3 ms·
Ruling (in French): http://www.ie-forum.nl/backoffice/uploads/file/IEF%20Hof%20van%20Beroep%20Brussel%205%20mei%202011,%20R_nr_%202011_2999,%20817%20%28Google%2
by roel_v 15y ago
Ruling (in French): http://www.ie-forum.nl/backoffice/uploads/file/IEF%20Hof%20van%20Beroep%20Brussel%205%20mei%202011,%20R_nr_%202011_2999,%20817%20%28Google%20INC_%20tegen%20Copiepresse,%20Societe%20de%20Droit%20d%27auteur%20des%20journalistes%20%28SAJ%29%20en%20Assucopie%29.pdf http://www.ie-forum.nl/backoffice/uploads/file/IEF%20Hof%20v...
Can't copy and paste from there; relevant passage:
"...orders Google to removing the sites google.be and google.com, more precisely the links (in cache) visible through Google Web and the service Google News (...) of Belgian Francophone and German-language publishers represented by Copiepresse."
So yes, Google is interpreting the ruling correctly, there is no way to interpret it in such a way that the regular google.com shouldn't be blocked. I don't know if the newspapers asked for too much or if the judge didn't understand what he was doing; I didn't read the whole ruling.
- masklinn 15y ago> there is no way to interpret it in such a way that the regular google.com shouldn't be blocked. I don't know if the newspapers asked for too much I think theoretically it would be possible if and only if they specialized Google's crawler and rendering to only render a link (no preview, no cache link) for these sites and these sites only. Why they'd bother doing that is anyone's guess.
- Toady 15y agoThe lawsuit was over the use of lead paragraphs and other article excerpts, specifically in the Google News aggregator, not plain links in the general search engine.
- roel_v 15y agoYes of course, but the ruling was broader than that, that is the whole point of contention.
- roel_v 15y agoUpdate on this story: Google has said they will start indexing the pages for the regular search results again asap.