6 ms·

That's incorrect. You can read the ruling for yourself: http://www.copiepresse.be/pdf/Copiepresse%20-%20ruling%20appeal%20Google_5May2011.pdf http://www.copiep

by Toady 15y ago

That's incorrect. You can read the ruling for yourself: http://www.copiepresse.be/pdf/Copiepresse%20-%20ruling%20appeal%20Google_5May2011.pdf http://www.copiepresse.be/pdf/Copiepresse%20-%20ruling%20app... The decision was pertaining to the use of lead paragraphs and other excerpts from copyrighted articles in the Google News aggregator. It didn't refer to plain links in the general search engine. I see that my comments in this discussion are being voted down for pointing this out, which is bizarre. I'm simply stating the truth and correcting posts that mistakenly assume the lawsuit was in reference to ALL links in the search engine. Voting me down is incredibly lame. I believe that Google is deliberately misinterpreting the decision, likely to remind content-owners that Google controls their source of online revenue and to therefore back off. Google has a history of being defiant with regards to this lawsuit, ignoring a court order to publish the court's decision on their Belgian websites, so they would surely have no problem doing something retaliatory under the guise of following the court's decision.

narcissus 15y ago
OK, so I read the PDF you linked to. Page 48, under the heading "V. ENACTING TERMS", point 3: --- Begin Quote --- Reforms the challenged judgment to the extent that it ordered "Google to withdraw from all its sites (...) all the articles, photographs and graphic representations (...)"; Ruling again on this point only, reforms the injunction as follows: Orders Google to remove from the Google.be and Google.com sites, more specifically from the "cached" links on "Google Web" and from the "Google News" service --- End Quote --- (There may be some errors in the copy above and please excuse my pathetic formatting). See the thing is you are arguing about what the lawsuit was about, which is different to what the judgment was. It says there in black and white "to remove it from all sites". Or am I just reading that wrong?
- ToadyCensored 15y ago
  See the thing is you are arguing about what the lawsuit was about, which is different to what the judgment was. It says there in black and white "to remove it from all sites". Or am I just reading that wrong? You're reading it wrong. It was a copyright infringement lawsuit over the scraped content displayed by Google News and in Google's cache, so the court's ruling was to remove those infringing materials from those services, not to remove the hyperlinks to the original articles in the general search engine.
dexen 15y ago
> I see that my comments in this discussion are being voted down for pointing this out, which is bizarre. Before posting the above link, You failed to provide quotation supporting your statements, and there were quotes saying otherwise :-) Let's see, the original ruling went: Orders GOOGLE to withdraw from all its sites (notably Google news and "cache" google or any other name) all the articles (...) (page 9, 2nd paragraph) However, there is amended ruling listed on page 47 reads: Orders Google to remove from the Google.be and Google.com sites, more specifically from the "cached" links on "Google Web" and from the "Google News" service, all the articles (...) which confirms your story. Thanks for being persistent! ---- At any rate, this lawsuit is bullshit, and should be called out till they blush. The webserver has been likened to house left with doors wide open and robbed in absence of the owner (page 36.). Seriously? What The Copiepresse actually did was like having welcome guests for a long time, and then suddenly suing them for enjoying themselves. The argument of META tags and robots.txt was raised: In 2006, when the action was filed, the publishers had not activated these tags, which allowed Google to inventory all their pages, notably "cached". but rejected on weird reasoning: However the parties do not explain how it would be technically possible to, via these tags, prevent Google from reproducing ((the content)) in the "Google News" service. (page 35.) I say, it's the same as with law or court orders: doesn't technically prevent, just informs what is allowed and what is not. ---- For a wider picture: the newspapers joined (by publishing public websites) a well established space: the Internet. It takes serious incompetence -- or malice -- to move somewhere and not follow well-documented, mutually-benefiting local rules. Let's be clear: Google is no schoolyard bully here -- even if it was elsewhere the other day -- and newspapers are no victim. If anything, it's newspapers that advanced from large, slowly grinding company to a fast, focused start-up and found: their playbook hopelessly inadequate, their narrow field of view constraining.
- ToadyCensored 15y ago
  You failed to provide quotation supporting your statements, and there were quotes saying otherwise :-) The lawsuit is public knowledge, with plenty of articles written and a decision published online. I think we both know that I was getting voted down because I was correcting misinformation about a court decision against Google. :) At any rate, this lawsuit is bullshit, and should be called out till they blush. The webserver has been likened to house left with doors wide open and robbed in absence of the owner (page 36.). Seriously? If you started a newspaper that did nothing but copied the headlines and lead paragraphs from, say, the New York Times, how long do you think it would be before you got a cease-and-desist letter in the mail? That's copyrighted material. For a wider picture: the newspapers joined (by publishing public websites) a well established space: the Internet. It takes serious incompetence -- or malice -- to move somewhere and not follow well-documented, mutually-benefiting local rules. There's a rule stating that content-owners are supposed to let another company take their work and make money off of it? What rules are you referring to specifically? Let's be clear: Google is no schoolyard bully here -- even if it was elsewhere the other day That's arguable, but more importantly, it's a dangerous maneuver for Google in anti-monopoly Europe.
Symmetry 15y ago
Looking at the text of the ruling, I can see how someone might interpret it either way, either as having to eliminate the links they have "cached" or the links to a "cached" version of the website. I think that if I was a legal counsel to Google I would probably advise them not to do any linking at all in the face of that ambiguity and the large penalties for violating the court order. Equally important, I'm having a hard time imagining how it would be reasonably possible for Google to only link to the articles. A hyperlink is a combination of both text and the link, and the text has to come from somewhere. Usually it is the title of the web page that is linked to, but then Google would still be stealing content from the newspapers. I suppose they could just use the URL itself as the text of the hyperlink, but then we get to the second part of this issue. Complying with the order and still providing links would require rewriting a lot of Google's front end code just for this one specific case. Given that Google already has a process to block sites entirely at the back end it would be a lot easier to just comply with the court order that way, and probably the only way that they could do it quickly enough.

