belgian press on its news amalgamation service. The move constituted a u-turn as Google had said on Friday that it would not comply with the court order despite facing a fine of 500,000 euros ($640,900) daily if it did not publish the ruling." From the article: "Google said its service is lawful and drives traffic to newspaper sites because people need to click through to the original publisher to read the full story. It now displays stories from news agencies, foreign newspapers and Internet sites belonging to local television stations."
Yes, but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China Internet Site Blocking (Score:2, Informative)
Copyright is copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Copyright is copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair use is a longstanding element of copyright that "content owners" (sic) were hoping we would all just eventually forget about. Google's indexing of information (even if it involves copying without permission) is a perfect example of fair use, and hopefully this case will be high-profile enough to get people asking questions about this stuff
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I wouldn't count on it. The world has acquired a few other items over the last five years that need much more urgent attention. I don't think copyright is that high on the list. Nor should it be. It is an issue for the corporations to fight out. Quit buying their products, build bullet-proof servers, and the issue will disappear into the night. It is so petty to the point of being ridiculous. We need to con
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Real easy to say, until you get sued and have all your hopes taken from you for doing so. Maybe I am a heartless bastard for it, but I don't *CARE* what could be happening to someone else that maybe the "worst possible thing". News flash: people always have and always will do nasty things to each other. I know copyright affects me and many others negatively. It IS an issue, no matter how much you call i
Re: (Score:2)
Overblown copyright is obviously not as intense a problem as torture, but I think it's reductive to say it boils down to entertainment. Its intent, as some of us never get tired of pointing out, is to promote science and the useful arts -- not to divert us. I would go so far as to suggest that art as mere diversion results from the industrialization of "content". That's a different story, though.
Allow the public domain to be enriched again, and you will see innovations and dsicoveries that make human life
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for them changing the content, where are they doing that? Truncating it, sure, but no real modifications.
Re:Copyright is copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Google chose not to show (Score:2)
FTFA: "Attendu que le tribunal de céans ne manque pas d'être surpris par l'attitude de la défenderesse qui n'a pas jugé utile de participer à la mission d'expertise, malgré les invitations qui lui avaient été adressées par l'expert judiciaire, et qui ne comparaît pas
For those who can't parse French: The tribunal is surprised by google's attitude, who failed
Re: (Score:2)
"Waited until the court of céans does not fail to be surprised by the attitude of the defendant who did not consider it useful to take part in the mission of expertise, in spite of the invitations which had been addressed to him by the legal expert, and who does not appear."
Might as well read "Go stick your head in a pig."
Re: (Score:1)
That'll solve the problem alright, by eliminating publication to the web, so they'll be no news to search for. Go buy a paper.
KFG
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yargghh! And screw grammar and spelling! It's just keepin' the man down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
is this the same case as:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/13/15 32230 [slashdot.org] ?
If so then the summary (and TFA) got it wrong from what i can tell.
That case wasnt so much about google indexing the pages and putting them up on news.google.com, it was about google caching the pages that were free and keeping the cache when they werent free anymore (aka paid archive access).
Is this even the same case ?
The prev summary mentioned 1 mil$ this one is talking about half a mil, but they look pretty much the
killing fair use/public domain through FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
If they did, then it should be challenged, but that's not what they're doing.
may potentially lead to Google winning the case and setting a precedent whereby all information publicly available on the internet would be entered into the public domain or at least break ground for fair use.
If you want to put content on the Internet and not have it be indexed, archived, and/or republished, you have two simple options: use a robots.txt file or require a loging.
What is really going on is that companies like the Belgian newspapers want to destroy the public domain and fair use: if companies like Google can't assume that content that is freely available on the Internet is actually either public domain or available under fair use, then public domain and fair use are dead.
In different words, companies like the Belgian newspaper are trying to kill the public domain and fair use through FUD. And the Belgian court has handed them a victory. It's disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
I have serious doubts with these procedings, and question the views of the court's expert on this case. I'm not surprized at all this is happening in Belgium, only worried for what has become possible in this small European country...
I agree with Google's response removing all links to the French & German press in Belgium. Google should tread careful now, because the same court may force them to
Re: (Score:2)
One example : the french-speaking "community" has state-funded libraries for music & videos called "Mediatheques". They are playing the same role as libraries for book and they are renting CD for very low prices (1$/week, when I was young). Before internet & broadband, this was one of the best way to discover alternative music. These rentals and the private copy of rented material is legal and was never even challenged by the local RIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Belgian newspapers gave them permission to: their robots.txt file did not tell Google to stay out. And it's not surprising that such permission should be granted: other newspapers realize the value of the free advertising and traffic they get through Google.
No, what this is really about is that established me
Re: (Score:2)
"Fair Use" in the American context usually means very limited quotation. Reviews. Citations.
It may apply to slightly extended usage rights within the home.
