German Law To Make Google Pay For Snippets

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

German Law To Make Google Pay For Snippets

Posted by timothy on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @03:10AM from the die-schnippets-sind-aber-teuer! dept.

judgecorp writes "The German government has announced plans for a copyright law which would require Google, other search engines, and aggregators to pay for small snippets of text displayed on their pages. Journalistic citations and private users will be exempt."

93 of 117 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yeah, that's fine. by gcnaddict · 2012-03-13 03:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google, Bing, et al. will just stop linking to sites which enforce this.

Who thought this was a good idea?

--
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
1. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by smi.james.th · 2012-03-13 03:14 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  Which is pretty much an internet death sentence. Smart.
  
  --
  One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
2. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by MarkvW · 2012-03-13 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is a great idea. If a site wants to keep their material off Google, then they can. If they want their material to be on Google, they can do that too.
  I fail to see the problem.
3. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by imagined.by · 2012-03-13 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really think the German government would allow this? Of course they would include right in the law that Google HAS to list the news snippets.
4. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by ichthus · 2012-03-13 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  see robots.txt. Google honors mine.
  
  --
  sig: sauer
5. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by doza · 2012-03-13 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think cost is a major factor. I have no idea how they plan on enforcing search engines pay for content. I think it's a terrible idea if publishers are planning to expand their reader base. Bloggers are exempt, so i wonder if a google snippet of a blog would be cause for a payment.
  
  --
  ---
6. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-03-13 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Until they make a law that http://google.de/ has to point to an actual search engine, Google is safe. :)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
7. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Sir_Sri · 2012-03-13 03:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Ya, if anything the market has shifted the opposite direction, and you pay them to get your website featured prominently (however you want to define that specifically).
  Search engines have no incentive to pay to link. As long as they can minimally link for free they will, and if they have to pay for everything they link, well that isn't going to happen is it, because then you'd have no search.
  It's like demanding the phone company pay businesses for the right to list their name in the phonebook.
  A couple of weeks ago there was a story here about some campground in spain getting screwed because a search for Alfaques or whatever it was produced a slew of images from some terrible accident near them 30 years ago. That happens because the people who publish those images have made sure their results are at the top of searches, with images in thumbnails, and they are bigger companies than the small little campground. The system can't work both directions at once, and I can't imagine it working with search providers having to pay for what they are currently paid for.
8. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by imagined.by · 2012-03-13 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  The USA haven't really cared about that, why should Germany care about it?
9. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by medcalf · 2012-03-13 03:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It requires needless software development. Instead of honoring robots.txt for sites that don't agree to be indexed, Google will either have to extend robots.txt to allow oppt in or alter their internal code with a list of what they will not index regardless of robots.txt. More cruft and potentially nonstandard extensions on the web is not a good thing. Or Google could just stop indexing any site with an IP addr in Germany.
  
