5 ms·

No. They wanted google to either pay or stop displaying snippets.

phoe-krk 7y ago
No. They wanted Google to either pay or pay. They never wanted Google to show displaying snippets, as we will shortly see when the French publishers notice the plummeting page views and issue "emergency snippet licenses" to Google in order to save themselves from their own greed.
- eps 7y ago
  > Plummeting page views Previous discussion on this had a link to the research paper that actually measured said "plummeting" in case of Spain - the decrease in traffic was well under 20%. Just FYI. * Edited for clarity.
  - phoe-krk 7y ago
    Could you link and/or clarify a little bit? Did their profits shrink by 20% to 80%, or by 80% to 20%?
    - eps 7y ago
      Their traffic went down by less than 20%.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    Even a 10% can rightly be considered a "plummet" in many business contexts. If a stock drops 10% in a day, that's gigantic. Considering how precarious the profitability of news organizations can be to begin with, a 10% drop that can't be reversed could be the difference between staying in business and folding, depending on how costs are structured. If your traffic decreases by, say 10%, that's huge -- that's a plummet. (If your traffic decreases by 80%, you don't need adjectives anymore -- you're probably out of business now.)
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Growth of 2-3% in anything you are actively work towards is the baseline success expectation as it is stagnant or declining otherwise. That is the equivalent of losing a decade's growth. Losing 20% of your salary would certainly qualify as losing 6 to 10 years of minimal growth expectation. It is twice that of a literal dictionary definition decimation. "Plummeting" is certainly not hyperbole.
  - al_form2000 7y ago
    Oh, under one fifth? Peachy.
chrisseaton 7y ago
They wanted Google to pay. ‘Or don’t show the snippets’ was the bluff. Google called the bluff.
- gsich 7y ago
  Everyone expected that.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- eitland 7y ago
  I guess publishers would only be happy if Google paid, meaning publishers bluffed EU, but not Google. I think EU is happy with the outcome. And the publishers deserve it. I also think it is fair that the tech giants starts to pay, and maybe we can find a more reasonable model later.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    Why should they pay publishers for the privilege of promoting the publishers content? It's not like a snippet is a substitute for the content.
    - eitland 7y ago
      I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'm saying publishers convinced EU that it was a good idea and now they got what they deserved instead of what they wanted. It also feels right that Google should pay, but I want them to pay ordinary VAT / sales tax on ad sales instead of this.
      - shkkmo 7y ago
        > I want them to pay ordinary VAT / sales tax on ad sales instead of this. that would make far more sense
    - 7y ago
bko 7y ago
They didn't achieve the goals. > “The negotiations were difficult, but what counts in the end is that we have a fair and balanced result that is fit for a digital Europe,” said European Commission Vice President Andrus Ansip. “The freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced, our creators will be better remunerated for their work, and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving.” The bill is expected to be formally approved by mid-April, after which European Union governments will have two years to include it in their national laws. Take the claims one by one: > The freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced I'm not sure what freedom or right was enhanced. Maybe the rights of publishers not to have their content seen by users? But certainly the freedom and right of a news consumer in France was harmed as they have less access to news in a convenient fashion. > our creators will be better remunerated for their work This clearly didn't happen. Maybe people will click more, but Google is said to have performed experiments and found that not showing the text leads to a 45% decline in traffic to the website. Yes, they are likely bias and it might be a ruse, but considering how much internet giants focus on providing the least amount of friction and latency to users, I believe the sentiment is correct. > and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving This is an odd claim because some smaller internet companies got exemptions and there was some horse trading with gas. Doesn't seem any clearer to assert publisher rights based on a case by case basis > The deal was made possible after France and Germany proposed a compromise last week, giving smaller internet companies some exemptions from the rules. The compromise coincided with a separate deal in which France agreed to support Germany on a natural-gas pipeline with Russia, according to officials in Brussels and Berlin. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/european-union-agrees-to-new-copyright-law-11550101284 https://www.wsj.com/articles/european-union-agrees-to-new-co...
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Well, you're absolutely right, but the law did go from a complete shitstorm to something more manageable. > Maybe the rights of publishers not to have their content seen by users? Well, it was always their right (as they could use robots.txt) but now Google gives them a more fine grained control over it. Though to be honest I'm very, very happy they're trowing a fit right now. Yes, please, use the panel and take your content off of Google. > But certainly the freedom and right of a news consumer in France was harmed as they have less access to news in a convenient fashion. True. But they can always go to the website of their favourite news org and go from there.
michaelmrose 7y ago
They only win in this context if people use a different search engine that does pay to show snippets. If people still use Google to find results but have to go on just title and publication to figure out what link to click which spoiler alert they already mostly do then you have 2 net effects. Searching for news is slightly more cumbersome and resources that do allow snippets will get slightly more clicks from people who can read both. Who wins in that context?
- conradfr 7y ago
  Except if people click the links more instead of reading only the snippets.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    This would only be likely if lack of snippets means people click more wrong links but I think prior experiences show people clicking less not more
    - conradfr 7y ago
      Yes entirely plausible, I guess we'll another data for that soon then.
sacado2 7y ago
And google chose option 2, and the French government is pissed off because they expected Google to choose option 1 and give agencies free money.
karlakush 7y ago
You actually think they care about Google showing snippets? C'mon man, use your brain.

