Slashdot Mirror


Spanish Media Group Wants Gov't Help To Keep Google News In Spain

English-language site The Spain Report reports that Google's response to mandated payments for linking to and excerpting from Spanish news media sources — namely, shutting down Google News in Spain — doesn't sit well with Spanish Newspaper Publishers' Association, which issued a statement [Thursday] night saying that Google News was "not just the closure of another service given its dominant market position," recognising that Google's decision "will undoubtedly have a negative impact on citizens and Spanish businesses. Given the dominant position of Google (which in Spain controls almost all of the searches in the market and is an authentic gateway to the Internet), AEDE requires the intervention of Spanish and community authorities, and competition authorities, to effectively protect the rights of citizens and companies." Irene Lanzaco, a spokeswoman for AEDE, told The Spain Report by telephone that "we're not asking Google to take a step backwards, we've always been open to negotiations with Google" but, she said: "Google has not taken a neutral stance. Of course they are free to close their business, but one thing is the closure of Google News and quite another the positioning in the general index." Asked if the newspaper publishers' association had received any complaints from its members since Wednesday's announcement by Google, Mrs. Lanzaco refused to specify, but said: "Spanish publishers talk to AEDE constantly."

191 comments

  1. More power to Google by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The newspapers are the greedy ones. They want to be listed prominently for free and then charge for the content of the list! Hey, if they close the deal, great. Business is business.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  2. They brought it upon themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would Google continue the service to lose money for a function they gain none through...

    1. Re:They brought it upon themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing about extortion. If the person you're trying to extort can just walk away without paying the extortion, they always do.

    2. Re:They brought it upon themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All we have to do is figure out who is trying to extort whom.

    3. Re:They brought it upon themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All we have to do is figure out who is trying to extort whom.

      You would need to be a simpleton to not assume the obvious.

    4. Re:They brought it upon themselves by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "All we have to do is figure out who is trying to extort whom."

      AEDE, no doubt.

      Their point is that they forcibly want a levvy for the "privilege" of indexing their headlines because "they are providing profit to the indexers". They obviously "forget" about the more or less 30% of traffic that comes to them straigth from google news.

      Google can't just stop indexing AEDE members in order to avoid the tax because the levvy is for everyone in that activity no matter what, so they decided that since they don't want to pay, they'll close their doors in Spain.

      And then, all of a sudden, AEDE members "remember" about that 30% of traffic that Google news is providing them and claim kindof "monopoly" on the part of Google so the government somehow should force Google to stay open and pay the levvy nevertheless.

      AEDE (news), CEDRO (books), EGEDA (films) and SGAE (music) are just the Spanish versions of your RIAA, just so you know what kind of people are we talking about.

    5. Re: They brought it upon themselves by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      Yeap, i thought exactly the same. AEDE is probably asking the government to pretty much make the extortion for them: " hey government, Google there can just walk away, so please do something we can't, like fining or restricting their non-news related services if they don't buy our news. Because, well the law we lobbied for you to pass for us was not enough to force Google to give us profit we didn't deserve in the first place. And that were probably not gonna get because Google is paying for those fines rather than paying us for news, but we still want them to burn for giving us traffic..."

    6. Re: They brought it upon themselves by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Next stop will be google withdraws all spain specific operations.

    7. Re: They brought it upon themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said like an anonymous coward... You suck! *hides*

  3. HAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

    That being said, are people too stupid/too lazy to just go to the newspapers' websites and browse the articles?

    (probably...)

    1. Re:HAHA! by jtara · · Score: 0

      You beat me to it!

      Idiots got what they wanted, now they are unhappy.

    2. Re:HAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Coming from Canada, I'll give you an example of the problem with Google News. PS I'm not french.

      1) Clicking the news tab will always default to the US news. Even if Google is forcing the google.ca domain
      2) There are hundreds of news sources world wide, and sometimes there is overlap between Canadian news and American news, or Canadian news and Australian or UK news. For example looking up news for "Translink" which is the transportation authority in Vancouver,Canada will also bring up news from the UK Translink as well. And sometimes it will mix up the sources within the same context. eg "Translink considering fare increase" will mix in "Translink mayors considering tax increase" The former being the UK issue while the latter being the Canada issue.
      3) Since Google News can't use language as a partition, you have to be at least somewhat familiar with at least two local news sources. In BC this would be Global News (Owned by Shaw Media) and the Vancouver Sun/The Province (Post Media News) both sources were formerly Canwest media. Also the CBC is an easily identified Canadian source. Items that show up on the CBC are likely of Canadian relevance.
      4) However there is regional overlap. Take the Weather. The recent Pineapple Express that caused torrential rain along BC, Washington, Oregon and California. This is a case where Google News can't figure out local news at all, so the top of the list will be sources like CNN, even in Canada.

