Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Loses Cache-Copyright Lawsuit in Belgium

Posted by Zonk on from the no-convenience-for-you dept.

acroyear writes "A court in Belgium has found that Google's website caching policies are a violation of that nation's copyright laws. The finding is that Google's cache offers effectively free access to articles that, while free initially, are archived and charged for via subscriptions. Google claims that they only store short extracts, but the court determined that's still a violation. From the court's ruling: 'It would be up to copyright owners to get in touch with Google by e-mail to complain if the site was posting content that belonged to them. Google would then have 24 hours to withdraw the content or face a daily fine of 1,000 euros ($1,295 U.S.).'"

9 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. Har Har by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ruling basically reiterates the current Google policy.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Har Har by Seehund · · Score: 4, Informative

      It seems to me that Google should arrange something like noarchive specifically for these news quotes. Then every news site can easily specify what to allow, and they have no reason to sue. Then it doesn't seem there's a reason to sue, as this is already implemented:

      "To prevent all search engines from showing a "Cached" link for your site, place this tag in the <HEAD> section of your page:

      <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

      To allow other search engines to show a "Cached" link, preventing only Google from displaying one, use the following tag:
      <META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">       "
      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
  2. Re:Personal Responsibility by kimvette · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry that was the browser cache.

    THIS is the correct tag:

    <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

    Sorry about the brain fart. I wish we could edit posts (preview, I know, but that would not have made me catch this one)

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  3. Re:What about MY memory, is that a cache? by Potor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, the action was begun by French- and German-language papers and adjudicated in a Brussels court, and thus has nothing to do with anything Flemish.

  4. Re:Not in terms of copyright law by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes it is different. In most countries, unauthorised distribution carries much heavier penalties than unauthorised possession (which may indeed have no penalty atttached at all).

  5. Re:What's the problem? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2, Informative

    That doesn't matter. Publishers of those free urban tabloids still retain copyright on the articles and graphics given away for free in the tabloids.

  6. Implications for proxies by l2718 · · Score: 3, Informative

    What do this say about proxy services, then? These also store content which may be subject to copyright and serve it to users.

  7. Re:So no "fair dealing" or "fair use" in Belgium? by radja · · Score: 2, Informative

    the EU has a copyright directive. it's up to the individual countries to make it into a national law, so copyright law still differs across countries in the EU.

    --

    No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
    --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  8. Re:So no "fair dealing" or "fair use" in Belgium? by CH-BuG · · Score: 2, Informative

    You could publish in an open-access journal. Alternatively, 90% of the publishers now accept that you put your articles (pre or post prints, depending on the case) in an institutional repository. Does your university provide one?