Google News To Shut Down In Spain On December 16th

An anonymous reader writes The news aggregation services offered by Google is set to be no longer available for Spain, starting December 16th, 2014. The decision of Google comes as response to new Spanish legislation that gives publishers the right to claim compensation for republishing any part of their content. This follows news of services of startup Uber being forbidden in countries like Spain as well as Germany and some city councils worldwide like Delhi, or other services like AirBnb being put under pressure to cope with local laws in other jurisdictions.

Comments

They will either change their mind

[uberbrainchild8437]

or go out of business as soon as they notice that more and more people are no longer finding their news site.

Re:They will either change their mind

[BarbaraHudson]

They won't change their minds - not until it's too late (which, for many of them, it already is). It's already been tried elsewhere, with negative results:

FTFA

in November, Germany's largest publisher, Axel Springer scrapped a bid to block Google after an experiment by a consortium of about 200 German publishers caused online traffic to plunge. Internet search experts say the shutdown of Google News in Spain may be greater on smaller, less-well known news publishers than on name-brand news sites who are less reliant on the site to draw in readers

Re:They will either change their mind

[Anonymous Coward]

> the shutdown of Google News in Spain may be greater on smaller, less-well known news publishers than on name-brand news sites

Which seems to be the goal of most new legislation: protect the big established players, kill the small upcoming competition.

Re:They will either change their mind

[AmiMoJo]

Internet search experts say the shutdown of Google News in Spain may be greater on smaller, less-well known news publishers than on name-brand news sites who are less reliant on the site to draw in readers

Obviously they have calculated that he loss of traffic from Google News will result in less revenue loss than the reduction in traffic due to smaller sites getting more of "their" traffic.

Re:They will either change their mind

[mjtaylor24601]

Assuming the summary is correct (I know, I know), the legislation doesn't require payment by Google, it only allows the original publisher to collect payment from Google. If the small publishers want to have links to their sites show up in Google News without Google paying them, all they would have to do is send a letter to Google granting them permission. It would be up to each publisher to decide which way they want to go.

From what I've read the Spanish law specifically does not allow publishers to opt out.

"If you are a digital editor that publishes with a copyleft license, like myself, and you minimally understand how the internet actually works, you cannot decide to not charge Google News. It is compulsory. More than a right it is an obligation. Therefore, Google cannot exclude sites requiring payment from Google News. It would still need to pay for those it includes, even if they do not want to be compensated."

Re:They will either change their mind

[Dragonslicer]

Well, damn. That is a pretty fucked up law.

Re:They will either change their mind

[Jason Levine]

People might sympathize with and support the underdog, but if Google News is taken out of the picture, people might not ever see these small sites at all. You can't support something if you don't know it is out there.

Re:They will either change their mind

[gstoddart]

Because that's how governments work these days ... whoever has the deepest pockets to pay the government to pass laws which favor them wins.

Welcome to the oligarchy. America is as mired in this crap as anyone else, if not more.

The world is now largely defined in terms of corporate interests, and governments will do anything they're asked for the most part.

And since the copyright cartels have been leading this charge, don't be surprised that they're further fucking things up for their own short-term interests.

Re:They will either change their mind

[Bearhouse]

Or they'll double-down and use the subsequent tanking of their sites as "proof" for the EU Gov that Google is an "unfair monopoly".

How could this play out?
Step one : We poor, highly-taxed Europeans will be asked to dip once again into our empty pockets, this time to fund a bunch of over over-paid bureaucrats while they "investigate" Google,
Step two: They'll recommend that we subsidise a state-sponsored European alternative to Google, which will fail.

Don't laugh - they're mad enough to try it.

Re:They will either change their mind

[Archangel Michael]

Surely the lawmakers must have seen that one coming.

You have more faith in Politicians than I do.

