Slashdot Mirror
Google Begins Removing AFP From Google News
An anonymous reader writes "Google has began removing web-based content of Paris-Based news agency Agence France Presse (AFP), from the Google News service. This past weekend we reported that the Agence France Presse had sued Google for displaying their photo's, stories, and news headlines on Google News without permission. AFP is seeking damages of around $17.5 million and requested the courts that Google News is not to display any of its copyrighted material. It appears Google is complying with what the AFP is requesting. Google doesn't have a timetable for when all AFP links and content will be removed from Google News, but the company is actively working on the matter, said Steve Langdon, a Google spokesman."
AFP or APF or FP?
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
Good move Google but what happens if every news organization sues or threatens to sue? Where shall we get our news from?
Just to be safe, Google should remove all AFP sites not only from news, but from all portions of Google. Google certainly wouldn't want to risk further harm to AFP by keeping them in any of their indexes.
Congress passed a law... it is now referred to as the Agence FREEDOM Presse... Please update the submission.
I would think that the news agency would want to be featured on Google to attract more visitors to its site! Apparently they are simply out for money when no damage has actually been done. Sure it's copyrighted material...
I think this is a case of a dinosaur making last ditch efforts to try to save themself from certain destruction. AFP wants to try to control the flow of news (from them to other newspapers) and defend the natural monopolies involved with physical media since it's hard for customers to compare items for free. Now that AFP isn't listed, customers will just see other sites and flock to them first. This is what happens when you apply the old methods of business to the new world.
--
Want a free iPod?
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof
Will probably to sink AFP into the very very bottom of search results if not absent totally. AFP might have the right, but I'm sure they know the consequences of dealing with the #1 search engine.
This scene is somewhat reminiscent of the scene from the Incredibles where victims of crimes start suing the superheroes for helping them.
Google has become the doorway to the internet. Your site doesn't exist until Google indexes it. Anyone who sues them isn't trying to prevent copyright infringement or reproduction of their data, they are most likely looking for a reason to press charges and make a quick franc.
..for promoting their news site! Geez, who does google think they are?
MABASPLOOM!
"...I do it because I am French. I am a bad mother fucker, am I not?"
What the flip?!?! It seems like it would be good publicity for their site. It's not like Google is claiming rights to the news or anything.
It's not that the infringements of their copyrights are bad for them, it's that laws exist and they can be enforced. Read a bit of Lawrence Lessig and you'll see some examples of the same kind of thing.
Sometimes you've gotta roll the hard six.
How else will anyone find them excpept through google.
Idiots. They're getting what they deserve.
Maybe something like,
We are very very sorry for linking to you from our side of the interweb. Rest assured, Google.com will never link to your site again.
Have a nice day.
Whatver reputation the French may have in the US as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," this incident proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that when carrying a firearm, the French will not hesitate to use deadly force against their own feet.
... one would have to click on it, and whatever ads they are paid for will show up. Quoting 4 lines of what they say within the context of a story should fall under "fair use", IMHO.
I think it is more of a move to discourage "checking news online" in general, not that potential reader is directed to their website through google...
Paul B.
AFP is requiring us to remove this article, supposedly, they own the copyright to this article. In other things, imgaine if Google News and Slashdot merged....
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
it's outrageous!
They cannot honestly think that their site being on google is a bad thing in any way conceivable.
but then, this doesn't seem to be about honesty at all, now does it?
AFP make their money by selling their stories to other media organizations. If they allow their news to be disseminated without the appropriate fee being paid (as Google News is doing), they will be cutting off their main source of revenue.
All AFP is doing is using legitimate means to protect a legitimate business model.
Yes, but accurate.
Either one of two things is true in this case...
1) They don't understand fully how the internet works
2) They're looking to make a quick Euro.
Neither is a very flattering conclusion for a news agency.
I suppose this lawsuit is France's Maginot line against the invading Internet.
Am I missing some obvious reason that you're using AFP and APF acronyms interchangeably? The wire service's name is AFP.
