The piper is knocking


The scraper model may fail eventually.

Publishers Warn They Can't Keep Letting Internet Search Engines Make Money From Their Content

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- European publishers warned Tuesday that they cannot keep allowing Internet search engines such as Google Inc. to make money from their content.
"It is fascinating to see how these companies 'help themselves' to copyright-protected material, build up their own business models around what they have collected, and parasitically, earn advertising revenue off the back of other people's content," he said.


OH no.


One word


[or is that 2 words?]

One Word -- NOCACHE!

Search engines have been around quite some time now and without them nobody would most likely find those European sites. Also, the search engine only shows a snippet of the page which copyright law calls "FAIR USE" as that battle has been fought and lost.

Where the search engines get into more serious trouble IMO is their auto opt-in mentality of CACHED pages and allowing a searcher to see the whole page as that's way past fair use and I seriously think that could get them in trouble if anyone ever wants to push the issue.


I don't see how they can publish my web pages without my express permission. And don't cry robots.txt, lack of a robots.txt doesn't imply loss of copyright AFAIK.

However the SE's make little to nothing off the cached pages. If pushed, I expect they'll just remove the 'cached' link and be done with it. Really, I'm puzzled why they don't already do this. Actually, I'm puzzled as to why they are doing it in the first place, given the (C) infringement concerns - unless they know something I don't.

Lashing out

In my experience, the traditional publishers (newspapers) are *way* out of touch with all things internet. They are going to lash out at anything they can in hopes of stopping the ongoing decline in readership (something like a 20 year decline). I was once a part of a project providing internet solutions to the US newspaper industry. My partner was meeting with the president of one of the largest newspapers in the US. This man really hated the internet news and didn't want to pump one more cent into their online version. He then went on to say that he knows his readership - that every day he reads the print version, that he can't stand reading anything on the computer and that he would never save an online article. He then stated that he was a typical newspaper reader and that was how they all felt. I suppose that if the typical newspaper reader was a 65 year old multi millionaire that had been in the newspaper industry for 45 years --> then he was right. What it really showed me was the level of ignorance the establishment has for the digital age.

Crucial snippet tossed away at bottom, though.

Yahoo Inc. has a similar service, though it uses human editors and pays some news sources, including AFP and The Associated Press, for rights.

Apparently even Yahoo doesn't entirely agree with the "all intellectual property is theft" crowd.

> Also, the search engine

> Also, the search engine only shows a snippet of the page which copyright law calls "FAIR USE" as that battle has been fought and lost.

You appaently haven't seen any of the cases allready lost BY ENGINES in Europe over this (such as NewsBooster - one of the first and most clear cases). Allthough you might be right in US you are definately not right for Europe - not legally and not mentally, as you can see from the opinions expressed this time and before.

The fact stil remains that search engines operate like parasites and have never established the degree of trust, loyalty or agreements with publisher nessecary to make this a fair game for all. Even if the current laws won't protect publishers enough today to atually win a potential case against the major engines you can rest asure that countries in the EU might very well change those laws based on preassure from the publishers. They are a very influential group here!

And just to make one point clear: robots.txt don't even come into the equation - check the newbooster case and you'll find that one of the newspapers acusing NewsBoosters actually had a robots.txt file up blocking crawling that NewsBooster fully respected - and the newspaper still won!

Well this has been coming a

Well this has been coming a while if you ask me. Now that companies can see just how much money is involved in search they are less happy to "give away" their content for free. Googles hosting of wikipedia sent a sort of signal, that SE's will pay for unique content they feel enhances their user experience [sells more ads:)].

Just needs one to break the mould. What if the BBC said no pay, no spider? UK taxpayers happy, BBC happy and Billionaire search engine owners somewhat miffed sounds like an easy sell to me. Stage 2 will then be the sale of rights for exclusive access.

Good point NFFC

>>>>What if the BBC said no pay, no spider? UK taxpayers happy, BBC happy

This is beginning to happen with BBC. They are now using IP delivery and have now stopped the broadband news bulletins from the BBC website if you are in the States - I ended having to subscribe to Real's paid service to watch the news whilst in America.