  --
  -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
10. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Internetuser1248 · 2012-03-13 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  The German public cares a lot about privacy and security on the net. Germany also has copyright lobbies. They are trying to sneak this in as the former. As soon as the truth about it hits the media it will be ridiculed and dropped. Germany has a parliamentary system and it works ok (in comparison to some other systems I could name), a bill is being planned usually means a member bill and some of them are retarded, but they never come anywhere near becoming law.
11. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by FatdogHaiku · 2012-03-13 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  It requires needless software development. Instead of honoring robots.txt for sites that don't agree to be indexed, Google will either have to extend robots.txt to allow oppt in or alter their internal code with a list of what they will not index regardless of robots.txt. More cruft and potentially nonstandard extensions on the web is not a good thing. Or Google could just stop indexing any site with an IP addr in Germany.
  They could just not show the text snippets to users in Germany... I would think that would be the easiest answer for them and it would also mobilize German users to get the law fixed as it would be all search engines, not just Google.
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
12. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Tharsman · 2012-03-13 04:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Honest question:
  Can you configure robots.txt to allow Google to index your site for search results without summarizing your news in news.google.com?
13. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by dkf · 2012-03-13 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Which is pretty much an internet death sentence. Smart.
  So? Google is not under an actual legal obligation to index or describe any site hosted in Germany (or anywhere else). The enormous majority of people outside Germany wouldn't care if their sites vanished from the face of the earth. The simplest technical response to such a law would therefore be for search engines to not return any matches at all for German sites (and to not provide any results at all to people in Germany). Very simple to implement. Complies with the law.
  Also totally not what the legislator had in mind, but who cares about what passes for thought in his or her neck of the woods?
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
14. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Tharsman · 2012-03-13 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  I think this not about search results, but news.google.com summarizing and aggregating news in a way that users don’t ever feel the need to enter news sites to see what is going on in the news today.
15. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-13 04:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This was hard, wasn't it?
16. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by RatherBeAnonymous · 2012-03-13 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I expect that is what will happen. I also expect that German news outlets will get less traffic to their sites and end up loosing revenue.
17. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-13 04:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I take it you didn't use Google's/Bing's news search much, because otherwise you'd know they show 2-3 sentence blurbs, barely enough to find relevant articles. Yahoo news search shows somewhat longer snippets, but still shorter than, say, an average /. summary and still not enough to visit only search page.
  This is just yet another attempt at legislation from people unaware of how Internet works and proud of it.
  Here's a beauty:
  
  The law would oblige Internet aggregators and search engines to pay publishers to display all or part of their articles, including snippets such as headlines embedded in search links, according to the CDU.
18. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by MightyMartian · 2012-03-13 04:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Don't worry... he's coming.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
19. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by MightyMartian · 2012-03-13 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  Good, stupidity and greed deserve their just rewards. I predict a lawsuit in a year demanding that Google put snippets back up.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
20. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by sjames · 2012-03-13 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Or just not index anything in Germany.
21. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-13 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Nope.
  Demanding fair non-discriminatory terms for deals is one thing, demanding to accept deals is another.
22. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Chatterton · 2012-03-13 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't require any software development. Google bot check against 2 user agent in your robot.txt: Googlebot and Googlebot-News. There is also a lot of possibility with some meta tags.
  support.google.com
23. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Ossifer · 2012-03-13 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't matter. Google will simply say, ok, the price I'm willing to pay for you snippets is $0.00 (â0.00). If you don't accept the deal, robots.txt...
24. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Dishevel · 2012-03-13 05:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Google is not required to do business in any single country.
  Google can not be touched if it just pulls everything out of Germany then de lists all German sites and shuts down its .gr domain.
  What are they going to do? Demand that Google do business in Germany?
  Fuck em.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
25. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Dishevel · 2012-03-13 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. So you want Google to index your site so that the masses of the internet can see it. Then you want them to pay you for it? You also want them to pay you more if they send more people to you? Copyright does not give you the right to force me to use your stuff and pay you for it. If you do not want parts of your site to come up then do not let it be indexed.
  What you really want if for Google to index your site for you. Make it real easy for people to find your content and display nothing but the url?
  Are you an idiot of a staff writer for the NYT?
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
26. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-13 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Google is not required to do business in any single country.
  Google can not be touched if it just pulls everything out of Germany then de lists all German sites and shuts down its .gr domain.
  What are they going to do? Demand that Google do business in Germany?
  Fuck em.
  It's just the single biggest economy in europe, if they want to pull out, they'd probably lose money in the end and leave a profitable market to the competition. Also, shutting down the .gr domain is surely going to affect a lot of german users :-)
27. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Rhodri+Mawr · 2012-03-13 05:24 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Bloody Germans, shutting down Google in Greece. How low will they stoop? Is this another condition of the bail-out?
  