      So in regards to Spanish news, my guess is that unless the problem also exists in Mexico, it's likely that Google will just move the Spanish news sources to Mexico and shut down using Spanish Newspaper sites originating from IP addresses inside Spain.

      The point being, that the only way Google can effectively nerf the impact of protectionist laws, is by not operating the offending service in the country. This is why Chinese Google doesn't operate inside mainland China. This is why eBay operates most of their sites from the US. This is why Alibaba is eating eBay and Amazon's lunch in Asia. Sometimes the rules of the country make it difficult to operate just by virtue of being foreign.

      Alibaba has boatloats of counterfeit merchandise on it, eBay has very little. This is because eBay is under constant legal pressure in Europe and the US to stop selling "known counterfeits" even though companies like LV and Tiffany don't tell eBay how to identify counterfeits at all. The VeRO program relies on these companies notifying eBay when they see counterfeits, and most of these things are taken down before they even show up on the site. Alibaba not so much.

      Again, going back to the Spanish news problem. Google likely doesn't get any money for the news business, it's just about of the search engine. So if laws force Google to pay to even link to the news, it is more cost effective to terminate it.

    3. Re:HAHA! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Coming from Canada, I'll give you an example of the problem with Google News. PS I'm not french.

      1) Clicking the news tab will always default to the US news. Even if Google is forcing the google.ca domain

      Strange. I live in Kanuckistan and I don't have that problem. If you allow cookies, or have a gmail account, it will default to whatever you looked at last. Select English Canada from the dropdown, problem solved.

      2) There are hundreds of news sources world wide, and sometimes there is overlap between Canadian news and American news, or Canadian news and Australian or UK news. For example looking up news for "Translink" which is the transportation authority in Vancouver,Canada will also bring up news from the UK Translink as well. And sometimes it will mix up the sources within the same context. eg "Translink considering fare increase" will mix in "Translink mayors considering tax increase" The former being the UK issue while the latter being the Canada issue.

      Maybe you should have typed "translink vancouver"? And it would help if you were on the English Canada version (see note above).

      3) Since Google News can't use language as a partition, you have to be at least somewhat familiar with at least two local news sources. In BC this would be Global News (Owned by Shaw Media) and the Vancouver Sun/The Province (Post Media News) both sources were formerly Canwest media. Also the CBC is an easily identified Canadian source. Items that show up on the CBC are likely of Canadian relevance.

      ??? "language as a partition"??? Are you seeing stories from the Journal de Montreal, Le Devoir, and TVA?

      4) However there is regional overlap. Take the Weather. The recent Pineapple Express that caused torrential rain along BC, Washington, Oregon and California. This is a case where Google News can't figure out local news at all, so the top of the list will be sources like CNN, even in Canada.

      Just because someone lives in any particular area doesn't mean that stories about other areas aren't of interest. The bigger the news event, the broader the distribution. The crash of an airliner is news for the world. The crash of your car is not, unless you're Princess Di or someone equally high-visibility. And if you had entered "pineapple express british columbia", the first story is about bc.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:HAHA! by c · · Score: 1

      Just because someone lives in any particular area doesn't mean that stories about other areas aren't of interest. The bigger the news event, the broader the distribution.

      Not to mention that the insights on foreign news sources on local events can be quite... interesting. Everyone has their own spin, and usually the real story is in the intersection of as many spins as possible.

      What tends to aggravate me more about Google News is how reporting on major international events gets diluted with "$event Victim Has Ties To $city" types of headlines. I assume Google News has some sort of "uniqueness" score to filter out all the wire service duplication which causes these one-off local interest types of stories to bubble up the rankings, but I never find them remotely relevant.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    5. Re:HAHA! by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I truly didn't now Google has a news site.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:HAHA! by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      They could just use Bing instead of Google.

    7. Re:HAHA! by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

      Coming from Canada, I'll give you an example of the problem with Google News. PS I'm not french.

      1) Clicking the news tab will always default to the US news. Even if Google is forcing the google.ca domain

      Badly designed browsers when doing private browsing don't allow for ephemeral cookies.