Kriston
Teach those assholes a lesson. Really, Google linking to them looked to me like FAIR USE that could only improve traffic to the French news site - and the news site's profits!
:-)
I can not imagine how the Google News links could do anything but help make more profit for news sites that Google links to.
Google News could link to my sites anyday - I will not complain
That's nothin'! At least you had paper! Back in my day, we had to carve into stone tablets if we wanted to write something down. We had to carve rocks just to carve into rocks! You kids and your email and your gmail and your paper mail... In my day, if we wanted to send someone a message we had to train Carrier Pterodactyls. You have no idea how rough it was... they had to pick up our messages and drop them at the right cave. Do you have any idea how many of us were killed just as a result of Pterodactyls just dropping news tablets???
How long must we be a victim of fate and circumstance?
As long as it takes to change our minds.
They know that they could make a lot of money off of this lawsuit against Google- a big, expanding company making millions.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
Google only provides links, not content. So Google is providing free advertising. And if AFP is giving away content for free on their own site, to anyone, it's really hard to see how they're being harmed.
They sell wire services. Google news is not a substitute. If it were, their own home page would kill their business, and presumably it isn't.
Google also, and much more quietly, is removing the National Vanguard, known as a racist neo-Fascist organization, from its list of news sources. This raises the question, how the heck did a site like National Vanguard (no, I won't link to it) wind up on Google's list of news sources in the first place?
And the battle between the good of free speech and the good of shutting up morons continues...
was I the only one who thought APF calling Google's mother a hamster a little out-of-line?
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
an interpretation of the word that I am not familiar with...coming soon, Linus sues OSTG
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
That is all.
If they allow their news to be disseminated without the appropriate fee being paid (as Google News is doing),
If a link, a headline and a half-paragraph quotation is "disseminating", we're all fucked.
Can't wait to see where we go next with this amazing new logic. "Amazon.com book reviews banned in france because people were quoting sentences from the books they reviewed, the book companies make their money by selling those books to customers, if they allow those sentences to be disseminated without the appropriate fee (as amazon.com book reviewers do) they will be cutting off their main source of revenue"...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
*AFP is now officially irrelevant. If you're not on Google, you simply don't exist.*
is that so? so everybody stops buying from de facto newswire because it's not on google news, which doesn't really matter at all in the 'rest of the world'?
btw you don't know jack about history apparently either, so I guess partially to blame why you don't understand shit about the oldest news agency in the world...
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Everyone loves Google, so it's easy to mock AFP. But if this were being done by a site that everyone loves to hate, I think people would tend to side with AFP.
As a side note, Agence France Presse is one of the Big Three (with AP and Reuters). It takes great pride in the quality of its photography.
http://www.resourceshelf.com/legaldocs/afpvgoogle1 .pdf
/cynicism on
/cynicism off
Please do not even consider a deal to settle up and take advantage of the referral links.
Please allow me to keep my lower market viewership.
It would have been nice had they worked out something. I understand where
they are coming from but it would have worked in their best interest
to have a larger viewing market.
British. Although the world's largest news outlet, 90% of its revenues come from selling financial data.
Apparently not as the AFP sees it. Having the ability to scour the playing ground at speed and unmatched power, it's inevitable the Google will dominate the Net. When that happens, it runs into opportunities untold, and the lesser players who might be a leader in its own right (e.g. AFP) sees that as a right to protect its ground in the open arena.
Ultimately Search Engines' business is to provide information for consumers, and providing that information can come in a variety of manners the consumers are comfortable with e.g., Google News. Having the ability to scour and reporting the most arresting of subjects is seen as a threat to others focussing on narrower subjects.
Instead of copyrighting its subject matters, entities like AFP could and SHOULD leverage on the Internet's openness and exposure to enhance its core subject matter, integrity, and prospect as an attractive business liaisons with consumers.
Likewise, for the big players, they need to take similar notes. If you accepted that this is level playing ground, and small players emerging with much more speed and flexibility that you may have, then having the same integrity and rules applied, you should not switch stands and whine about small players stealing from your treasure chests when all is done and considered fair game based on consumers dogged ingenuity.
