Slashdot Mirror
Google News Removes Belgian Newspaper
CaVi writes "Following a judicial action (link in French) by the 'French-speaking Belgian Association of the press,' Google.be has removed all the French-speaking press sites from its index, as can be seen by doing a search. The court order to Google is posted at Chilling Effects.
In summary, the editors want a cut of the profit that Google News makes using their information. No such deal exists for the moment. Google has been ordered to remove all references, or pay one million Euros per day if it doesn't comply. Net effect: they removed all link to the sites, from Google News, but also from Google's search. Will Google become irrelevant in Belgian, and be replaced by MSN? Or will the newspapers, which gain from commercials, and thus net traffic, change their position when they'll see the drop in traffic that it is causing?" There's also a link to a Dutch news article on the subject; one of the key issues was evidently that some of what Google was carrying was no longer available on the newspaper's website itself, so rather then linking to the newspaper, Google was displaying it on their own.
Typical example of different point of perceptions and the problem of Wikipedia:
Erasmus was Belgian but Belgium was part of the Netherlands back then, hence the misconception that he was born in the "southern netherlands".
Same deal with Descartes (and I'm talking about the cartographer). He was definatly Belgian, you can even visit the house he was born here.
Yes, but the poster makes an important point. google.be is blocking the sites, but google.com is not. google.fr is not either.
.fr instead. It would be different if Google were removing lesoir.be and other sites from all searches (including google.com searches) by computers with Belgian IP addresses, but are they? If not, Belgians will probably switch to google.fr/.com rather than MSN.
.be. Could it be because .be servers are actually in Belgium, and thus are somehow legally affected? That's the only way I can think of that this block makes sense.
It seems like the block has no practical effect, since you can find everything by going to google.com or
I don't know why they did this for
If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
Can't say I'm surprised. They have some strange legal notions in Belgium that don't match up with the rest of the civilized world. I got C&D from a Belgian company through a law firm in New York. The Belgian company claims to own the copyright to my vacation photos (with me standing in them!). The law firm (acting on behalf of the Belgians) demanded I take them off my web site or they'd sue me into oblivion.
I always warn people I know who are vacationing in Europe -- avoid Belgium. Who knows what else they will try to persecute you for there.
World's tallest building rises in the desert
And a lot of people see it as exactly that, and are thankful for the traffic Google sends their way. I get about 140 referrals from Google a day, and am very welcoming to the Google spiders.
Nonetheless, this argument is very similar to the "Musicians should see Napster as an advertising medium to sell concert tickets" debate — some musicians do, while others don't, and it isn't really fair for people to declare that those who don't should just suck it and tow the line.
In this case the creators of the actual content (or the people who paid AP or CP or UP or Reuters or whoever originated the content — they do have to pay them, and can't say "Well we're giving Reuters free advertising!") decided that they didn't consider it kosher as simply free advertising, and the model didn't work for them. They asked Google to start either sharing some of the lucre that Google is making from the server — and google is making a lot of money from these sorts of services, and they aren't doing it because of benevolence – or stop acting as repeaters for their content.
Seems reasonable to me.