      The problem is that you are geolocated by IP (and yes, it gets this wrong if you are using a VPN into a node in another country - it thinks you are in the other country; not solving this "problem" is intentional on the part of the IETF), and a attempted cookie is set saying "They are in Canada; redirect and use the google.ca domain to serve up the first page". So google.ca shows up.

      This geolocation is not repeated, and the cookie is not reset subsequently, since it's a relatively computationally expensive reverse lookup operation; if the cookie is there, it's referenced, and if the cookie is not there, it's not referenced. Then your subsequent request comes in through that first page, the cookie is examined, is not seen, and therefore you get the default, which is the US response.

      The proper thing for your browser to do is to set an ephemeral cookie when doing "private browsing"; that is, it allows the "set" of the cookie, but since it's "private browsing", the cookie is set in memory in the DOM, instead of being saved in permanent cookie storage.

      So it's happening that way because your browser implemented has screwed the pooch on what it mean when you are private browsing, and just blocks all cookie sets unconditionally. In other words, your browser sucks.

      NB: Chrome gets this wrong in "incognito mode", as well, in the other direction; it implements ephemeral cookies into the session, rather than the DOM. Presumably, this is because they want cookies for login sessions to persist across DOMs which involve Google properties. So it's possible for an "incognito mode" session to leak information to outside parties for cross-site purposes. You'll see this with "limited number of views per month" sites, like the NYT and other news sites, where if you use the same "incognito mode" session - which persists, even if you close the window and open a new "incognito mode" window. If you restart Chrome, then the cookies are flushed. It's not clear whether this is intentional or just bad programming.

    8. Re:HAHA! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've actually tried that. If Google ceased to exist I'd have to go back to Yahoo.

    9. Re:HAHA! by paiute · · Score: 1

      What's Spanish for 'Alta Vista'?

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    10. Re:HAHA! by N1AK · · Score: 1

      That being said, are people too stupid/too lazy to just go to the newspapers' websites and browse the articles?

      Well some people are stupid enough to think using news aggregators is stupid/lazy so anything is possible... Google's entire business model is collecting information together so you don't have to search through hundreds of seperate sources.

    11. Re: HAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice :-)

    12. Re:HAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Badly designed browsers when doing private browsing

      It is called PRIVATE BROWSING - let's repeat this once again PRIVATE BROWSING.
      Use no-skript with ghostery and clear your cache if you want to be selective.

    13. Re:HAHA! by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Badly designed browsers when doing private browsing

      It is called PRIVATE BROWSING - let's repeat this once again PRIVATE BROWSING.
      Use no-skript with ghostery and clear your cache if you want to be selective.

      Then don't expect things which depend on cookies to work, or bitch about them when they don't. You expect them to do a geolocation by IP address each time you make a request? How is your IP address any less identification than a non-cross-site cookie? And it's not all that accurate (e.g. if you use onion routing, it's random, and if you use a VPN, it's constant for the VPN location), so you're screwed if you browse that way.

    14. Re:HAHA! by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Wait what? Yahoo uses Bing now, didnt ya know?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    15. Re:HAHA! by ruir · · Score: 1

      The Spanish for Alta Vista is "Valiente mierda"

    16. Re:HAHA! by ruir · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally they also translate yahoo as the same thing, go figure ;)

    17. Re:HAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the joke.

    18. Re:HAHA! by desertrat_it · · Score: 1

      paywall protected websites are a pain in the bahookie, hence using Google to at least get most of the first paragraph.

      And this is the thing the "right holders" are too stupid to comprehend: when offered a choice of paying to read the content or watching paint dry? I'll watch the paint, thanks.

    19. Re:HAHA! by michrech · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Yahoo! is using Bing for its search results.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    20. Re:HAHA! by michrech · · Score: 1

      Doh! A few comments down it's pointed out that "going back to yahoo" was a joke... That'll teach me for posting on Mondays... :P

      --
      bork bork bork!
    21. Re:HAHA! by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Does that explain why when I go to yahoo the home page is full of horse shit like flying saucers, sightings of bigfoot on mars, and other nonsense from the examiner?

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  4. Imagine that! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well imagine that, they want it all - free traffic from from Google that google has to pay for... Well, it comes full circle now.

    "Rights holders" still do not understand the equation.

    Google needs to play this card more often.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Imagine that! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google needs to play this card more often.

      Yes, I'm glad to see someone is finally growing a pair and standing up to this nonsense.