  (the German TLD is .de BTW)
28. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Your.Master · 2012-03-13 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Leaving aside your assumption that Google can afford to do this more than Germany can (obviously both sides can, but I think Google would be the clear loser in pulling out of Germany), you're not answering the question that was asked.
  The question was about Google refusing to service sites which insist that German law be enforced, implying that Google would still serve German sites that let them pass. I strongly suspect that would be illegal whether or not there's any antitrust concerns.
29. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-03-13 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Or just not index anything in Germany.
  And this is the most responsible action Google can take - it will have a positive influence on bad policy.
  With BGP intelligence, you can figure out what servers are in Germany, but the trick will be how the German government defines what a 'German' website it. I doubt they'll go with the most technically astute definition.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
30. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by sjames · 2012-03-13 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  It would lead to the interesting situation where the government wants to insist that a website not actually in Germany is 'entitled' to such payments and the site owners anxiously urging them to reconsider.
31. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Luckyo · 2012-03-13 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  They would be removing results "to comply with new legislation". Literally. Rather hard to claim that this is anti-competitive.
32. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by houghi · 2012-03-13 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  It is a bit late to get it as a standard, but I would rather have had an opt-in instead of an opt-out.
  Sure, that would have meant that some things would not be standard to find. However with the opt-in that would have been what those sites would have wanted.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
33. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Dishevel · 2012-03-13 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops.
  Sometimes I type faster than I think.
  Thanks.
  Also. What have the Greeks done lately.
  I mean sure. Birth of western civilization and all but what about the last 2000 years?
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
34. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Dishevel · 2012-03-13 06:24 · Score: 2
  
  I do not think it would hurt Google.
  I think if Google stood up to this the law would get changed.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
35. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-13 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  It possibly would not immediately hurt Google. However, surely some other search engine (Bing?) would step in, and with Google being unavailable, it would get all the traffic Google would have gotten.
  Note that it is quite easy to comply without violating that law, and at the same time without paying anyone: Just offer the links, without text excerpts. Not as useful as with excerpts, but infinitely more useful than no search engine at all.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
36. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by suutar · 2012-03-13 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason I can think that they'd pull out is if the payments and the work needed to track what needs to be paid makes it unprofitable. At the point where Google can't make it profitable with their established and wide-scale infrastructure, I have doubts a smaller competitor will be able to make it profitable, and it may be that Germany will just be SOL.
37. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by gr8_phk · 2012-03-13 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  It is a bit late to get it as a standard, but I would rather have had an opt-in instead of an opt-out.
  You have always had the option of not putting material on a publicly accessible web server. Google does you a favor by indexing it for free so people can do a quick search and find it. They also make it very easy to opt-out. I'm not sure what this publicly available but "opt-in" concept you have would look like. Perhaps you could do a prototype which we could all go opt into after we hear about it ummmm how?
38. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by gr8_phk · 2012-03-13 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  The campground should make a site with lots of nice pictures and have some other sites do a few fluff pieces on them.
39. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Sir_Sri · 2012-03-13 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  The only real SEO is paying google to make sure you're at the top of the list when your website shows up in a search query. Everything else is going to still put you below the people who are paying.
40. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by unrtst · 2012-03-13 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  The point is, they can easily do that...
  * update google .de site to return only the links and ads. Provide a banner stating why it is this way (or info bubble or something). Provide a means for site administrators to opt out (or would it be opt in?) to allow text blubs.
  * Leave google.com alone. Tell Germany to block google.com if it wants to - that'd be their responsibility (I think).
41. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by St.Creed · 2012-03-13 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Also. What have the Greeks done lately. I mean sure. Birth of western civilization and all but what about the last 2000 years?
  They rested :P
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
42. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by JimCanuck · 2012-03-13 08:31 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Dealing with the Romans after they copied their entire culture and then molested it.
  Dealing with the crusaders who pillaged and burned anything along their path to the ME.
  Dealing with a Muslim occupation for 400 years without losing their identity.
  Dealing with a foreign imposed Bavarian then Danish King they didn't ask for.
  Dealing with a Civil War started by the British to force Greece to take back said Kingdom.
  Dealing with a Euro Dollar that no one in Greece other then the pro-Euro government actually wanted.
  Dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars of Bribes from German companies ThyssenKrupp and Siemens.
  
