Google Pays AP To Help Put The F(U) In AFP

from the playing-nice dept

Thu, Aug 3rd 2006 8:58am — Carlo Longino

The AFP news agency, for some reason, felt really hard done by Google, and decided to sue the company for having the audacity to link to its stories. While AFP's customers are understandably upset, since Google removed AFP from Google News, taking away a significant source of traffic. Google has now muddied the waters a little bit by announcing a deal to pay the AP, another news agency for the use of its stories and photographs. While at first glance, this might appear to bolster AFP's case, Google is quick to add the deal has to do with a new product that will complement Google News, not for its linking to AP stories within the News product. This announcement really doesn't change anything in regards to the AFP case -- Google News is still nothing more than a search engine, falling well within fair use boundaries. And the real fact of the matter hasn't changed -- that Google News drives traffic to news providers' sites, where they're free to monetize that traffic however they see fit, or attempt to monetize it, anyway. AFP had other options than to sue Google and get itself removed from Google News. Even if it prevails in the case and gets the $17.5 million in damages, or even a bit more, it won't be ahead in the long run. For too long, traditional news organizations have resisted adapting to the internet. They need to understand they've got more to gain by working with the likes of Google to help craft win-win scenarios, rather than resisting innovation and technology.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

?, 3 Aug 2006 @ 9:08am

hard to read
Grammar-check, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 3 Aug 2006 @ 9:43am

Will fail
They will lose the lawsuit and they will lose traffic - seems lose - lose to me - they should have gone w/ the flow and added some ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2006 @ 9:43am

Re: hard to read
F(U)

Fuck You
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 3 Aug 2006 @ 9:45am

why sue
why sue? haven't they ever heard of a robots.txt file denying Google. it's a 10 second fix.

I also fail to see how traffic on a news site can ever be a bad thing... If you don't want people to see it, don't put it out there.

There needs to be some sort of check on these lawsuits so they don't even go to court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lay Person, 3 Aug 2006 @ 9:46am

Same old...
Yup...adapt or die.

Nature does it, who/what sets this example better than nature itself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rijit (profile), 3 Aug 2006 @ 9:48am

Heh, gotta love Google's solution though, don like us linking? FU, pull the links and be done. Google should back out of the new deal and let it stay as is. Let AFP find it's own traffic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lay Person, 3 Aug 2006 @ 9:52am

Re: why sue
Suing sets precedents, they (news agencies) possibly, deliberately sue to change laws in their favor. If they change the law they no longer have to worry about it and they can further live happily ever after in the "Land of the Lost"...sleestacks and all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2006 @ 10:00am

My god...
$17.5 million in damages? Exactly what would these damages be that are worth $17.5 million? Emotional scarring from increased network traffic? Since I highly doubt bandwidth fees come anywhere that number...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever he said, 3 Aug 2006 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: why sue
Don't forget the indirect publicity; AFP and other news agencies are all in a transition phase because people aren't reading papers anymore, but now AFP gets headlines and folks start going there on their own.

Wouldn't Marshal, Will, and Holly love the world we created for them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Drama2Sell, 3 Aug 2006 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: why sue
I think the Land of the LOST reference is extremely appropo when talking about newspapers--can't think of any other organization thats more threatened by extinction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How dare they!, 3 Aug 2006 @ 10:31am

Re: why sue
Ryan is correct, it's a 10 second fix that would prevent Google's crawler from scouring their sites. I can't believe that Google had the audacity to send more traffic to those news sites. Isn't that what everyone wants? Less traffic to their sites? I get sick of Google doing that. Have you also heard that Google is directing traffic to OTHER types of sites as well that aren't news sites?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2006 @ 10:36am

Re: hard to read
hard to read by ? on Aug 3rd, 2006 @ 9:08am
Grammar-check, please.

Be glad too...

"Grammars check, please."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
moniker, 3 Aug 2006 @ 10:36am

secondly
People, quit bitching about grammar. No one is going to deem you the manifestation of wisdom for pointing out a simple typo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 3 Aug 2006 @ 10:46am

Re: hard to read
How so? Bad grammer doesn't mean less readability or understandability. I understood it fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scott, 3 Aug 2006 @ 10:51am

i didn't notice a thing, granted i am reading from the internet. You kinda learn to ignore it.

/me wonders if the i's will get auto capped like in word?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lay Person, 3 Aug 2006 @ 11:18am

GRAMMAR...
It is a problem...

No it's not...

It is a problem...

No it's not...

It is a problem...

No it's not...

It is a problem...

No it's not...

It is a problem...

No it's not...

It is a problem...

No it's not...

GET THE PICTURE?

To each his own... LET IT GO...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ajax 4Hire, 3 Aug 2006 @ 11:24am

Re: Re: hard to read
Bad grammer exactly means hard to read.

Grammer, Syntax, structure, style are all part and parcel of well-written or not good writing, it tells on the author and makes the subject hard to delve.

Just as programming languages can veil the true operation in hard to grasp variables and odd structure, so too can the grammer of written word also hide the intent of the writer.