No. They wanted Google to either pay or pay. They never wanted Google to show displaying snippets, as we will shortly see when the French publishers notice the plummeting page views and issue "emergency snippet licenses" to Google in order to save themselves from their own greed.

eps 7y ago
> Plummeting page views Previous discussion on this had a link to the research paper that actually measured said "plummeting" in case of Spain - the decrease in traffic was well under 20%. Just FYI. * Edited for clarity.
- phoe-krk 7y ago
  Could you link and/or clarify a little bit? Did their profits shrink by 20% to 80%, or by 80% to 20%?
  - eps 7y ago
    Their traffic went down by less than 20%.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  Even a 10% can rightly be considered a "plummet" in many business contexts. If a stock drops 10% in a day, that's gigantic. Considering how precarious the profitability of news organizations can be to begin with, a 10% drop that can't be reversed could be the difference between staying in business and folding, depending on how costs are structured. If your traffic decreases by, say 10%, that's huge -- that's a plummet. (If your traffic decreases by 80%, you don't need adjectives anymore -- you're probably out of business now.)
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Growth of 2-3% in anything you are actively work towards is the baseline success expectation as it is stagnant or declining otherwise. That is the equivalent of losing a decade's growth. Losing 20% of your salary would certainly qualify as losing 6 to 10 years of minimal growth expectation. It is twice that of a literal dictionary definition decimation. "Plummeting" is certainly not hyperbole.
- al_form2000 7y ago
  Oh, under one fifth? Peachy.

chrisseaton 7y ago

They wanted Google to pay. ‘Or don’t show the snippets’ was the bluff. Google called the bluff.

gsich 7y ago
Everyone expected that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
eitland 7y ago
I guess publishers would only be happy if Google paid, meaning publishers bluffed EU, but not Google. I think EU is happy with the outcome. And the publishers deserve it. I also think it is fair that the tech giants starts to pay, and maybe we can find a more reasonable model later.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Why should they pay publishers for the privilege of promoting the publishers content? It's not like a snippet is a substitute for the content.
  - eitland 7y ago
    I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'm saying publishers convinced EU that it was a good idea and now they got what they deserved instead of what they wanted. It also feels right that Google should pay, but I want them to pay ordinary VAT / sales tax on ad sales instead of this.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      > I want them to pay ordinary VAT / sales tax on ad sales instead of this. that would make far more sense
  - 7y ago

bko 7y ago

They didn't achieve the goals. > “The negotiations were difficult, but what counts in the end is that we have a fair and balanced result that is fit for a digital Europe,” said European Commission Vice President Andrus Ansip. “The freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced, our creators will be better remunerated for their work, and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving.” The bill is expected to be formally approved by mid-April, after which European Union governments will have two years to include it in their national laws. Take the claims one by one: > The freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced I'm not sure what freedom or right was enhanced. Maybe the rights of publishers not to have their content seen by users? But certainly the freedom and right of a news consumer in France was harmed as they have less access to news in a convenient fashion. > our creators will be better remunerated for their work This clearly didn't happen. Maybe people will click more, but Google is said to have performed experiments and found that not showing the text leads to a 45% decline in traffic to the website. Yes, they are likely bias and it might be a ruse, but considering how much internet giants focus on providing the least amount of friction and latency to users, I believe the sentiment is correct. > and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving This is an odd claim because some smaller internet companies got exemptions and there was some horse trading with gas. Doesn't seem any clearer to assert publisher rights based on a case by case basis > The deal was made possible after France and Germany proposed a compromise last week, giving smaller internet companies some exemptions from the rules. The compromise coincided with a separate deal in which France agreed to support Germany on a natural-gas pipeline with Russia, according to officials in Brussels and Berlin. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/european-union-agrees-to-new-copyright-law-11550101284 https://www.wsj.com/articles/european-union-agrees-to-new-co...

raverbashing 7y ago
Well, you're absolutely right, but the law did go from a complete shitstorm to something more manageable. > Maybe the rights of publishers not to have their content seen by users? Well, it was always their right (as they could use robots.txt) but now Google gives them a more fine grained control over it. Though to be honest I'm very, very happy they're trowing a fit right now. Yes, please, use the panel and take your content off of Google. > But certainly the freedom and right of a news consumer in France was harmed as they have less access to news in a convenient fashion. True. But they can always go to the website of their favourite news org and go from there.

michaelmrose 7y ago

They only win in this context if people use a different search engine that does pay to show snippets. If people still use Google to find results but have to go on just title and publication to figure out what link to click which spoiler alert they already mostly do then you have 2 net effects. Searching for news is slightly more cumbersome and resources that do allow snippets will get slightly more clicks from people who can read both. Who wins in that context?

conradfr 7y ago
Except if people click the links more instead of reading only the snippets.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  This would only be likely if lack of snippets means people click more wrong links but I think prior experiences show people clicking less not more
  - conradfr 7y ago
    Yes entirely plausible, I guess we'll another data for that soon then.

sacado2 7y ago

And google chose option 2, and the French government is pissed off because they expected Google to choose option 1 and give agencies free money.

karlakush 7y ago

You actually think they care about Google showing snippets? C'mon man, use your brain.