Think, make not laws that goverened only your own interests.
Google is going to have to clear a lot of images in order to get rid of French material in its news listings. Not only are they going to remove Jerry Lewis fan material, they are going to remove pictures such as this one. Leave nothing French online, google!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I'm only commenting on one part of their complaint, not on decision-making process which follows on from that. But if one reads the full complaint, the situation is not as clear-cut as the average non-RTFAer would believe it to be.
Give AFP what they ask for, even if it isn't what they're going to find that they want...
User-agent: * /
Disallow:
AFP didn't do their homework, and that's a poor way to protect any investment.
To sum up: AFP, of their own volition, paid to get on the web. They completely ignored RFCs. They ignored standard practices by established companies in their business sector. They wait until $17M in damages accrue, which doesn't happen overnight. Only then do they cry foul, and sue using copyright law to protect something they won't protect themselves when they have the chance. If you were a judge, which way would you rule?
Notice that I didn't even need to talk about fair use rights. France doesn't use the US Constitution. My arguments are purely economic, and I'm fairly sure the French understand money. If any lawyers at Google are reading this, please fight this suit. AFP are being unreasonable, and need to be taught a lesson.
Google News is basically just a search engine for news. How do these fools think people link to their site?! One has to wonder if their trying a cash out scam. I would counter sue with extortion.
Is french news really worth $17.5 Mil?
Crying over Google linking them... it's not like Google displays full stories. Tiny-ass thumbnails and small snippits from their news stories that link to the full ones is hardly something to cry about.
Free exposure? No thanks, but I'll sue you!
It's just Crap.
Google doesn't have a timetable for when all AFP links and content will be removed from Google News, but the company is actively working on the matter
Update Google.NewsLinks set Link = NULL where Agency = 'APF'
Oy... now there's an overnight job if I ever saw one.
Typically I have a policy of not feeding the trolls, but I had to do a quick breakdown on this.
Did you even read TFA?
Yes, I have.
AFP is complaining because its photographs are having its copyright data removed.
The article in question (http://www.overclockersclub.com/?read=1147351) refers to AFP being upset that Google is using their copyrighted works with out permission. I checked it again. From TFA: Agence France Presse had sued Google for displaying their photo's, stories, and news headlines on Google News without permission. I don't see anything in the article talking about copyright data being removed from photographs.
That is not fair use,
Who said it was? I wasn't suggesting that AFP should let Google use its material without compensation, I was suggesting that a better solution, other then a lawsuit, would be to work out a deal with Google so they could make a few bucks and keep the international exposure. I'm not sure you quite understand what "fair use" is, or how it doesn't apply to this situation at all, or moreover how nobody has even brought it up.
and if you actually thought about the issue before having some mindless knee-jerk reaction you might even notice.
I'm trying to notice. But so far the only mindless knee jerk reaction being shown without understanding things has come from you. Though I do have to wonder, are you really that stupid, or is this a joke?
Like I said, I generally don't feed the trolls, but sometimes a person can be so good at being misinformed, spewing forth the most insane things that are so totally wrong I have to break it down just to make sure I'm not in some sort of bizzaro world where up is down and cats chase dogs.
The Internet is generally stupid
AFP's business model isn't to run a service to deliver news to readers directly. What they do is sell content to news organizations. This means that if you run a newspaper, you pay AFP for the right to reprint their stories.
Google is getting the AFP content from these newspapers as a third party, and not as a subscriber to AFP, who probably don't give a rat's ass at the moment about making you go over to their site. You, as an individual who reads the news, are not their customer.
The thumbnails all directly link to the place where they appeared, where the copyright line may be clearly seen in full. Whether that line is visible on google news doesn't matter; the courts at least in America seem to have been pretty clear that if you thumbnail an image linked somewhere else and link the original, this isn't publishing and any copyright issues that image may hold aren't relevant because only the actual host is publishing the image, you're just linking it.
if this were being done by a site that everyone loves to hate, I think people would tend to side with AFP.