Re:They will either change their mind

[sribe]

They won't change their minds - not until it's too late (which, for many of them, it already is). It's already been tried elsewhere, with negative results:

I think google should move to comply with this IMMEDIATELY, as in they should have stopped aggregating these publishers within minutes of the law becoming effective. And then when publishers do relent, I think they should take a few weeks, at least, to start making that content available. Just my opinion ;-)

Re:They will either change their mind

[Firethorn]

Google's not willing to compromise, because the moment they're sending the news companies a $2 check/year, they've established that they'll pay.

As the saying goes, the next step is to negotiate the prices. Google doesn't want that precedent, especially since it could/would spread to other countries. The German companies, for example, spent millions getting a similar ruling, only to fold and allow Google to do it's thing for free when they found out that their own page hits dropped like a rock when Google proved that it was ready and willing to de-index them rather than pay. By turning it into a commercial transaction they can't even claim discrimination - choosing NOT to buy something is perfectly legal.

They realized too late that while news is their entire business, it's only a fraction of google's.

Re:They will either change their mind

[swillden]

Publishers cannot relent.

Of course they can. They can go back to the same politicians they bamboozled the first time, and say "oops!" and get the law repealed.

True. I suspect it won't happen, though, because the most influential publishers are also the ones who will be least harmed. And, if you believe other commenters with more knowledge of Spanish politics, the ones who will be propped up by government funding should they be hurt too much.

Things happen outside US!!!

[squiggleslash]

This follows news of services of startup Uber being forbidden in countries like Spain as well as Germany and some city councils worldwide like Delhi, or other services like AirBnb being put under pressure to cope with local laws in other jurisdictions.

Pretty much the only thing I can see that connects these three are that a US company operating abroad sometimes doesn't find a service that's legal in the US to be legal or practical in $RANDOM_COUNTY_THAT_ISNT_MERICA

As for the story, it's a shame, but that's how the Spanish media wants to operate, the Spanish government agrees with them, and so be it. It's not a big issue, or at least, if it ends up causing hardship, the political process will be followed again and changes will be made again.

Re:Things happen outside US!!!

[Nemyst]

Thing is, it's likely that this will have a negative impact (according to what happened in Germany, and that wasn't even a complete shutdown), but I very much doubt Google will be quick to come back when the Spanish go "Please forgive us!"

Re:Things happen outside US!!!

[mcvos]

It's not anti-American to recognize that countries that are not the US have laws that differ from American laws. The US has just as much history of legally protected rackets (software patents, spying on behalf of American corporations, banning Tesla from selling cars, telco monopolies, in fact, I think the US has a far worse record than Germany on this).

So why is it to anti-American to expect companies to obey the laws of the country they operate in? Maybe because American companies are used to buying laws? Guess what: that's what just happened in Spain. That mess is as American as you can get.

Yes, that Spanish law is stupid, but the summary is stupid for trying to connect it to Uber and Airbnb. Uber, by the way, are a bunch of thugs who even many Americans agree should go out of business as soon as possible.

Re:Things happen outside US!!!

[gstoddart]

Pretty much the only thing I can see that connects these three are that a US company operating abroad sometimes doesn't find a service that's legal in the US to be legal or practical in $RANDOM_COUNTY_THAT_ISNT_MERICA

Conversely, American companies need to grow into the rest of the world to keep their shareholders happy and keep revenues moving upwards.

America has largely put it's eggs into the basket of global technology corporations who keep expanding their markets indefinitely, and buoy the stock market, and make corporate executives and stockholders happy, and give you the illusion you have a thriving economy.

When Google and Microsoft and companies like that start running into roadblocks in the rest of the world ... you might start to discover that the global Ponzi scheme which is the stock market and globalization is a house of cards.

So, when American corporations rely on expanding into $RANDOM_COUNTRY_THAT_ISNT_MERICA, and when that doesn't go according to plan ... you just might find yourselves staring at the emperor's bare ass.

The stock markets have been moving steadily away from fundamentals, and moving towards the unsustainable notion that every company grows every year indefinitely.