      Funny how, just like in Germany, the newspaper publishers scream that Google is killing them, but when Google leaves they complain that Google's leaving is killing them.

    2. Re:Imagine that! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google needs to play this card more often.

      Yes, I'm glad to see someone is finally growing a pair and standing up to this nonsense.

      Funny how, just like in Germany, the newspaper publishers scream that Google is killing them, but when Google leaves they complain that Google's leaving is killing them.

      They're looking to blame anyone except themselves. Google is the target du jour.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Imagine that! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Closing the service was a fairly extreme option. Google don't make any money directly because they don't have ads on the site... So turn on the ads for Spanish users. They make money by driving users to their other services too.

      But instead of negotiating or even trying to compromise they just took their ball and left.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 5, Informative

      The publishers didn't attempt to negotiate. They were passing laws / regulations. Negotiations happen between parties on a relatively equal footing.

      That being said. This is negotiating. The Spanish publishers said you can't link to our content without paying. Google said no. The publishers passed a law to enforce their position. So now they showed their big stick. Google decides not to link at all which will drive Spanish internet news traffic outside of Spain. That's Google's big stick. This is what negotiating looks like when threats are involved.

    5. Re:Imagine that! by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Google needs to play this card more often.

      No, they need to play it judiciously lest they get accused of abusing their dominant position in the industry to get their own way. In cases like this, I'd say it's justified, but if it looks like this kind of thing is going to become a regular occurance then they'd better make it clear up front that this is their policy and the expected outcome of any such future legislation. Annoying governments by acting like the proverbial 800lb gorilla is a good way to get sanctions that end up costing you a lot more in the long run, albeit probably many, many, years after the original point became a non-issue.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re:Imagine that! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Google don't make any money directly because they don't have ads on the site...

      Any service that brings traffic to Google, will - perhaps in other ways - bring money to Google. Google does not provide "free services", and in this case, the "rights holders" in Spain not only want free, they want Google to pay so that they, the "rights holders" in Spain can not only make money on Google traffic, but make Google pay for the "right" to them.

      Of course it is complete bullshit, as the Spaniards had now concluded...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Generally when governments legislate in good faith they bring major stakeholders in. The Spanish government shouldn't be regulating search without having Google at the table unless your goal is to move Spain away from Google.

      That being said I think walking like this is the right thing to do. Spain (and Europe in general) needs to start working with USA companies whom their people use for services but who do not want to be part of the European regulatory regime. They need to decide, what their policy on how international they want the internet to be. Right now they want the entire continuum:
      a) their people to have full easy access to the global internet everything
      b) The internet their people has access to run under European law

      They need to pick a point on the continuum understanding that (a) and (b) are opposites.

    8. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Turn google news into an ad infested service. Just what everyone wants, right? All that so they can pay the news papers for publishing the story links, and then of course give them the ad-revenue traffic with it? That's not a compromise! Next thing you know, they want ever more increasing profits and Google has to have more ads to pay for it?

      The content publishers are already the ones making money from it, and now they want to charge the people who bring them the viewers for free. Fuck 'em. Google did the right thing here.

    9. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fred Kite said it all.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a9OAvqyjn0

    10. Re:Imagine that! by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      It surprises me that Google doesn't actually have their own online 'newspaper'. They could employ an editor to create a mashup of the best stories online, with a profit-sharing arrangement on ads.

      I'd prefer a dedicated web page than, say, facebook injecting clickbait through their universally hated 'Top Stories'.

      my two local newspapers have introduced paywalls, with a minimal number of free articles a month. One is fairly decent, the other is Rupert's trashy tabloid, complete with celebrity gossip and miracle weight loss cures. Syndicating the former through Google could reach an international audience, along with selected articles from other online sources and Google's ubiquity would ensure those articles chosen need not be subscription only.

      But usually I stick to abc.net.au via RSS for news, despite the vandals in the federal government wanting to destroy it. 8 cents a day...

    11. Re:Imagine that! by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Publishers do not have legislative powers. Democratically elected leaders do.

      Democracy means (at least in theory) that demos, the people get to decide what is best for their country. And right now, a lot of people across Europe are not fond of Google's obvious disregard of them as unimportant enough to not even be negotiated with.

      In general, most European nations have a tradition that these things are negotiated on. US/UK tradition is in direct conflict with this, and is more of posturing and ultimatums.

