Slippery Slope: Is Google Now Paying More Newspapers To Link To Them?
from the just-cut-them-off dept
We were surprised last month to hear that Google had backed down in its dispute with news agency AFP, agreeing to pay up in order to link to AFP articles in Google News. As has been explained repeatedly, Google is increasing traffic and attention to their sites. That is, Google is doing them a huge favor (and considering how much search engine optimizers cost these days, it's saving them a lot of money too). If those newspapers are too braindead to figure out how to monetize that traffic, well, that's their problem. If they really want to punch the gift horse in the mouth, all they have to do is use a robots.txt file. Instead, however, after troubles in Belgium, Google started backing down... and that's resulted in a slippery slope. Suddenly, everyone wants their cut. That's why you hear all these stories from newspaper publishers whining about how Google is somehow "stealing" from them. They all know it's a negotiating tactic, and that Google has started to cave. With news leaking out that Google has now paid off a bunch of British newspapers as well, the pressure is only going to get stronger. Of course, the really sinister explanation that some are suggesting for this is that Google knows that it can afford to pay off these newspapers -- while not many other sites can. So, effectively, Google may be paying off these newspapers not because of real legal threats, but because it knows that the legal threats will be pointed instead to other competitive services who are less able to weather such legal challenges. This, apparently, is also the same deal that Google set up with music labels when it decided to buy YouTube. If true, this seems like a strategy that will come back to bite Google in the long term. Having to pay for permission to do things that are perfectly legal already is a dangerous precedent to set -- and it's one that Google will likely regret. Update: Google is denying this story.
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
Tactics
Google's not hurt by cutting such deals. There's no legal requirement to pay beyond what tort law covers in the deals made so at any point (based on the terms of those deals) Google can stop. "But we've always done it that way" does not legal precedent set.
Google could go to court to fight this any time it wants and it's unlikely any jury in the world would buy the press' contentions. However, the judicial system is an odd beast and I expect Google's primary concern was removing unknown factors, like nonsensical court rulings which could further hinder their work.
My question isn't why they're paying these idiots instead of giving them their sought-after Pyrrhic victory. What's so important to Google about unfettered and continuous access to worldwide news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Rocket Science
One thing is certain - the publishing world, especially periodicals publishers, will go to their graves trying to ignore the digital age. The only thing they know is ink and paper and will demand their readers only buy their product that way.
Of course, in the US anyway, the readers will have the final say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Realization that Google Needs Newspapers Too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few possible answers
But, really, who knows? It's Google's money, and the holder of the purse strings thinks for whatever reason these payments are a good idea. Casting stones without the full story is fruitless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope
I agree with Tactics, above. Google loses little by agreeing to pay the publishers and avoiding a long-term court battle. They've already got enough on their hands with the book publishers and Viacom. No need to put every part of your biz model in the hands of lawyers all at once. ;)
One more thing: News is more important to Google than simply news.google.com. Google relies on constantly updated information to sell ads around. Now Google doesn't sell ads on Google News, but they do on Google.com. And now that they've rolled out Universal Search, the line between the two is blurred. Perhaps Google is worried that a negative court ruling on news.google.com could have some effect on their main search. Not likely, but a possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny thought...
If Google stops linking what are the newspapers gonna do?
I know that scenario is serious gamble on Google's part and therefore likely not to happen but like I titled this, it's just a funny thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content
If Google had said, "Screw 'em", it would've taught the Belgian press a harsh lesson quickly. We in the tech industry know that. But Google didn't. Steve makes a good point about having control over the legal defense of a position but this just makes me wonder even more why Google was so quick to settle and stay on the publishers' good sides. It has nothing to do with their motto; there's quite a difference between "do no evil" and "hand out cash to idiots unable to monetise their own bloody products".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is the next Wal-Mart
No one cheers for the big guy.
Google has now taken the mantle from a long line:
Wal-Mart, Exxon, Microsoft, Telephone company
Google is now the big guy.
The big guy is always the target.
Just look at the attacks on Google.
Take the old attacks on Wal-Mart/Microsoft and replace the name Google and you have the news for next year.
People think Big is bad and attack what they cannot control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's my cut?
Life Lesson: If you give a bully your lunch money once, you'll never have lunch money again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google wants to sell ad technologies to newspaper
Google is playing smart.
http://themediaage.com/?p=77
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content owners vs. Content mash-ups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]