That can't keep happening.

And when it stops happening, you may well discover that a lot of the wealth which passes through Wall Street and other exchanges is completely fictional and not sustainable.

Censorship

[javilon]

I am from Spain. The most interesting thing about this is that this stupid law was rushed throught the parlamentary process by surprise, with an ammendment added at the last minute. On the same period, three of the most important reporters that were critical to the government in the big spanish media were fired.

There is especulation that the two things are linked and this was a deal between the Spanish government and the owners of the big media conglomerates in Spain. The media got this law against Google in exchange for supporting the ailing government party which is 50% down in the polls as compared to the last general election, and panicking.

So the big media owners got what they wanted in exchange of censoring news critical to the government. What they do not realize is that this is going to hit their bottom lines because Google is not going to fold down. The are going to lose lots of money and media, and other newspapers from outside Spain are going to increase their share. At the end they will run to the government asking them to remove this law. Or they may even do it before the law is in place, when they see that Google is going to shut them down. The will deserve the humilliation. And this will tarnish their credibility because of the deal they did with the government. They are fools.

Re:Censorship

[Midnight Thunder]

The problem I see here is a symptom of Europe run by people who are from another era, at least in terms of thinking. The reaction by the papers is a natural one, but it is more of a knee jerk reaction that trying to understand the technology and how it works. What we need are younger people getting into politics, at least in terms of technology advisors, such that decisions aren't being made based on a reality that is 40 years past.

For the journalists, often the best way to be able to write open their own country is actually to be based outside of it. The irony is that sometimes a true patriot needs to be outside of their own borders to raise the issues that that would rather be swept under the carpet.

Re:Censorship

[javilon]

You are right,

And in a way, this can be seen as a reaction to the raise of a political party in Spain: Podemos. It translates into "we can" and it is made up of young people that are trying to rethink the whole democracy thing, turning it into a more direct democracy. It has gone from not existing to being the first in the polls in a period of two years. It has the old traditional parties panicking.

This seems to be the answer from the old elite. Censorship and personal attacks. And it is backfiring. With each of this actions, they show how corrupted and misguided they are, and podemos raises in the polls. People do not trust the traditional media (TV and papers) anymore and seeks information directly from other sources on the web.

I don't think podemos will end up governing the country. They are far left, at least they were at the beginning, although they are moderating their statements as they become wider. But this is causing lots of changes for good on Spanish politics, with the traditional parties not being able to turn their head anymore on corruption, corporate tax evasion or undehanded lobying.

Go ahead, try to sweep away the flood

[fnj]

Spain and certain other countries are wallowing relics of another age, unable to adapt to the new reality. The loss is theirs. How do they expect to keep their populations from discovering the power of VPNs, Tor, and the other facilities which can effortlessly sidestep their moronic restrictions?

Re:Go ahead, try to sweep away the flood

[BarbaraHudson]

Or people in Spain can just use Google Search, and get news stories from elsewhere (search isn't being shut down).

Re:Google needs to share

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Slashdot paying Reuters and the BBC for the stories summarized and linked to here? Do you think they should be?

They forget where most of their money comes from

[GLowder]

The average newspaper "subscription fee" barely covers the cost of paper and distribution. Newspapers make their real money selling ads. Now those same local newspapers to me want me to buy a subscription to their online versions that cost nothing in paper and almost nothing to distribute? Their online money comes from me clicking through relevant advertisements I find while reading. Make me pay for the _privilege_ to read your news and I'll go elsewhere. Getting listed in an aggregator like news.google.com drives people to news sites so they can sell ads. Wonder how long it'll take before the news sites in Spain see their traffic dwindle to the point they're loosing appreciable revenue.

Spain is different...

[korbulon]

...and a little bit retarded.

If only this were about making a stand against Google, but it's not. As with what happend last year in France, It's mostly about moribund institutions looking for a handout. What's also astonishing is the bit about republishing "any part of their content." Yes, I think this will end well.

