7 ms·

From a previous article[1] with some more context: >In 2019, Google announced it was going to stop displaying "snippets" from French news articles in search re

• Causality1 5y ago
  If you can't innovate, litigate.
  • Annatar 5y ago
    That's not the case here at all, it's about Google taking revenue away from newspapers, and when one messes with another's source of income, things come to a head. Looks like you're in the wrong part of the town. Are you lost? Would you like directions?
  • nickpp 5y ago
    Sadly, it's becoming EU's business model.
    • hulitu 5y ago
      Not sadly. Fortunately.
      • nickpp 5y ago
        If you hate the EU, sure. But I live here and I would’ve liked it to become more business friendly, competitive and innovative instead.
        • hulitu 5y ago
          Google is not known as a friendly, competitive company. Google has a monopoly with Android and privacy laws are completely ignored.
        • bryan_w 5y ago
          It would have been great to see them tell Google to deindex them and then they create FrenchNewsSearch.fr or whatever to actually compete, but sadly they just get the government to do the dirty work.
  • hulitu 5y ago
    Innovate like google: find new ways to avoid the law.
• wongarsu 5y ago
  It's important to note that the fine is not for violating copyright, but for defying an order by the antitrust regulator to have talks with newspapers about the issue. I'm not sure what the intended procedure for "we believe we fixed the issue, we don't have to talk about it anymore" is, but whatever Google did apparently wasn't it.
  • tpush 5y ago
    Google didn't defy the order by not having had talks. They did talk with the French publishers, but the publishers felt Google didn't act in good faith in those talks.
    • boudin 5y ago
      To be a bit more precise, Google didn't provide all the information regarding their earning based on copyrighted content they display on their platform. They also unilaterally decided to exclude part of the press and part of the copyroghted content from negotiations. They also unilaterally made the negotiations specific to Google Showcase. The antitrust regulator is fining Google because they consider that all this is a systematic strategy to cause negotiations to fail rather than comply to the EU directive of 2019.
• dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  It's the question of scale. For example, it's one thing to take a photo of a street, and another one to photograph all streets and buildings creating a visual representation of the whole country. Sovereign countries have the right to decide certain things are not in the best interests of their citizens and ban such activities, regardless of what is our opinion of it.
• johbjo 5y ago
  > They get extra visibility + traffic clicks from Google -- but also want to be paid for it?!? Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers (they are not unknown hobby bloggers.) The issue is who is capturing revenue from the work. The newspapers make money from people browsing their site (long ad exposure) or paying for subscriptions. The news model: journalists discover "news facts" which they make into "news stories" that can hold reader attention. If Google collects all "news facts" in one place with their own ads, they are benefiting from journalists while undercutting the newspapers.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • bla3 5y ago
    If the headline being the valuable content is true, it suggests there could be a business that's like a newspaper that only publishes headlines without articles. I'm not saying this to refute your comment! This might actually be a valid idea.
    • saalweachter 5y ago
      I believe that would be Fark, or maybe Twitter.
      • blunte 5y ago
        Yes, also like Twitter in that the headline/tweet without substance is adequate for most people these days. This is one reason why social media has been such a successful part of political disinformation campaigns.
  • jasode 5y ago
    >The news model: journalists discover "news facts" which they make into "news stories" that can hold reader attention. >If Google collects all "news facts" in one place with their own ads, they are benefiting from journalists while undercutting the newspapers. If "news facts" is the framework for the proposed logic of compensation, it is being applied inconsistently. Consider the final result of 2 professional soccer teams playing a game: FC Barcelona beats Real Madrid 2-1. The "facts" were generated by the players + the referee + the official scorekeeper, etc. A French newspaper reports on it: https://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/direct-suivez-le-clasico-de-liga-real-madrid-fc-barcelone-10-04-2021-FWLQJIVGYNGENN3MHS6D7B4B6M.php https://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/direct-suivez-le-c... Using first principles of "facts generation", should the French newspaper be required by Spain to share a portion of the ad revenue to each soccer team and La Liga league? If no, why is that not hypocritical? Same as Ryanair announces a new airline route and French newspapers report it. It doesn't mean French publishers should pay some of their ad money to Ryanair. Likewise, if Google issues a press release saying the next "Pixel 7 phone will be available October 2021" and French newspapers report that fact, it doesn't mean they should owe Google money just because Google produced that headline. Newspapers have traditionally benefited from headlines being generated by the entire world and they get ad money for it without paying the sources of those headlines. If Google did include article snippets beyond the headlines, that seemed like a reasonable threshold to pay license fees to French newspapers. Otherwise, a pure headline display is a symbiotic relationship similar to the symbioses newspapers enjoyed with sports reporting, Hollywood celebrities, corporate press release announcements, etc. The newspapers want Google to pay for something the newspapers themselves don't want to pay for.
• rozab 5y ago
  I suppose this sort of thing isn't common in France? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-57814894 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-57814894
• ksec 5y ago
  >This feels more like a shakedown from French newspapers with backing from the France government rather than fair business compensation. Not saying Google is right or wrong in this case but; EU have had problems with US tech giant for years with their aggressive business practice and Tax avoidance. Aggressive or ruthless from European perspective but the norm from American's POV. Now that even US government are on their side, EU or France in this case are taking every single opportunity to squeeze them. I see it as political power play more than anything else. Google and Apple have been showing middle fingers to government and regulators around the world for years. They have been waiting for the political climate to act on it.
  • Annatar 5y ago
    "Not saying Google is right or wrong in this case" No problem, I'm saying it: Google is wrong! There, fixed that. NEEEXXXTTT!!!