  Just a short form of the history the last 2000 years, there is more if you look for it.
43. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Dishevel · 2012-03-13 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  The point is you do more harm by making your site shitty than by making it go away.
  No German really wants a shitty Google. These laws are against the people. They are bullshit. Put there to protect "Big Copyright". Just because you can comply with them does not mean you should.
  Google SHOULD not comply with laws like this. They should rail against them. Use their power to make the world a little bit better. Because I am tired of it getting shittier.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
44. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by shmlco · 2012-03-13 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  " However, surely some other search engine (Bing?) would step in...."
  And be subject to the same law.
  Besides, Google can't afford to let this stand, or else everyone else EVERYWHERE else will start demanding the same thing. Boom. There went Google's search revenue profits.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
45. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Dishevel · 2012-03-13 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  I bet Google would not have no access to content. I will go so far as to say that content needs Google.
  If two sentences or a headline are all a person needs from your "news source" then I would say you have a shit "news source".
  Maybe content providers need to provide real content. Not just facts. Dig deeper. Give me history, context and a deeper view of the story.
  If your copyright is on "just the facts". News for you. Facts are not copyrightable. But I put the facts in 9 words. those exact words are copyrightable.
  So ok. Say Google does allow this shit to happen.
  You type "Afghanistan killings" into Google. Google returns 89 million results. What happens when you see in the first 6 links 4 have just www.nyt.com, or news.yahoo.com and the other 4 have snipets? How many times am I going to click on a link and find it was not what I wanted and have to back out again before I just start clicking on the links that give me enough to know I am going to the right place.
  Copyright is so one sided now that I no longer give a shit about it. Copyright has become a blatant attack on the public domain. Fuck them.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
46. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by dkf · 2012-03-13 12:00 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder. If there was an issue with a specific company, AND if Google was declared a monopoly, would not listing that company count as anticompetitive?
  I truly can't see how that matters. Any law would have to apply to all search engines equally anyway, so the only safe thing for any of them to do would be to refuse to index German sites or provide search results to people and businesses in Germany. OK, depending on the detail of the law it might be possible to be a little less draconian than that (e.g., it might be possible to provide snippets of non-.de sites) but any search engine would still be in the same position as Google with respect to German law (or the law would be deemed to be totally unfair, and thus get struck out by courts). Somehow I suspect that those who propose/desire this law do not believe that that's what would happen, but despite being the largest economy in Europe, they're still not that large that it is impossible for a search engine to not serve them and still be viable. Consequences are pretty clear: "we're not paying anyone for snippets that are in effect advertising for your site; whatever you try, we still won't pay you" will be the unanimous response. I also bet that the organizations who think they'd gain from this would blink before the search engines did. About the only single countries that are truly important are the US (though no single state) and China. Europe's about as important as the US in terms of market size, but isn't a single country. (What's more, German legislation is definitely not going to be enforced anywhere else. The whole idea of that makes me giggle a bit.) Search engines do not need the German traffic, and could swallow the hit of not operating there if necessary; whether or not they could afford to also take the hit on paying for snippets is beside the point: it's so totally in opposition to their business model that they won't.
  Mind you, this just appears to be an idea that's being floated by a politician-crony of Big Content, and an unusually ill-considered one at that. If it withers on the vine (most likely outcome by far, IMO) then it's no big deal. Let's worry about things that might actually be enacted for real, not the wilder reaches of the improbable; you can always find someone who'll say something outrageous, but if it's just talk then that's all it is.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
47. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-03-13 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's just the single biggest economy in europe
  That will change in a hurry, given enough legislation like this.
48. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by dkf · 2012-03-13 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  * update google .de site to return only the links and ads. Provide a banner stating why it is this way (or info bubble or something). Provide a means for site administrators to opt out (or would it be opt in?) to allow text blubs.
  You can only do that if the law makes provision for it. If there's no legal way to do it, then it's time to deploy the old tactic of conspicuously complying with the law with the biggest amount of "fuck you" possible. Aiming the tactics to cause maximum harm to the corporate backers of the bill is of course the best approach. (Before you ask, Google's not going to be special in this; I can't see any other search engine wanting to put up with this sort of thing either.)
  