It does not mean that a commercial entity like Google can sweep up everything in sight for fr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the Belgian newspapers will see a drop (Score:5, Interesting)
Good for them.
Will they sue Yahoo/MSN next?
Re:And the Belgian newspapers will see a drop (Score:5, Interesting)
If you do the right search in Google, you'll turn up the following message: and the following link [chillingeffects.org] and comparison [chillingeffects.org]
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
According to the ruling I'm reading right now on google.be, I can sum up your misunderstanding in two words: Google cache.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to say, the last part of the ruling mention's the court dismay that Google refused to take part in the technical assesment portion of the trial, which is where such details would have been timely and constructive to divulge.
I think google shot itself in the foot there.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean basically, if there is no robots.txt file, then don't index belgian sites at all? Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.
Heck, do that for all websites, maybe we'll see a brief drop in linkfarms. Well, until they catch on...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the ruling I'm reading right now on google.be, I can sum up your misunderstanding in two words: Google cache.
I can respond in one filename: robots.txt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I dislike spam as much as anyone, I really don't see how you can "outlaw" the harvesting of email addresses either. If you post your email address to a website, you really have no reasonable expectation that it is any longer "private information". I certainly don't have any expectation that the email address I use here, even given the auto-obfuscation of it, will in any way remain private. I have a -truly- private email address which I give only to friends, family, and business associates, and that on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I can see that you do not program. Or I hope you don't!
When setting something up, the defaults should be whatever the majority will use. That's the difference here. In the case of spam, the majority does not want it, so the default should be no until you explicitly sign up for a list. On the other hand, most websites do want to be indexed and cached, so the default should be you are until you explicitly say no thanks. It's no different then anything useful. Most people will want the "find" command to
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't want them to send me mails I did not ask for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On top of removing and permanently banning them from the Google index.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, an earlier article explained it is exactly like that, for certain older stories no longer on the original publishers' sites.
(This does not make the thing less stupid, though)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
So i used it to see the original message .
for the record , i'm a belgian citizen .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like airports charging taxi drivers both for a license to pick up in the airport and each time they pick up as is the situation in Dublin?
Bussinesses charge based on what they think will get them the most money. The Belgian newspapers are no different. They understand the situation pretty well. It's just that there's money to be made.
For the amount of traffic google news generates they could pressure media to pay them
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they'd just rather flex some highly paid lawyer muscle and deal with the expenses of a court battle than get some web monkey sat in a broom cupboard somewhere to take 10 minutes out of their busy schedule and do this...
Re: (Score:2)
If Google stores the articles, everybody can read the old articles without paying for a subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
Minitruth (Score:2, Interesting)
The court order is meaningless (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The court order is meaningless (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The grammar may be (nearly?) identical, but the vocabulary has enough differences to cause serious misunderstandings.
I think there may b
Re: (Score:2)
I guess one out of three isn't bad. :)
Interesting. I've never heard of those distinctions, and if they had come up, I would have remembered. But as long as it's
Incompetence at work (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a web user, I prefer it like that, but I can understand the point of view that permission should be actually granted, not just assumed (i.e. have a Robots *Inclusion* Protocol instead).
Re: (Score:2)
It comes down to fair use, not permission. If the copying is done as a fair use, then there is no assumption of permission and honoring a robots.txt is just a courtesy not some legal requirement.
Same logic for Spam??? (Score:2)
So, according to your logic, all SPAM is legit as long as you can opt-out afterwards???
That's a dangerous attitude.
The realization will set in... (Score:2)
Eventually news corporations will realize that they need Google a hell of a lot more than Google needs them.
(It's kind of scary that Google has become so p
Re: (Score:2)
I know it is heresy to say this on Slashdot, but there are other search engines than Google.
Belgians will move to the one that serves them best. Unlike the Geek, they aren't bound to make the the pilgrimage to Mountain View.
Belgium is small.. (Score:2)
There are about 4 milion French speaking Belgians.
That is a small market, these newspapers don't earn any money (worth mentionning) from their website's anyway.
The website are a service to existing newspaper customers.
If these customers can use google as an archive, the service becomes useless.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The loss of their ability to be the only news source is why they are suing Google in the first place. If they didn't fear Google's strength in the market of luring subscriber's away, they wouldn't be suing, would they?
With $500K a day you could.. (Score:1)
B) Donate to cancer research
C) Buy me a new graphics card
If only we had more New Yorkers on the Google high board.
Missing the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue was whether the judge could require Google to publish his opinion on the front page of Google.
Question 1) If the NY Times lost a case, could a judge order them to use the whole front page to publish her opinion?
Question 2) if you lost a case, could a judge order you to buy the front page of the LA Times to publish his opinion?
Perhaps this is some Belgian thing, where a judge can require losing defendants to publish the judge's opinion on the front page of a national paper.
To our Belgian friends: is this a common practice?