This is just another example of the special relationship that exists in Spain between corporate interests and the government; almost always against the best interests of the consumer. So you get things like a maximum of 5% discount on books, no Uber, an arbitrary tax on recordable media and recording devices that goes to a slush fund fronting as a recording artists association. All with the blessing and sanction of the government. !Arriba Espana!

Re:Spain is different...

[ccguy]

...and a little bit retarded.

If only this were about making a stand against Google, but it's not.

You guys are missing the whole point of this law. It's not about the news corporation making money, really. At all. This is what the law is about:

- Whenever any news article is linked from anything (except "social networks") that "anything" has to pay to the media association. It doesn't matter if you link to a newspaper that doesn't want to be paid. It doesn't work that pay. If there's a link, payment to that association is mandatory.

So the expected result is that there's going to be less links, which means that the small newspapers, blogs, and so on will be less read. Which is the whole fucking point - prevent information "roaming free" as it's happening these days.

This isn't about the media corps taking money from the fee. That's irrelevant. It's about them controlling the flow of information by preventing smaller sources being known by the public.

So how are the old newspaper going to survive if they don't get paid via this link shit? Same as always - they'll take government money (and lot's of it) while they talk about being liberal.

Re:Google needs to share

[Half-pint HAL]

Free advertising for a loss making product isn't particularly valuable. Advertising revenues have plunged for news sites because they aren't "sticky" enough.

Unlike German law

[BigFire]

where individual newspaper publisher can wave their fee and beg Google to reindex their paper, the Spanish version of the law is universal. The only way for the newspaper to get their content re-indexed is for the law to either be tossed out or they repeal it. Oh the pain will last longer here.

Re:Google needs to share

[Half-pint HAL]

No they're not. Why did News International raise a paywall on their sites? Because site advertising wasn't covering their running costs. The newspapers need a business model that delivers profits. It may be that the Spanish press feel that without Google News it will be easier to have paid subscriptions. It may be that they believe that without Google News, their site "stickiness" will increase, and the value of advertising will increase. Either way, continuing to operate at a loss is no long-term solution.

Re:Google needs to share

[FictionPimp]

They should build better websites. The reason I don't stay on most news websites is not google news, it's paywalls, obtrusive ads, autoplaying videos, etc.

Re:They forget where most of their money comes fro

[Half-pint HAL]

Newspaper advertising traditionally gained its value from the newspaper's demographic. You know the readership, so you know who you're advertising to. Certain newspapers will carry adverts for cheap lager, others expensive champagne. But this notion of a "readership" has been destroyed by Google News -- people now don't chose "their" newspaper, and the advertising becomes untargeted. Newspaper websites are now looking at the same sort of advertising revenues as people's personal blogs. Everything is outsourced to the Google algorithm, and the newspaper itself adds no value to the advertiser.

It is possible that ending the Google News aggregation will mean that sites regain a "readership" and therefore can return to negotiating their own advertising, and that this will result in them returning to profit.

Re:Google needs to share

[BarbaraHudson]

Most of the people going to any particular new site aren't local (maybe not even the same country), so how are they "losing"? If they use a news aggregator that serves up geo-related or user-related ads (such as google), they at least have the ability to make some coin, rather than showing ads that are totally irrelevant to someone in another country.

Newspapers aren't in the news business - they're in the advertising business. That's always been the case, with the exception of the old pamphleteers, which were more like editorials anyway.

Re:Google needs to share

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's solution to claims of profiting off others' work was to run Google News without any advertising content, but that doesn't deal with the fact that Google News is a contributory factor to the financial woes of the content providers it relies on. If Google wants Google News to survive, it must exist in a viable ecosystem, and right now it doesn't. Even if you don't think this is Google's fault, the problem still exists and must be dealt with.

In the good old days, newspapers really didn't make that much from subscriptions. Most of their revenue was from advertising. Google, by making a story from a given site that probably has ads, is helping.