  * Leave google.com alone. Tell Germany to block google.com if it wants to - that'd be their responsibility (I think).
  That'd be a site operated by a foreign company outside German jurisdiction. Why would they pay a lot of attention to German law anyway? They have their own local laws to worry about.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
49. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-03-13 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  :) That says it all.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
50. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by AlienIntelligence · 2012-03-13 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Google is not required to do business in any single country.
  Google can not be touched if it just pulls everything out of Germany then de lists all German sites and shuts down its .gr domain.
  What are they going to do? Demand that Google do business in Germany?
  Fuck em.
  Why would they shut down their .gr (eece) servers?
  And not their .de (utchsland) servers?
  -AI
  
  --
  For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
51. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by dave87656 · 2012-03-13 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  shutting down the .gr domain is surely going to affect a lot of german users
  Imaging what shutting down the .DE domain would do...
52. Re:Yeah, that's fine. by Dishevel · 2012-03-14 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I see that you are an AC.
  So I will not bother with pointing out that fair use is not copyright infringement, because you are just a FUD spreading shill.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
And Righthaven back in business? by erroneus · 2012-03-13 03:13 · Score: 1, Funny

Where did that domain name go? I know it's around here somewhere...
Nein nein nein by koan · 2012-03-13 03:16 · Score: 2

Achtung!!! this is a bad idea, copyright law is out of hand.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
1. Re:Nein nein nein by gstoddart · 2012-03-13 03:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Achtung!!! this is a bad idea, copyright law is out of hand.
  You know, I increasingly think that this be read aloud any time a government tries to pass a law about technology.
  
  DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FUR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN!
  
  If you don't know how it works, don't touch it. :-P
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
All link to english web site by aepervius · 2012-03-13 03:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is not that I don't trust you all guy, but I would rather read the german law than the (eventually biased) interpretation by some english blog/web site.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
1. Re:All link to english web site by imagined.by · 2012-03-13 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  At this moment, it's just a proposal. A draft will most likely be presented in April. So it's not written in stone just yet.
2. Re:All link to english web site by rolfwind · 2012-03-13 06:19 · Score: 3
  
  The announcement doesn't surprise me at all. Germany is retarded with copyrights and riddled with the copyright industry lobbyists, they make auctions now give a percentage of art sales into a fund to be distributed to the artist who made it. This even affects art that was sold before the law. All it did was spring up masses of organizations that claim to represent a list of artists to claim the money and then take their commission.
  Not to mention that the people who invested into art suddenly lost a few % to these leeches.
  Before anyone claims that's right or correct, should volunteer, when selling their house, to give a few % to the carpenter/bricklayers/plumbers/electricians/etc. who built it, into perpetuity. Or when their used car is sold, give a few percent to the manufacturer. Or used books on amazon. Etc.
3. Re:All link to english web site by WoOS · 2012-03-13 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  An alas German article about the whole debate (including Pro and Contra position) can be found in the c't 17/10 (online http://heise.de/-1447608). They also have a news article on the most recent development ( http://heise.de/-1447608 ) but that is not really anything new except that the government now started to make internal plans on how to realize such a law. Note that obviously Heise would profit from such a law but they are typically quite impartial.
  Main argument for introducing the law is that for many news simply quoting headlines and a few excerpted lines of text is all someone wants to know. Thus the argument goes that the news aggregators do not direct (sufficient) traffic to the authors of the news but mostly keep the traffic - and thus the ad profits - for themselves.
4. Re:All link to english web site by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-13 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  they make auctions now give a percentage of art sales into a fund to be distributed to the artist who made it.
  Hmmm ... I wonder how they manage to pay Rembrandt or Michelangelo. :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
5. Re:All link to english web site by St.Creed · 2012-03-13 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know. But I'm collecting it so that when they do find out, I can pay it :)
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
6. Re:All link to english web site by St.Creed · 2012-03-13 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Paintings aren't reproducible? Tell that to Han van Meegeren ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren ) ...
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
This should turn out good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-13 03:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would love to see Google just stop displaying snippets, and see how long it takes for them to realize that no one can find their articles anymore
1. Re:This should turn out good by cpghost · 2012-03-13 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  Wasn't it exactly what happened in Belgium?
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
equal protection? by prgrmr · 2012-03-13 03:21 · Score: 1

