After Getting Shut Out Of Google, Belgian Newspapers Agree To Do What They Should Have Done In The First Place
from the took-you-long-enough dept
Google and a group of Belgian newspapers have settled part of their ongoing dispute, in which the papers alleged Google was violating their copyright by linking to their sites. In particular, they alleged that Google's caching of articles -- articles they charge people to read after a certain time -- was illegal. They could have, of course, just used either a robots.txt file or meta tags to control how Google indexed and cached their content, but they felt a lawsuit was a preferable course of action (since the dispute likely had little to do with copyright, and more to do with money). Given that, it's a little odd to see the papers now agreeing to use the "noarchive" tag so they can get back in Google search results. As Danny Sullivan points out, it's hard to see this as anything other than a victory for Google. While its appeal of the court case carries on, it would appear that Google's removal of the newspapers from its site -- in accordance with a court order -- illustrated to the newspapers how much free traffic Google sent them, and how much better off they are with it. Unlike in a similar, earlier case with the AFP news agency, Google hasn't had to cough up any cash or enter a licensing agreement with the Belgian papers -- but again, as Sullivan points out, removing the Belgian papers from its index was far simpler for Google than removing newswire content that gets republished across a wide range of sources. it's also far easier for each paper to measure the impact of their removal, whereas the removal of AFP's stories wasn't felt by the AFP itself, but rather by its customers. It's nice to see the Belgian papers come to their senses; hopefully the courts there will soon follow.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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I've always felt that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Belgium?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
google/belgium
Google/Microsoft/etc can come in to an office/home and require the occupant to respond in ways that suit only the web company. I'm glad sometimes they have to justify themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Belgium?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Belgium?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
belgium
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Belgium?
The low ABV Belgian beers are awesome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I've always felt that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: google/belgium
Personally if I were Google I'd remove any refernence to them from the index, news and anything else for 5 years. Want back in before then? You've got to pay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: google/belgium
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Belgium?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BAD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Belgium!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: cheaper to pay the blackmail
[ link to this | view in thread ]