I could be more clear but then I would be transparent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another Genius on the 'Net, 3 Aug 2006 @ 11:26am

Re: hard to read
You are an illiterate little baby. "Grammar check, please" Do you need someone to hold your hand as you walk down the street? Grow the F*CK UP. Do something on your own other than cry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lay Person, 3 Aug 2006 @ 11:40am

GRAMMAR...
O.K.

So grammar has it's place...

But not on a public blog with an immeasurable audience that is actually trying to discuss "Google Pays AP To Help Put The F(U) In AFP."

So yeah, it's important but not important...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sick of greed, 3 Aug 2006 @ 11:47am

Um, I fail to understand why a news company would sue a search engine for linking to them. If I were running that company, that's what I would WANT to happen. Why did they sue Google for doing so? Because they wanted Google to pay them for access to their content? Sheesh, can this world get any greedier? Build a good website that generates its own revenue and then let everybody link to it. Quit being lazy, thieving morons.

And btw, I will say this one time. The Internet is NOT an excuse to forget how to use the English language. Grow up and learn your grammar and spelling, and quit being lazy too, because it makes you look like the idiot you probably are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dang, 3 Aug 2006 @ 11:55am

Spell check, please
If you're going to discuss "grammar," at least spell it correctly.
Dang.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kerry, 3 Aug 2006 @ 12:12pm

Robot insurance
I'd like to offer AFP a chance to purchase Robot Insurance from Fidelity-Mutual-Underwriters Farm State Corp. of Delaware. For just pennies a day, we can protect them from the evil robots. No more will they hae to worry about mechanical or electronic home (or homepage) invasions by robots, real or imagined.

With our coverage, AFPs children never have to worry about a robotic traffic accident. Their loved ones will be well taken care of.

If they act right now, I can offer them 10, 15, and 17.5 million dollar policies. Again, for only pennies a day.

For more information, call 1.800.5537.8008

or write to:

Fidelity-Mutual-Underwriters Farm State Insurance
C/O Avery Minette Asukrisborn
Box 335-A
Quahog, Delaware
55378-008

(Any mispellings or bad grammar were completely intentional. Any resemblance to real persons or events....Oh wait! That's for fictional wokls)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gregg, 3 Aug 2006 @ 12:30pm

Re: Re: Re: hard to read
if you want information badly enough, you’ll find it, regardless of format or grammar standards including any lack thereof...just because the sign to the bathroom is misspelled doesn't mean that you benefit less from the information, i'd worry more if there were no sign...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xcetron, 3 Aug 2006 @ 12:59pm

Google should just stop linking any site that decided to sue them, after a couple cases people will start to learn that it doesnt help your business much if youre sueing free advertisements. Google is undoubtedly one of the most popular search engine on this planet and being linked to by them for free is obviously a great help to drive more people to your site, so why would you sue them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan, 3 Aug 2006 @ 1:10pm

Re: Re: why sue
So, google should be suing themselves, cuz if you google "search engines", they list 4 sites above theirs, and a whole lot more underneath....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2006 @ 2:01pm

Re: GRAMMAR...
THANK YOU!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NusMajor, 3 Aug 2006 @ 3:58pm

Re: secondly
Here here. I am one handec and type my best and damnall if I am backing up to correct every nugget for some OCD nut and there high horse!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PoorleySpelte, 3 Aug 2006 @ 6:33pm

Why don't they throw some my way???
What's all this about my grandma?? hehe... Google seems to be shelling out a lot lately all of this suing nonsense must come to and one day surely, seems damn stupid to me.....but what do i know, i'm broke :( ...not from being sued though... How much is Google worth can someone please enlighten me...I'd look for myself but i don't think i can afford the lawsuit....i need money for beer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Astralis, 23 Sep 2006 @ 1:00am

Google is not being consistent
The fact that Google is now paying AP shows that Google will pay for content, exactly what these publishers are demanding they do for them. Google's inconsistency is problematic in the court of law. You can't claim you don't pay for content which means you place a monetary value on it while paying for content.

What has to be done now, is to determine the monetary value of the headlines the publishers have. I believe it's over for Google now that they've started to pay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bkdbhhdhiduhvbhbvbvhbsifgbsisjgjdgsduifgsfhsfhhggq, 1 May 2010 @ 9:27am

Re: 6
ngjnglijnnofofu nfofojofjhfjfhjlfhjfjfoffhmlfdjfhjfhjhjhjfhjfhjfjhfjfhjfh khjknhfohofhghfhofhjfojfojfljhbjhpfjbljhf pghfhfjfjfjhofh jlkjhojhojhojhoohlhlhjpohpf fhjfjhfj jlf n j bnjdogj ljffjk lkjhljglogjgcjjhjhjhb mb hsohshvsbshfvshvibhvshyhhvhvshvsvhsvhsvkshvoschksvhsvhsbgos gtsdfgwugf] hshcviusvyhsvdhsivhysivh sivsvhvkvh jvgbsvgsvgsvnvbs
[ link to this | view in thread ]