So the German constitution has no "equal protection" equivalent?
1. Re:equal protection? by Shoe+Puppet · 2012-03-13 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Is this what you mean?
  (1) All persons shall be equal before the law.
  I don't see how this is relevant here, though.
  
  --
  (+1, Disagree)
2. Re:equal protection? by Theaetetus · 2012-03-13 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  So the German constitution has no "equal protection" equivalent?
  Because that would apply, since Google is a suspect class, having an inherent and immutable characteristic that has caused them to be the subject of a history of invidious discrimination?
3. Re:equal protection? by prgrmr · 2012-03-13 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking an equivalent to the US Constitution's 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  In the US, this applies to corporations, because corporation are associations of people, and specifically, the court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company recognized corporations as having 14th amendment rights. So in the US, a law to apply this regulation to search engines and exempt others likely would be challenged as an infringement on Google's 14th amendment rights.
4. Re:equal protection? by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-03-13 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Because that would apply, since Google is a suspect class, having an inherent and immutable characteristic that has caused them to be the subject of a history of invidious discrimination?
  Microsoft competitors?
5. Re:equal protection? by Shoe+Puppet · 2012-03-13 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  It does have sort of an equivalent to that, in the form of a number of articles like "Every person shall have the right to (property|life|...)". That the state may not make a law that restricts these rights (unless otherwise authorized to do so by the constitution) is implied. I'm not sure which rights apply to corporations and to which extent.
  This new law will probably be constitutional for the same reason patents and copyrights are. I'm not sure what this reason is since the constitution doesn't specifically mention them, it might be the right to property.
  
  --
  (+1, Disagree)
6. Re:equal protection? by jabberw0k · 2012-03-13 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Gosh, doesn't that render illegal the round-up of suspected "illegal aliens" (they are persons, not necessarily "citizens"), as well as the "you must have government-issued identification papers to vote" ? Maybe we should all read this Constitution thing.
7. Re:equal protection? by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-13 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  It does have sort of an equivalent to that, in the form of a number of articles like "Every person shall have the right to (property|life|...)".
  
  No. It has such articles stating that every human shall have those rights. And therefore AFAIU those fundamental rights do not automatically extend to corporations. IANAL however.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
The new Righthaven by tepples · 2012-03-13 03:22 · Score: 1

There's a story about the new Righthaven.
And Google pulls out of Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-13 03:23 · Score: 1

Followed by most other search engines, leaving the Germans with no Search engines and reducing a small number of jobs
But atleast then their children will not be exposed to Nazi stuff
1. Re:And Google pulls out of Germany by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-13 07:02 · Score: 2
  
  While I've heard several times equating the web with the internet, his is the first time I've come across someone equating search engines with the internet.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Legislating the Interwebs? by clafarge · 2012-03-13 03:27 · Score: 2

This is what happens when any nation takes it upon themselves to try to legislate the internet: mindnumbingly stupid legislation. We edge closer to this trap each day ourselves.

