More Newspapers Taking the Piss at Google

12 comments

Google is being questioned on copyright law on just about every front. Today is the World Association of Newspapers turn up to bat. From Reuters:

The Paris-based World Association of Newspapers, whose members include dozens of national newspaper trade bodies, said it is exploring ways to "challenge the exploitation of content by search engines without fair compensation to copyright owners."

The World Association of Newspapers said it would seek a meeting with European Commission officials and look into whether the news aggregators are infringing on their copyrights or brands.

Does the search business model work without opt out?

Even if newspapers killed off a search company others would take the place. Although citizen journalism is not news journalism thousands of people are willing to create content to replace the papers without needing to be paid.

I think what newspapers are fearing is the realization they are losing their monopolies.

Distribution is not the problem. The problem is inefficiencies in content production and ad sales. Fighting distribution will only ensure a quicker death.

Comments

Off topic English lesson....

Aaron honey; You can take the piss out of someone or you can piss all over them, but you don't take the piss at them.

And taking the piss is either to make fun of or take unfair advantage of a favour which is probably not the context for this story.

I'd say they're either "throwing shit to see what sticks" or they're doing something not involving an English colloquialism :(

But its interesting to watch the groundswell (and actually generally against things which, imho, Google don't deserve abuse for while they ignore the real biggies) isn't it?

i was going to make the same

i was going to make the same comment Gurtie. Interestingly enough, if i hadn't been such a grammar nazi, i probably wouldn't have visited the article from the RSS feed. It's similar to getting visits from people searching for misspelled words - bad english that actually increases the hitrate!

aaah - my bad

Aarons marketing spin fools me again ;)

throwing shit to see what

throwing shit to see what sticks

Or pissing into the wind, maybe?

But it's good to see the newspapers finally picking up on the exploitation we recognised as exploitation here years ago. But why did it take them so long to see that the company whose shit doesn't stink can indeed make them piss in their pants?

OK, that was tenuous but I wanted to run with the bathroom theme for a bit. :)

It's about time...

At some point Google is going to have to start honoring the intents of authors and not their programming proficiencies. Assume NoCache!

If we assume nocache ...

If we assume nocache ... what's left? It's virtually a death warrant and will shrink their index to a small fraction of Yahoo's.

Yawn

Another silly argument that is solved with a single line of HTML, it's getting real old.

I'm afraid these papers will figure out they actually lose traffic as there is no way in hell a normal user will read hundreds of papers looking for that one gem that the news aggregator puts in front of your face.

Besides, even if the papers tell Google to piss off (see how that works Aaron) your average joe blogger can still fair use quote from the paper and link to it and Google can still show them instead.

When it comes to ad dollars I'd rather be the second in line after Google instead of 3rd or 4th, especially with AdSense, as the same topics and keywords probably show similar ads page after page.

These papers aren't thinking it through.

simple really...

... the newspapers found themselves some link bait - don't we all want some ;-)

One last thought

As Google expands further into print advertising and flexes it's muscle as a media company this discussion will go away as newspapers and magazines historically don't slam the advertisers that directly pay their wages and articles about Google will be toned down.

NoCache, not NoIndex

Come on guys, this is a site about search engines and you dont know that. It would not shrink the index at all, it would just prevent google from displaying the cache of it. You people thinking assume nocache would be harmful some how. The WORST case scenario is that you might not be able to get something when a particular site goes down. The BEST case scenario is Google never has to deal with caching law suits ever again.

The news companies are thinking this through.

Step 1: Sue Google
Step 2: Create our own

It is a really simple process, and I promise you it has been thought through.

you are right

Apologies, I don't know what I was thinking! It's been one of those days; I'll have to unscramble my brains tonight. Nocache is not Noindex. Of course!

Did not mean to...

Call you out, it is a common misconception and, more often than not, just like you said - an "ive been staring at the monitor for 39 straight hours and you expect me to remember the difference between nofollow, noindex, nocache, nocoffee, nosleep, nomygodmyhouseisonfire ".

Regardless, I think the distinction is important. Google's cache is not important to the functioning of its business, the question is just who do they want to be nice to. I think, for once, they could stand to be nicer to authors.

Comment viewing options

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