EU ruling bars Google News from linking to newspapers - will this apply to bloggers?!

[JackRiddler]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14google.html

A Brussels court ruled Tuesday that Google had violated copyright laws by publishing links to articles from Belgian newspapers without permission. Legal experts said the case could have broad implications in Europe for the news indexes provided by search engines.

(...)

“As the first decision to condemn a search engine for indexing news articles, you can be sure publishers around the world are paying attention,” said Cyril Fabre, a lawyer in Paris at Alexen, a law firm specializing in Internet law and intellectual property. “The implications in Europe are particularly strong since copyright law is so uniform across the Continent.”

The Brussels court ruled that Google, which operates the dominant Internet search engine, must pay 25,000 euros, or $32,600, for each day it displayed content from the plaintiff publications in violation of copyright. The court scaled back a September ruling that called for damages of up to 1 million euros a day and required Google to publish the judgment on its home page.

(...)

Google believes that pointing to content on the Web is legal under copyright law, Mr. Elkaim added. “We have always explained that any licensing agreements Google does with content providers is for use that goes beyond indexing or referencing,” he said. Jessica Powell, a spokeswoman in London for Google, said the main complaints in the case — making reference to articles without prior permission, and the continued availability of articles in Google’s database after newspapers have restricted access to them — are issues easily rectified without legal action.

(...)

“It could set up a chain reaction, especially in European countries, where the authors’ rights are stronger,” said Pamela Samuelson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Policy. “If a Belgian court causes Google to change its ways, by preventing links from happening or forcing it to pay, other countries and other newspapers and other entities that have put things on the Web could say ‘me too.’ ”

---

Google is appealing, of course. Now, understood that Google may be profiting off the links to primary news sources and that they may want a cut. (Still, isn't the ultimate effect to gain more exposure for the primary news sources?)

Regardless, how is Google News's form of linking going to be distinguished from any blogger (even from this message board) who gives substantial excerpts and links back to a primary news source?

Anyone out there know this case? Does it have those kinds of implications for everyone else?

[JackRiddler]

1. kick for attention

I suspect this does interest people - or does it have no implications for sites other than Google?

[Bucky]

2. Am I missing something here? Is this not monumentally stupid?

Are the newspapers who put content on their websites somehow opposed to Google driving readers to that content? I'm sure it'll be pretty easy for Google to rejigger their algorithms to exclude whatever news sites don't want the attention that the world's dominant news search engine gives them for absofuckinglutely free.

They are maroons.

[foo_bar]

3. OMG, you quoted five paragraphs!

It doesn't affect bloggers, just for-profit search engines storing excerpts of Belgian newspapers (fair use is still fair use, and US law isn't changed by this ruling). It "could" mean an avalanche of similar rulings across Europe, but then the Minitel could take Europe by storm.

[JackRiddler]

5. I cheated, even, and combined two paragraphs into one...

So it was SIX!

But tell me, since you seem to know something: you say an avalanche of such rulings across Europe might be coming. If so, do you think it won't be opportunistically applied by plaintiffs who want to screw with bloggers? It's clear enough that Google is for-profit - but what about Joe and Mary Blog (or Joe Skinner) if they take donations via PayPal but don't have a 501c(3) or other non-profit set up. Who determines if a blog is making money?

Okay, true, there are nearer doomsday scenarios coming, and it's hard to see how it hits any site registered in the US.

Still nuts, I find - what does the Belgian paper gain by not being included in Google News? (Or is it the hope of hitting Google up for a share, which I can imagine might be justifiable?)

[foo_bar]

7. it's only worthwhile if the defendant can afford sacks of lawyer chow

aside from the "irreparable harm" intrinsic to any technology that caches documents with an opt-out system, for which they might as well sue the Wayback Machine (except it runs on grant money). According to the piece:

“Google also tried to offer us a deal, but it was ridiculously small compared with the deals the others got,” Ms. Boribon said. She indicated that the publishers were seeking a revenue-sharing arrangement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14google.html?ref=business

If anyone ever gets rich blogging, they should probably avoid quoting online newspapers ending in .be, just to be safe.

It decided in favor of Copiepresse, a copyright protection group representing 17 mostly French-language newspapers that complained that the search engine’s “cached” links offered free access to archived articles that the papers usually sell.

Copiepresse said the ruling was based on European Union law and could trigger similar cases against Google in other nations. Copiepresse said it had been in touch with copyright groups in Norway, Austria and Italy.

But Google said the judgment — which confirms an initial ruling in September — would not necessarily carry influence in other areas.

“This ruling does not mean that everywhere else or every other judge in any other country would rule in the same, even in Belgium,” said Yoram Elkaim, legal counsel for Google News. “There are conflicting rulings on those issues, which are fairly new and complicated.”

http://www.projo.com/business/content/BZ_google14_02-14-07_R54DGKI.ded9a6.html

[KoKo]

4. It's worrysome and something to watch. Most of the Liberal Internet

relies on digging up information from articles in Google Cache that we can't get without paying for access to newspaper articles for a subscription.

It could be the start to crack down on all that information that has helped get the truth out about what 's been going on out there for years that we are all just starting to put together and connect dots.

I was wondering how long before the "Powers that Be" would start to nip at Google because Knowledge is always a Dangerous think to those who want Ultimate Power.

Google got slapped with lawsuits by the BIG FIVE MEDIA OWNERS here in the US just yesterday over copywrite laws involving showing Disney and other movie studio's films by linking to Pirate sites. It was on CNBC Business channel.

[JackRiddler]

6. Now that's nasty

Any time they penalize the delivery sites or the providers for the content of a given site. Very very messed up.

I can see this failing... but when google gets sued for enabling the distribution of "child porn," that will be the signal and the wedge for imposing more informtion control generally.