On the other side, I can tell you that there was recently a complaint in Scotland which hasn't made the news so far (but I am sure this one one like it will soon) where a resident complained that they couldn't find the information he was looking for on Scottish Parliament's website where he expected to, in "Yahoo's search engine". I am not sure if it was actually raised in Parliament but it certainly was through the information commissioner. This raises the question of whether Parliament would have a duty to make sure that all there information was available through search engines? Would council's have to do the same?

It is the duty of Parliament (and indeed councils - local government) to make their information to make their information available to their users in ways that their users look and use that information. For example, I think you can take the NY state theory driving test in about 12 languages.


They are now using IP delivery and have now stopped the broadband news bulletins from the BBC website if you are in the States - I ended having to subscribe to Real's paid service to watch the news whilst in America.

I'm (a Brit) in Australia. I have found using Putty to do a SOCKS Tunnel through a UK server is very useful for getting around various geographical site policys. Message me if you want some more info about how to do it.

Are you suggesting that

Are you suggesting that search engines are preventing Parliment from carrying out its legal obligations?

?Search Engines have had a

?Search Engines have had a free ride for some time. They have provided a needed/wanted ‘free’ service, so most all their little transgressions have been overlooked.

But the so called ‘free search’ is not really free for the site owners.

These same site owners that are already ‘paying’ to allow the search engines to index their content, continue to see google making Billions of dollars off of their work and property, you can bet this will not continue.

I am not talking about the small Webmaster that thinks google is cool, I am talking about the commercial interests on the web, the folks that have the money and self interest to fight the improper use of their property by some other company, the companies that don’t care about search referrals.

I hear rumblings from some of the folks at the big well branded sites... A lot of them are asking, “Why do we need the search engines?” and the answers are not good news for the search engines...

The users may like google (and the other major search engines) at the moment, but how long will the users like and continue to use google (or any search engine) if they can’t find most of the major sites they are looking for using the search engines?

Think about it, the major well branded sites don’t need google, google needs them.

I think it is only a matter of time before some major sites start blocking access to the search engines.

I myself have been weighing the benefits versus costs of banning all bots on a few of my sites that do not depend on search referrals for their income. Banning all bots just keeps looking better and better...

weighing the benefits versus costs

thats it lotso

The cost of cannibalisation. I have bots blocked from various sites based on the cost/benefit ratio. Every site will have different ways of arriving at the point of benefit/loss but at least some are actually thinking on the concept instead of the willy nilly "google is good for us" brain f#$%.

Banning the bots

Can you give me some examples (generalized ones are fine) in which companies may save money (or earn additional money) by blocking bots?

Even mega-brands like McDonald's advertise on TV. I often wondered why (I mean, really, is there ANYONE in the world who isn't aware of McD's or what they offer?!), but... from what I understand, it's not necessarily to create awareness, but rather reinforce awareness and stimulated demand ("Gee, I *AM* hungry for a Big Mac right about now... time for a trip to the corner Mickey Dees!")

Anyway, I'm very curious to know what sites or type of sites would benefit from *decreased* awareness.

decreased awareness

> Anyway, I'm very curious to know what sites or type of sites would benefit from *decreased* awareness. ?

Brick & Mortar?

I think some brick and mortar retailers could probably get by without SEs. Most already promote their sites in offline advertising, catalogs, mailings, etc. If they consider it as just another buying channel, akin to phone and mail order, I don't think they'd do that badly. Throw in some targeted web buys, a good affiliate program here and there, and I think they'd get a bunch of exposure.

Open a small number of pages to the SEs for a web presence and put the rest behind the door.

(Of course, this is all predicated on the brick & mortar and web businesses actually being integrated parts of the same company, not the spinoffs that were going to make everybody dot com billioniares during the first bubble.)

Anyway, I'm very curious to

Anyway, I'm very curious to know what sites or type of sites would benefit from *decreased* awareness.

First; You don't have to worry about paying for bandwidth do you?

Ever had your server crash cuz it is being pounded by bots or just get so slow all your customers go somewhere else?

It is not a matter of "decreased awarness", it is a matter cost versus benifit... is the benifit of search traffic worth the cost, some business are saying no, to name just one.

Advertising is an individual thing... am I missing out cuz I have not had someone tatoo one of my domain names on their (whatever body part)... I don't think so.

Search Engines are just another way to advertise just like printing your domain name on bus stop benches or a tatoo on someones ass...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.