3 ms·

This is the same CEO that helped pass a law in Germany that required anyone who publishes more than a short snippet of text from a newspaper to pay royalties. G

This is the same CEO that helped pass a law in Germany that required anyone who publishes more than a short snippet of text from a newspaper to pay royalties. Google, not wanting to pay royalties, instead removed Axel Springer's news story snippets from its search results in accordance with the new law. Axel Springer noticed a sharp decline in page views in the two weeks following the removal of their news story snippets and promptly changed their mind.

creshal 11y ago
> and promptly changed their mind. They didn't. They _sued_ Google, trying force them to link to them (and, naturally, pay for it – a paltry 6% of Google's revenue in Germany¹). It was turned down by the courts in September², only then was Google given a gratis license by some publishers. Smaller actors (other search engines, newspapers, bloggers, …), of course, can't afford risking such a confrontation and now have to pay up for the privilege! of being allowed to advertise for Axel Springer publications. This, too, ended up in the courts, as said smaller actors sued the publishers over the gratis license given to Google, claiming it was anti-competitive. The case is handled in secret, VG Media (the organisation founded by AS to handle licensing) is suppressing information of it from becoming public.³ ¹: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Leistungsschutzrecht-VG-Media-will-angeblich-6-Prozent-des-Google-Umsatzes-in-Deutschland-2626070.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Leistungsschutzrecht-... ²: http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/DE/Pressemitteilungen/2015/09_09_2015_Google_VGMedia.html http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/DE/Pressem... ³: http://www.golem.de/news/gratislizenz-fuer-google-die-streng-geheime-niederlage-der-vg-media-1511-117284.html http://www.golem.de/news/gratislizenz-fuer-google-die-streng...
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > and now have to pay up for the privilege! of being allowed to advertise for Axel Springer publications. Very much off-topic, but your punctuation error left me wishing English allowed for infixed exclamation marks. This would place emphasis on the word 'privilege' rather than on the whole phrase (as the case when appended to the end of a sentence).
  - aylons 11y ago
    I don't think it was in error, but a deliberate attempt to add emphasis. I usually put it in parenthesis(!), so it does not confuse the reader.
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  I was under the impression that they changed their mind and allowed Google to re-index their news snippets following the sharp decline in traffic. Yes, they later sued Google and lost, but this doesn't change the fact that they reversed their decision 2 weeks after their content was removed.

creshal 11y ago

> and promptly changed their mind. They didn't. They _sued_ Google, trying force them to link to them (and, naturally, pay for it – a paltry 6% of Google's revenue in Germany¹). It was turned down by the courts in September², only then was Google given a gratis license by some publishers. Smaller actors (other search engines, newspapers, bloggers, …), of course, can't afford risking such a confrontation and now have to pay up for the privilege! of being allowed to advertise for Axel Springer publications. This, too, ended up in the courts, as said smaller actors sued the publishers over the gratis license given to Google, claiming it was anti-competitive. The case is handled in secret, VG Media (the organisation founded by AS to handle licensing) is suppressing information of it from becoming public.³ ¹: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Leistungsschutzrecht-VG-Media-will-angeblich-6-Prozent-des-Google-Umsatzes-in-Deutschland-2626070.html http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Leistungsschutzrecht-... ²: http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/DE/Pressemitteilungen/2015/09_09_2015_Google_VGMedia.html http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/DE/Pressem... ³: http://www.golem.de/news/gratislizenz-fuer-google-die-streng-geheime-niederlage-der-vg-media-1511-117284.html http://www.golem.de/news/gratislizenz-fuer-google-die-streng...

sangnoir 11y ago
> and now have to pay up for the privilege! of being allowed to advertise for Axel Springer publications. Very much off-topic, but your punctuation error left me wishing English allowed for infixed exclamation marks. This would place emphasis on the word 'privilege' rather than on the whole phrase (as the case when appended to the end of a sentence).
- aylons 11y ago
  I don't think it was in error, but a deliberate attempt to add emphasis. I usually put it in parenthesis(!), so it does not confuse the reader.
bitmapbrother 11y ago
I was under the impression that they changed their mind and allowed Google to re-index their news snippets following the sharp decline in traffic. Yes, they later sued Google and lost, but this doesn't change the fact that they reversed their decision 2 weeks after their content was removed.