    12. Re:Imagine that! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Google can't do this because it would get absolutely murdered by anti-monopoly regulators for even trying. Abuse of monopolistic power would be extremely obvious in scenario you describe.

    13. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe is, of course, welcome to make its own search engine, one with hookers and blackjack.

    14. Re:Imagine that! by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By leaving, they are happily giving up their position as leading Spanish news aggregator. That seems to avoid the monopoly issue entirely, as now there's space for other competitors to grow.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    15. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is: google *could* pay. but in spain the law is now so broad that everyone, even your private homepage, has to pay for citing *a single word*. yes, ONE word is enough. do you think smaller local companies or even private persons can pay this?
      google now leaving may be the right thing to do so the law is redone right.

    16. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How naive you are my friend.

      As if there isn't something called lobbing.

      Just go check of the promoters of those laws, where are their familiars and close friends (you will find some in those newspapers - of course that doesn't mean anything wrong happened, it is like statistics and the number of people to have in a group so that 2 share the same birthday).

      In the end, everything comes and goes (entropy / dust / pink unicorn / your pick).

    17. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You certainly have an unusual interpretation of "Extort". Most definitions are along the line of " to get (something, such as money) from a person by the use of force or threats", and I fail to see how that could be applied to Google in any rational way. And what's this about Anglo? You do realize that word applies to the UK more than to North America I hope, or is the UK no longer considered a part of Europe? To continue, your definition of negotiating is to pass laws requiring performance? Whrere's the negotiating in that?

      Seems much more like "Sour Grapes" (to use an American idiom) on your part.

    18. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Publishers do not have legislative powers. Democratically elected leaders do.^w^w^w^wBut their campaign funding does. Fuck these assholes and I hope Google does come back, but only after all the old school publishers are dead and gone.

      In general, most European nations have a tradition that these things are negotiated^legislated on in such a way that shows they treat foreign companies as money sponges to be squeezed whenever an infusion of capital is desired.

      There. I fixed that for you.

    19. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Democracy means (at least in theory) that demos, the people get to decide what is best for their country. And right now, a lot of people across Europe are not fond of Google's obvious disregard of them as unimportant enough to not even be negotiated with.

      The problem is that European democracies aren't representing the people. Google is more popular in Europe than it is the United States. For example for search Google is down to 68% while in Europe it is still over 90%. Android in the USA has about 25% share among the top 50% incomewise. In Europe the numbers are often as high as 80%. Both countries are similar for the bottom 50% economically. So I don't think it is accurate to say the people of Europe object.

      Now what is accurate to say is that the government objects. Google is a major dispenser of technology and news and is simply proving unwilling to cave with European governments on a host of issues. I would call what Google is doing negotiating. What you might mean is pleading where a company goes to a government and says, "pretty please can you change the law to X". Google is negotiating not pleading because ultimately Google understands from its experience with China where pleading leads.

    20. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      German newspapers already tried "But they *must* buy our content because they're so big!" argument before their Kartellamt, after lobbying for similar law. Kartellamt told them to stuff it, and that trying to force someone to purchase goods and services from you is pretty much an abusive practice in itself.

      Seriously now, "extort entire countries"? It's like saying that by not driving a car you're extorting your local DMV.

      Laws can't quite make you do business with someone, whether you're an individual or a company. They might demand you pay for autoinsurance, but they can't make you drive. They can even demand stricter insurance for delivery trucks, but they can't make delivery company keep functioning if it means working at a loss.

    21. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how do you propose to force someone doing business in your country when they do not wish to, and have absolutely no need to?

      LOL. Just LOL.

      And this is leaving the absurdity of calling someone a "monopoly" when they in fact just pulled up their tent pegs left... LOL

    22. Re:Imagine that! by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But instead of negotiating or even trying to compromise they [Google] just took their ball and left.

      WTF? What was there to negotiate or compromise on? Paying the extortionists any non-zero amount would have been the worst business decision ever made by Google. While there were extreme options available to Google, such as law suits and massive lobbying, Google took a rather mild approach by obeying the silly law while refusing to pay the extortion which meant they simply shut down their services that would have been encumbered by the extortion racket.

      Even if the complete lunacy of the extortion racket was not clear to you previously, this idiotic press release should have made it crystal clear. The Spanish news media need Google more than Google needs them. Therefore it was idiotic for the Spanish news media to try to get Google to pay them for providing them with a service they greatly desire.