by Toady 15y ago

narcissus 15y ago

OK, so I read the PDF you linked to. Page 48, under the heading "V. ENACTING TERMS", point 3: --- Begin Quote --- Reforms the challenged judgment to the extent that it ordered "Google to withdraw from all its sites (...) all the articles, photographs and graphic representations (...)"; Ruling again on this point only, reforms the injunction as follows: Orders Google to remove from the Google.be and Google.com sites, more specifically from the "cached" links on "Google Web" and from the "Google News" service --- End Quote --- (There may be some errors in the copy above and please excuse my pathetic formatting). See the thing is you are arguing about what the lawsuit was about, which is different to what the judgment was. It says there in black and white "to remove it from all sites". Or am I just reading that wrong?

ToadyCensored 15y ago
See the thing is you are arguing about what the lawsuit was about, which is different to what the judgment was. It says there in black and white "to remove it from all sites". Or am I just reading that wrong? You're reading it wrong. It was a copyright infringement lawsuit over the scraped content displayed by Google News and in Google's cache, so the court's ruling was to remove those infringing materials from those services, not to remove the hyperlinks to the original articles in the general search engine.

dexen 15y ago

> I see that my comments in this discussion are being voted down for pointing this out, which is bizarre. Before posting the above link, You failed to provide quotation supporting your statements, and there were quotes saying otherwise :-) Let's see, the original ruling went: Orders GOOGLE to withdraw from all its sites (notably Google news and "cache" google or any other name) all the articles (...) (page 9, 2nd paragraph) However, there is amended ruling listed on page 47 reads: Orders Google to remove from the Google.be and Google.com sites, more specifically from the "cached" links on "Google Web" and from the "Google News" service, all the articles (...) which confirms your story. Thanks for being persistent! ---- At any rate, this lawsuit is bullshit, and should be called out till they blush. The webserver has been likened to house left with doors wide open and robbed in absence of the owner (page 36.). Seriously? What The Copiepresse actually did was like having welcome guests for a long time, and then suddenly suing them for enjoying themselves. The argument of META tags and robots.txt was raised: In 2006, when the action was filed, the publishers had not activated these tags, which allowed Google to inventory all their pages, notably "cached". but rejected on weird reasoning: However the parties do not explain how it would be technically possible to, via these tags, prevent Google from reproducing ((the content)) in the "Google News" service. (page 35.) I say, it's the same as with law or court orders: doesn't technically prevent, just informs what is allowed and what is not. ---- For a wider picture: the newspapers joined (by publishing public websites) a well established space: the Internet. It takes serious incompetence -- or malice -- to move somewhere and not follow well-documented, mutually-benefiting local rules. Let's be clear: Google is no schoolyard bully here -- even if it was elsewhere the other day -- and newspapers are no victim. If anything, it's newspapers that advanced from large, slowly grinding company to a fast, focused start-up and found: their playbook hopelessly inadequate, their narrow field of view constraining.

ToadyCensored 15y ago
You failed to provide quotation supporting your statements, and there were quotes saying otherwise :-) The lawsuit is public knowledge, with plenty of articles written and a decision published online. I think we both know that I was getting voted down because I was correcting misinformation about a court decision against Google. :) At any rate, this lawsuit is bullshit, and should be called out till they blush. The webserver has been likened to house left with doors wide open and robbed in absence of the owner (page 36.). Seriously? If you started a newspaper that did nothing but copied the headlines and lead paragraphs from, say, the New York Times, how long do you think it would be before you got a cease-and-desist letter in the mail? That's copyrighted material. For a wider picture: the newspapers joined (by publishing public websites) a well established space: the Internet. It takes serious incompetence -- or malice -- to move somewhere and not follow well-documented, mutually-benefiting local rules. There's a rule stating that content-owners are supposed to let another company take their work and make money off of it? What rules are you referring to specifically? Let's be clear: Google is no schoolyard bully here -- even if it was elsewhere the other day That's arguable, but more importantly, it's a dangerous maneuver for Google in anti-monopoly Europe.

Symmetry 15y ago

Looking at the text of the ruling, I can see how someone might interpret it either way, either as having to eliminate the links they have "cached" or the links to a "cached" version of the website. I think that if I was a legal counsel to Google I would probably advise them not to do any linking at all in the face of that ambiguity and the large penalties for violating the court order. Equally important, I'm having a hard time imagining how it would be reasonably possible for Google to only link to the articles. A hyperlink is a combination of both text and the link, and the text has to come from somewhere. Usually it is the title of the web page that is linked to, but then Google would still be stealing content from the newspapers. I suppose they could just use the URL itself as the text of the hyperlink, but then we get to the second part of this issue. Complying with the order and still providing links would require rewriting a lot of Google's front end code just for this one specific case. Given that Google already has a process to block sites entirely at the back end it would be a lot easier to just comply with the court order that way, and probably the only way that they could do it quickly enough.