  • tpush 5y ago
    > Aggressive or ruthless from European perspective but the norm from American's POV. European international companies avoid taxes via tax havens like Ireland, the Netherlands and Malta just the same as US international companies.
    • billyruffian 5y ago
      Funnily enough, I stumbled on this data[0] for Ireland, 2016, total revenues booked by nationality of parent company: China: $2.44bn Luxembourg: $2.74bn Italy: $5.86bn Japan: $8.38bn France: $18.67bn Ireland: $77.95bn US: $364.77bn I know there other European states and microstates with interesting corporate tax rates. Would be interested to seem a similar comparison. [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/13/bidens-tax-plans-risk-bursting-irelands-bubble/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/13/bidens-tax-p...
• mrtksn 5y ago
  Most news is nothing more than the headline and even if there's more to it, it's a known problem that people are not reading the article. Just the headlines create a business for many, like the forums or search engines. You need only the headline to stimulate engagement and show ads but that headline often is generated through the work of many people that are not the beneficiary of that engagement and ad business. If the headline had no IP value, Google and others would have been generating them without actual connection to reality instead of fetching them from those who send paid employees for on site observations to gather information that would be evaluated and the converted into a headline/title . I don't say that the French approach is the correct one but obviously the alternative is also not problem free.
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  HN is not making money by displaying those links
  • jefftk 5y ago
    Why do you say that? HN has ads (job ads for YC startups) and also is effectively advertising for YC itself. Without links, no one would come here.
    • cblconfederate 5y ago
      Indirectly. Google places advertisments next to those links (that nowadays look exactly like those links) so we know there is a certain monetary value to every click. If HN sold ad links, and had a scale near google's, i'm sure it would be a candidate to be sued under the same laws too. These laws are bandaids of course, but the argument that these newspapers "They get extra visibility + traffic clicks" is moot these days - what will they do with that visibility? Would be cool if visibility amounted to advertising money, but google also controls the ad market and the ad money that they make is not sustainable. US publications have (by now) solved this by shutting down or installing paywalls. But that doesnt work in EU where GDP is at least 30% lower and the local language audience is a fraction of the english audience. It is an untenable situation, and the fact that google can keep paying fine after fine but keep working in the continent is proof that the market is captured in an unsustainable vortex. So there are going to be a few ways out of this: - Countries/EU keep fining google for a few years , a solution that is going nowhere - Google will have to introduce news payments programs in EU / australia etc that pay well - Google is forced out of the market via protectionism in order to foster local solutions like China and Russia do - Or publishers themselves will collectively create a rival service for news that pays per click a-la spotify, and remove themselves from google
• yason 5y ago
  So even just linking the headlines _without_ the snippets was still not in compliance. Next they'll discover that it's the URIs themselves which can reveal the headline very well such as in: https://www.reuters.com/technology/france-fines-google-500-mln-over-copyright-row-2021-07-13/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/france-fines-google-500-m...
• grumple 5y ago
  > We have 30+ years of the world wide web being built on referred url links (with no snippets) without monetary payment but now French news organizations want compensation for it. An injustice existing for a long time does not mean it should continue unabated. Google and Facebook have profited from the work of news organizations and contributed little back. And the way they display snippets, unfortunately, often prevents news orgs from capturing that revenue.
• soraminazuki 5y ago
  Imagine if academics had to pay publishers a fee for each citation they make. It's beyond me why anyone thinks requiring payment for linking (or citing) is a good idea.
  • cblconfederate 5y ago
    Academics don't make money from publishing
    • soraminazuki 5y ago
      Maybe not academics but publishers absolutely do in many academic fields. It's the reason Sci-Hub exists at all. Besides, whether you make a profit is hardly relevant to this topic. You could make no profit at all and still be accused of copyright infringement.
      • cblconfederate 5y ago
        I don't see how this is related. Academics get enough tanglible benefit from being cited so they are more than ok with being cited and quoted. News publishers don't make enough and are not happy about it. Copyright infringment is usually not litigated unless someone loses money.
        • soraminazuki 5y ago
          > I don't see how this is related. Well, I said what if "academics had to pay publishers a fee for each citation they make." In this situation, publishers like Elsevier would be able to extort even more money from academics, and ultimately from taxpayers. I'm sure publishers would be very happy about that while making everyone else miserable. > Copyright infringment is usually not litigated unless someone loses money. Partly true. Copyright infringement is litigated when the one suing believes there is money to be made. It doesn't matter where "the money lost" actually belongs to, as evident by court cases ruling in copyright troll's favor. It also doesn't matter whether the one being sued made any money too. But the most absurd assumption here is that linking has to benefit the creator of the content. If that is the case, no one would have the freedom to criticize the works of others online, or risk being sued of copyright violation. That's not even remotely close to what copyright was supposed to be all about.
• Someone 5y ago
  I don’t think this is specific to France or the EU. Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press_v._Meltwater_U.S._Holdings,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press_v._Meltwater_.... this kind of thing can happen in the USA, too. Also, events as I understand them (but I may be mistaken) were: - google shows headlines, excerpts, sometimes photos and videos in search results - newspapers want compensation (IMO rightfully. Even if Google brings them more/better visitors than they had before Google did that, there’s no law that forbids companies from making stupid decisions, and it’s their content) - court orders Google to negotiate about the price for showing content. - Google removes some French papers completely from search results, stating that would change if they let them show results without payments. - newspapers see that as misuse of market power (IMO it’s up for debate whether that’s fully true. I don’t know, for example, whether google also said “but we want to show more than headlines, and pay for it” and acted like it) - court, taking what happened into account fines google, claiming it didn’t try to negotiate in good faith. I don’t know the details, but can think of scenarios where that makes sense.