No I think if this were anyone else we'd be instead of concentrating on "OMFG IT'S GOOGLE" concentrating on the real issue, which is that AFP is expecting the traditional concepts of fair use that every website that's ever excerpted something and then linked it-- you know, which google news didn't invent-- to be reordered for them.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
So the direct readers of AFP won't notice any difference at all, and the users of Google News will stop visiting AFP. Hmm, maybe that makes sense to them because they wish to have it removed, but it certainly don't make much sense to me.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
"so everybody stops buying from de facto newswire because it's not on google news, which doesn't really matter at all in the 'rest of the world'?"
No. Re-read the story.
AFP sells photos to different news organizations. The NYT, London Times, Washington Post, Hong Kong, Tokoy, pretty much everywhere.
Those newspapers *WANT* Google to index their pages. What AFP is doing is preventing 3rd parties from being indexed by Google.
So the end result will be that news sites sill be less likely to use AFP photos, because once they do, they will not be indexed by Google.
Hope that's clearer why not being on google will damage AFP in a way they don't comprehend. Its almost as if they don't understand the Internet. But that's not surprising since they still advertise that you should call them on an ISDN line. Welcome to 1990.
They really don't get it.
Those posters who agreethis hurts AFP's business aren't entirely wrong. Their services are as often abused in the print world as on the web, tales of journalists taking relatively innocuous wire service grabs and blowing them up into controversies are too legion to mention; many urban myths got started that way. That's as much "without attribution" as sticking on a page without mentioning the source.
But the real reason it WILL hurt AFP is that they will no longer be on the web radar screens of their real customers. In the relatively small highly-competitive market they operate in, such marginal disadvantages DO count, which is precisely why they tend to overlook much of their print customer's errant journos.
But let's not point out the bloody obvious, shall we? Much more DILLIGENT to spend serious money and time on lawsuits. Idiots.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
That AFP?
You can't handle the truth.
"Google Surrenders to France"?
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
You, sir, are yet another ass that's spouted his mouth off without realizing what the story is. Google News isn't spidering the AFP site. They're spidering the sites of AFP's customers, and republishing content, without paying AFP the fees that they charge their subscribers for the privilege to republish that content.
Wow! Somebody sure woke on the wrong side of The Channel this morning!
This tagline is umop apisdn.
Google news is still beta, it generates no revenue for google, there are no banners on google news. Of course google benefits greatly from this feature but there was an article on a certan blog about google not quite sure what they will do with google news because if they take it out of beta and begin making money from it then they will be liable for stealing other peoples news articles. But it implied under US law that if they were not making any money off it then they were no different then a blogger. Which now doesn't make sense to me because private party is certanly different then a corporation.
Anyone else renember this article? about 6 months ago or more.
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
google is removing France from Google Maps...
-pyrrho
Well I'll be... crap, you had me going for a minute there. Good one.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
if eveyone is so pissed off about this... slashdot em www.afp.com
Before I get totally flamed, let me start by saying Google News is my homepage, and its the first thing I look at every morning. I'm a huge fan.
That having been said...
IANAL but I honestly don't understand how Google News can possibly be legal.
Forgeting for a moment whether or not ad revenue is eventually generated by all those linked-to sites: The question of whether or not legal-permission is required to link to a sub-level of another site is a legal issue from way back when.
Back in 1997 (if memory serves) I remember it was ruled that paid content sites needed to seek permission before linking to the sublevel of another paid content site. Search engines were where the law got blurry. Google News! however doesn't seem like much of a search engine -- but I suppose one could make the argument that there is indeed search technology at work behind the scenes. From a user perspective however, Google News seems more like a content aggregator.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Ah, history. French history. You made me curious, so I decided to google for French military victories and boy, did I learn a lot.
Already mentioned this above, but seems more appropriate here. Let's search google for French Military Victories.
If you had read the coverage of this issue, you would have known what AFP's first request to Google was. Hint: It was not to sue. I'll leave it as homework for you to look it up. Maybe you can Google for it :)
And nothing shows class like a sweeping generalization...