Al
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One word... (Score:3, Interesting)
As an act of protest... (Score:4, Funny)
....eh, fuck this. *cracks another one open*
Web Services and Laws in other countries (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point: A british couple bought some land in the turkish bit of Cyprus and built a holiday v
Do No Evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
People disagree on what "evil" means.
Obviously Google thinks it's doing the right thing by spreading information to the masses, like the information on this newspaper's website.
The newspaper, on the other hand, thinks that action is quite evil. They are losing ad revenue because of it.
Two reason beside goggle cache. (Score:2, Interesting)
But there are, i think 2 'real' reason behind this action, if you listen to what media people say here:
-targeted marketing : with google news, google get his marketing info for personnalised ads database. Not the newspaper.
i believe this is The reason behind that lawsuit. they dont care about their content, they know they will loose hits, they know people dont read the news on google cache but come to their si
Legal Precedent Creates a Trap for All .be links (Score:2, Interesting)
The Belgian court's decision in the Google case creates an interesting precedent. This decision could be used by anyone in Belgium whose content is the target of a link. On the basis of a link to .be, anyone could find themselves targetted and fined by a Belgian court.
Every so often a court emits a ruling that makes it impossible to know what's legal and what's not, and leaves one open to liabilities that could not possibly be predicted. This, like the EU's rulings against Microsoft (also out of Brussel
Idiots (Score:2)
Idiots. Everything posted on the net is fair game, imho. Suggesting otherwise is just silly.
Re:I'd take my ball and go home. (Score:4, Insightful)
Risking $500k a day in fines from a country with 10 million residents? No WAY it's remotely worth it, they couldn't make 1/10 of that from Belgian operations. Shutting down google.be would be fairly harsh to the Belgian citizens who probably couldn't care less about the ruling, but hey, they'd care after that.
Actually, let's do some calculations for fun...
Google had gross revenue of $6B last year. That's $1 per person on the planet per YEAR (obviously not everyone on the planet uses Google but this will work for a rough estimate). Say Belgium would then be responsible for $10M a year. That's under $30k a day. Assume Belgians are avid Google users and round it up to $50k per day, and hey, my 1/10 estimate above wasn't too bad...
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fine IF google does NOT follow the court judgement. A fine must be high enough so that Google cannot disregard the court decision.
Now they can shutdown Google.be, sure, but what will be the WORLD public opinion if they decide to shutdown Belgium because they don't like the court order (that affect only the content of the news aggregator) while at the same time they filter everything for the chines
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And apparently, it's THE stupidity hub as well.
The (smarter) Flemish part of Belgium including Brussels has the higher penetration of internet, businesses and people.
It's all looks like Belgium from the outside, bub.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Belgium has a very stringent opt-in law, the kind that privacy advocates in the US dream about. Everything must be opt-in, no exceptions.
robots.txt is the internet standard, yes. It is also opt-out, because you are assumed to give consent unles
Re: (Score:2)
They have taken plenty of action: they put up a web server and put up the stuff on the Internet.
The judge ruled correctly based on Belgian law.
Then Belgian law is broken.
Belgium has a very stringent opt-in law, the kind that privacy advocates in the US dream about.
This has nothing to do with privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yeah, just like how "being born", "getting a phone line and email address", and "living in a building" are actions that opt you in to everything under the sun in the US.
Then Belgian law is broken.
I'd take Belgian law over the US any day. Yes it's wrong in this one little particular case about robots.txt, but it's right in 99% of other opt-in cases.
This has nothing to do with privacy.
Yes it does. Opt-in is i
Re: (Score:2)
They could have easily just complied with the court order but instead they had to make a point by petulently removing all links to the relevant newspapers and even making it hard for people to read the judgement. This is manipulating search data for political purposes to suit their own agenda. It raises doubts in my mind about how much
Re: (Score:2)
Bullcrap.
Google is the one being bullied here. The government has police and guns and plenty of power. They can take your shit. They can put you in jail.
Google is doing the only thing they can do to protest: they're refusing to pr
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that when I search on Google I want to trust that they will return the results I want. Instead, they have shown that they are willing to manipulate search results to punish sites. Google could have kept the morale high ground by just removing a load of links to the Belgian sites and taking them out of google
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
francophone et germanophone représentés par la demanderesse à dater de la signification de l'ordonnance, sous peine d'astreinte de 2.000.000,- par jour de retard;
Those wacky Americans lawyers and their lawyerspeak, only thing I understood was 'retard' and 2 million, maybe it has something to do with the amount of stupid sites on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
The Belgian newspapers shot themselves in the foot, and they'll cave after a while when they reco
Re: (Score:2)
others ? Well
Marc Dutroux ?
Other Belgium trivia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for this post, I was about to write a similar comment, but I couldn't fond the correct wording.
You did an excellent job.
Too bad I don't have modpoints. I would mod you up!