The bigger problem news outlets have is that they no longer have captive audiences. In transitioning to electronic delivery, they've failed to maintain their value to local merchants in favor of taking advertising dollars from big companies. Personally, I could read an online newspaper that has ads like a newspaper, but no, they have to make them animated, intrusive and obnoxious. That's why online news sucks and loses money.

Re:Google needs to share

[mcvos]

But Google doesn't make any money on their Spanish news site; they were driving traffic to the sites of the companies that are now banning Google News from Spain.

Re:Robots.txt

[richieb]

The problem with this solution, that this is a law passed by the Spanish government. So, publishers are required to collect money, even if they don't want to.

Correcting the crappy summary

[mcvos]

Some big errors in the summary:

The decision of Google comes as response to new Spanish legislation that gives publishers the right to claim compensation for republishing any part of their content.

No, if this was the case, it'd just be a rehash of the German situation. No, the problem here is that it gives publishers the obligation to claim compensation. This law is specifically designed to prevent the German situation. So other newspapers can't decide they'd rather have Google's traffic anyway, and thereby undermine this boycott of Google News.

It also fixes another problem that big Spanish newspapers had: on Google News, you could just as easily find small, independent news sites that were critical of the current (conservative) government, as the sites of the major newspapers (which are mostly supportive of the government). Outside Google News, the small press is a lot harder to find. This law removes competition for the big guys as well as criticism about the government. Win-win for big corps and the government. Lose for the people and the small independent press.

Also:

This follows news of services of startup Uber being forbidden in countries like Spain as well as Germany and some city councils worldwide like Delhi, or other services like AirBnb being put under pressure to cope with local laws in other jurisdictions.

This issue has nothing to do with Uber and Airbnb not complying with local laws. There is nothing wrong with foreign companies having to obey local laws in they want to operate there. This, however, is a new law that will hurt the small Spanish press (Google won't be hurt that much, since they don't make money on Google News anyway).

By the way complaints against Uber and Airbnb (which should have been irrelevant to this story but now aren't because of the stupid summary) are not that unreasonable; they're side-stepping consumer-protection regulations that exist for good reasons. In some places they're also side-stepping monopolies or cartels, which is great of course, but some of the laws they're running afoul of are actually good laws.

As a final word, Uber are by now well known to be a bunch of thugs who need to go out of business as soon as possible.

Re:Google needs to share

[alex67500]

no ads on google news as far as i can remember...

Re:Google needs to share

[Half-pint HAL]

Ah yes. Spend more money, and put less advertising on the site. That's obviously going to work.

Re:Google needs to share

[BarbaraHudson]

One of the problems is that most newspapers, in order to attract a more varied readership, added things like "Lifestye" and other "soft news/no news" content. That worked in the 80s and 90s but it doesn't work any more because people can get the no-news stuff from anywhere, so in the end, by diluting their main content, they've lost their core audience - people who want news, editorials, and related stuff.

It's like slashdot adding Bennett whats-his-name's ruminations. Dilutes the product, alienates^Wp*sses off the core readership, and ends up being counter-productive.

Re:Google needs to share

[aardvarkjoe]

Is Slashdot paying Reuters and the BBC for the stories summarized and linked to here? Do you think they should be?

There's a potential difference. The problem is that Google News has become a one-stop-shop for many people (myself included). This means that we don't stay on the newspaper site, going back to Google News to look for the next interesting story.

Isn't Slashdot exactly the same?

Re:the only crime...

[gnupun]

And the other crime is google replicating news headlines and summary on its site reduces the news site's income and visibility, because while the news site creates the news story, people don't visit the site unless they are really interested in the article. Only google profits from this at the expense of the news site.

In short, since hardly anyone reads TFA (just like slashdot readers), they simply skim the headline and summary, no one will visit the news site. They will instead get their news from google news' summaries and google has no intention of paying news sites for this content.