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
And in the next Slashdot story Agence France Presse (AFP) goes bust, because nobody wants their stinking photos or news copy.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
heres some news: No one gives a shit what the Agence France Presse (AFP) has to say anyway.
If they dont want me reading their news, so be it -- i honestly cant remember them ever breaking anything or reporting anything i cared about. Even if they did, odds are someone else would recycle it. So if they want less traffic, im happy to help.
ps. who cares what the French have to say anyway?
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
I don't see why AFP are being painted as the bad guys here.
They have a robots.txt that excludes their news articles, and yet Google is/was indexing them. Bad Google.
They are the ones who think that AFP needs Google and/or believe that AFP is in the business of providing news to the general public.
The first thing I'd do is point out to the world that the Internet is a web.
The second thing I'd do is point out that if you don't want your information linked on the web, simply don't put it on the web.
The last thing I'd do is wipe France clean off the earth. But that goes without saying.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The above comment speaks for itself. There is something very wrong with the American psyche. The poster is completely unable to see that every statement made about the 'Dastardly French' is actually much more relevant to their own country and its media-fed mass psychosis. http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm
Oh yeah... and their cute Maginot Line didn't work either. Their biggest feat... was also their biggest failure.
;)
This coming from the people that brought you the missile defence system that can't hit an incoming missile even when they cheat and use a homing beacon. That is when it actually gets off the launch pad.
Obviously there still isn't enough Prozac in the groundwater
Looks like someones got their feat stuck in their mouth again.
would that be the 1st amendment in the
Constitution for the united States of America
or the
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
there's a very big difference
Your command of the English language is commendable
Anyone else notice that there are no Associated Press stories on news.google.com either? There were AP stories in the first days of news.google.com, but they disappeared within the first week...
News agencies spend a lot of money to produce the news, which they sell to their customers (or members in the case of the AP). There are specific contracts with all of them about when their information can be republished.
Although there are no ads now, google could easily add some in the future, and make money off something they never paid for.
Also, although it is good for us, it takes the online reader to google, and not to the individual newspaper site. Newspapers don't make money off their news; they make it off their ads. By not even looking at their front page unless there is a story that google users like, it takes away business. And in the case of AFP and AP (and even Reuters), because the same story is published on hundreds of websites, whichever website google chooses to list wins, and the remaining websites which published that page lose.
News agencies are simply looking out for their hard-earned dollar. And freedom of information aside... someone has to pay for the news to be covered... without news agencies, their would be a very small amount of world/national content on TV or in a newspaper.
Yes, after google purchased the rights to view all of AFP's news stories and signed the NDA to not further redistribute them....
Errr... no NDA?
Ummm... no purchase?
Oh, that's right! They just loaded their web pages like anyone else in the world could do. Maybe if the French wanted to avoid just anyone reading their stories they might want to -- you know -- require subscriptions to access them?
Whine and cheese...
I'll presume you're just trolling and not really that ignorant. The very point of the Maginot Line was to channel an invasion through Belgium, which was conveniently placed as a buffer. It was thought that any German invasion would be more easily contained if routed through Belgium. The plan probably would have worked too if not for the dispersal of Allied armor and the suprise German advance through the Ardennes, previously thought to be unsuitable terrain for armor.
When google requested the various columns and images from the news site, did google agree to any type of non-redistribution of materials?
I'd imagine that google's bot simply asked the news site's webserver for the information via http requests; and the webserver handed out the goods with no conditions.
Enjoy
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id= 3313
How ever will I survive without franco-centric views on world news?
The horror...
AFP: Being on the front page of one the most popular websites in the world is bad for us. We estimate that it has caused us $17.5 million!
Person 1: How has it done that!?
AFP: All those hits on our website caused us to go over our bandwidth limit!
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Most people here would be pretty happy if Google all of the sudden started to abuse it's #1 status by "banning" people from their lists whenever they wanted to.
Most argumentation here is based on "Google should teach them a lesson" and "If you're banned from Google, you don't exist anymore".