--
Tis I: Me.
Does that include Slashdot, then? by asylumx · 2012-03-13 03:27 · Score: 1

Does that include Slashdot, then? Or will the submitters & editors have to make sure they paraphrase everything in the summary (no more copypasta)?
1. Re:Does that include Slashdot, then? by asylumx · 2012-03-13 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  One other question -- under whose authority/jurisdiction will this be enforced? Will it only be applicable when the source article is hosted by a site that is based in Germany? What if they aren't based there, but they do have a physical office there?
2. Re:Does that include Slashdot, then? by asylumx · 2012-03-13 03:32 · Score: 2
  
  Ok, I actually asked three questions...
And that's how Germany will bring their economy... by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-03-13 03:30 · Score: 1

...into line with the rest of the EU. Just restrict their citizens' ability to find information.
Next up... by WillyWanker · 2012-03-13 03:35 · Score: 1

Google announces they are blocking access from all German IP addresses in 3...2...1...
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-03-13 04:25 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:Two additions by icebraining · 2012-03-13 04:31 · Score: 1

The proposal is to found a collecting society. Only its members get paid. i.e. not every publisher, only the ones which can afford paying the fees to enter the society and/or which the society finds "worthy".
Oh, we have those here in Portugal, one for authors and one for performers. At least the latter is a cesspool of corruption, trying as hard as they can to avoid paying their members, since they get to keep the money.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:again? by next_ghost · 2012-03-13 04:59 · Score: 3, Informative

No and no.
Can't think of anything else to say... by hazah · 2012-03-13 06:11 · Score: 1

Good luck with that. Seriously. Next you'll tell me I have to pay to utter phrases that were already exclaimed! Sign me up! Just another way to paint themselves "victim" and get some simpathy browny points. Assholes.
Great by WindBourne · 2012-03-13 06:46 · Score: 1

Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. should all stop indexing things from Germany right away. If they ALL stop, that might make Germany and other nations re-think things through.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Two additions by maxwell+demon · 2012-03-13 07:19 · Score: 1

Hmmm ... depending on the actual amount to pay, Google might actually like that (although it would certainly not publicly say so). While Google can afford some payment (as long as it is clearly below their revenue), the very same payment may be too high for a startup. In other words, it would keep competition away.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Google can make some money out of this by qzzpjs · 2012-03-13 09:43 · Score: 1

The way I see it is that this is a direct cost of business that Google must recover. The snippet really is an advertisement of the article they are pointing to. That snippet is what the user uses to make the decision to click the link.
If the publisher wants that snippet shown, Google can charge them a nice monthly fee for advertising the article. Or they can opt out and have their article shown without the snippet or not at all.
Of course, Google is going to have to hire many new people to manage this administrative cost, so the fee they charge the publishers is going to be higher than the copyright fee they're being forced to pay. Add to that some profit factor and they win!
Re:again? by justforgetme · 2012-03-13 18:34 · Score: 1

No, but I think it is a trend, right now, for govs to try and wreck the Internet.

--
-- no sig today
Yonder mooches the 4th Estate,more greedy than all by D4C5CE · 2012-03-13 19:23 · Score: 1

In an update on Burke,

Yonder mooches the Fourth Estate, more greedy than them all.
Of course it's not just an unfair share of Google's money they want, but also extra leverage to hold bloggers at lawyerpoint.
Re:Two additions by D4C5CE · 2012-03-13 19:35 · Score: 1

In Germany we have "Zitatrecht", the right to quote freely. [...] The proposed law would not supersede...
As in the US (17 USC section 107), but you (will) still need heaps of money (from a stricly non-commercial blog) on either side of the pond to fend off claims for royalties, let alone criminal prosecution for alleged infringement (either of which may be raised as mere SLAPPs): http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/US-Blogger-setzen-sich-gerichtlich-gegen-Copyright-Abmahner-durch-1469554.html
Simple enough ... by dave87656 · 2012-03-13 21:01 · Score: 1

Just don't do the snippets for German sites. It won't take long for the reduced traffic to cause German news organizations to beg to have the law repealed.