Brings some real interesting questions about average-Slashdotter's position regarding monopolies and power abuse.
"If we like you and you're abusing those nasty evil big corporations, we'll support your actions". Some geeks here look more brainwashed than the average Scientology freak.
... make a clean break, and pull all AFP (and preferably AFP-sourced articles) out of the general search as well as the news site.
Black hole those bitches.
Dammit! Learn to use apostrophes, people! "Photos" is just a plural and needs no apostrophe. Here's a funny cartoon about it to make you feel dumb:
http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
I could ignore it if it wasn't on the main page of Slashdot.
How do you figure?
I mean, Google News has a bunch of links and a bunch of pictures. The two are not actually related, though -- that is, the picture next to the story is from one of the articles in that category but not necessarily from the one excerpted. Really, go check it out.
Google indexes both images and small snippets of the stories, and displays them automagically together on the Google News frontpage. Not indexing AFP photos will only mean that AFP photos won't be on the front page, not that the news source that purchase AFP material won't be indexed. Do you see the difference?
Lots of articles don't have images, and yet they still get indexed. Do you see how this works? The photos are irrelevant.
Quoting a snippet is certainly fair use, but displaying a photo on your site that other people had to pay to use probably isn't.
Ergo, the sites that buy AFP content still get indexed, but AFP pictures don't end up on Google News. And obviously, Google knows full well which pics are AFP pics -- they actually automagically cut out the copyright notice on those picture before they display them. Seems like they were asking for it.
A quick check of google news shows that they excerpt roughly the first 200-240 bytes of each story, and you have to follow the link to see the rest of the story.
So how could this not be fair use? I'd think that a judge would just laugh and toss it out with a summary judgement. Why didn't the judge do this?
Is it now illegal to tell someone a few words about a story and then tell them where they can read the story?
If so, is every slashdot summary now a potential violation?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Have you ever heard of the hundred years war?
Yes, the English kicked the shit out of them for over 130 years, the French even losing battles in which their opponents were vastly out-numbered and fatigued, and in the end the French still didn't have all their territory back. Their main 'hero' was a woman. Who was burnt at the stake. And was really a man with a hormone disorder.
How about Napoleon conquering most of Europe?
And then everyone ganged up and kicked the shit out of him, and he went off to die on an island somewhere.
French history:
500BC: France surrenders to Celts.
100BC: France surrenders to Romans.
327AD: France surrenders to Franks.
870AD: France surrenders to Normans.
1066AD: Normans get sick of France and move somewhere better.
1300-1450AD: France surrenders again and again to England.
And after a series of endless surrendering:
1914: France surrenders to the Germans.
1939: France surrenders to the Germans (again).
1954: France surrenders to Vietnamese.
All joking aside, the reason why Americans see France as 'surrendering' is that their knowledge of non-US history stretches back as far as the Second World War, and even then only American involvement. The fact that there were dozens of countries involved and not just America, Japan and Germany seems lost on them. Also the thought that all countries as old as France have a history of both victories and defeats hasn't occured to them.
As for cheese-eating, does this mean Americans don't eat cheese? What do they put on all those cheeseburgers and pizzas and cheesesteaks? Practically every country with milk-giving animals has cheese.
"The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program and no Frenchmen."
Euhmz.. , excusez le mot, but RTFA! .. They contacted Google way before they decided to sue them. So they did your options in in the order you presented them ..
I am sad to hear you are suing Google for including your news articles in their free Google News web search service. I use Google News to locate the best and most accurate reporting. If your stories aren't here, I won't see them any other way. I regret this as I consider AFP to be one of the very best and more reliable news services. Please reconsider your decision. News is news......
Only boring people are ever bored.
...doing anything to reduce the availability of the news would draw protest from the readers. Anything from raising the subscription rates to outright censorship...they all have the same effect of muzzeling the reporter and putting blinders on the public. But in France? Au contraire! they have a very different view of the matter of course.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Block AFP at the router you don't want to get sued and you don't want your company to get sued.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Why they don't edit robots.txt?