      When you are freely providing someone a service they greatly desire and then they want to charge *you* for providing them with this service, there is very little room for compromise or negotiation. For example, if I owned a country and passed a law that Slashdot has to pay me for every comment I post, their only logical response would be to stop allowing me to post comments. I could bitch and moan about them being big babies about it but until my position has some relationship to reality, there is really nothing to negotiate or compromise on.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    23. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But they are working within EU law, duh. The law says that if one is doing news aggregation, then one must pay to AEDE. It doesn't say "If you were doing news aggregation, you must keep on doing so and pay to AEDE".

    24. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Instead, they would likely prefer to negotiate with google on the issue.

      Who is they? The Spanish Government didn't invite Google to the table to negotiate. That's the point.

      I suspect they get to pull this once, maybe twice, after which EU will offer them a choice. Work with EU regulators and withing EU law or leave world's single biggest market.

      And do what? Let's say Europe implements that then what? What European phone operating system do they put on devices the next month that doesn't involve Google? How do they get their citizens to pick a different search engine? How do they get a different email solution?

      I'm not saying Europe doesn't have the resources to replace Google, but it is an investment of billions to replace that infrastructure. And whatever the replacement is would face many of the same issues that Google does. Europeans could of course build a mostly separate internet for themselves with a separate set of incentives, and I think that would be a good thing. Either buy the product or don't buy the product, vote with your dollars. What isn't acceptable in this case as much as the Microsoft case is for Europe to demand that American companies reorganize in a way that requires the globe be subject to European law.

      At which point any google exec that would push for leaving will have an unfortunate fatal car accident arranged by major stake holders and Google will negotiate.

      I think you mean shareholders. The stakeholders for Google who aren't shareholders would be groups like American people and Google employees they would fully back that sort of plan. In any case Google has already done something similar with another world's largest market China.

      European regulators need to realize that global trade means importing culture not just goods. Buy American products means bring American business practices into your country. You want less trade that's something American might support. Americans mostly hate the wage suppression from free trade.

    25. Re:Imagine that! by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you were to RTFA linked in the summary, you would find two things:

      1. The Spanish Newpaper Lobbyist Group (AEDE) is behind the legislation.
      2. Corruption in Spain is rampant, in every aspect of life.

    26. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      | Instead, they would likely prefer to negotiate with google on the issue.

      By passing legislation?

      | Google instead chooses to openly extort the country by offering them only two choices which you suggest.

      The third choice being "give us free money (from other money you make off other services not related to ours)?"

      Google was driving traffic to newspapers for free and organizing their results and attempting to display to relevant users. Most websites have to pay for this.

    27. Re:Imagine that! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Corruption is rampant nearly everywhere. Plus last time I heard Spain was a democratic regime with a parliamentary monarchy.

      In the USA the MPAA and RIAA pass stupid laws all the time why do you think in Spain things would be different?

    28. Re:Imagine that! by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      You're still thinking like this is the 90s and you are MS buying MSNBC and trying to get people to use MSN. Google is not interested in human resource intensive operations like that. It is all about datamining and storing existing content not to create new content.

    29. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The point of that sentence was about how popular Android is in Europe and that the raw numbers for USA vs. Europe didn't tell the whole story because it internixed high with low end. The exact opposite of how you read it. Now perhaps you might want to check your paranoia levels a bit.

    30. Re:Imagine that! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. Plus if they do Google can just block all news from the EU. Heck they left China and they have a lot more people there than the EU does.

    31. Re:Imagine that! by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Publishers do not have legislative powers. Democratically elected leaders do."

      Have you thought a bit about what the "intellectual propiety business" involves, moreso when talking about levvies?

      It basically gets down to the collecting agency sitting down waiting for the buckets full of money to arrive.

      This means two things:
      1) They have quite a lot of money.
      2) They don't need to work a hard day for the money to arrive so they have time to do other things instead... like lobbying the government making use of the lot of money they gather (see one).

      And then, let's talk about the subset of IP business we are talking here: press. They not only have the money and the inclination to lobby the government, they also control the tool politics are most afraid of: press. Now put together these three things and see that, yes, publishers have indeed factual legislative powers.

    32. Re:Imagine that! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2

      Yeah, except the Spanish media is not at all in a good negotiating position. It's not like the only Spanish-language press is in Spain. Spaniards who like Google's service can just switch their link to news.google.ar, .mx, or whatever. Or Google can even keep news.google.es but focus on stories about Spain as they appear in the Spanish-speaking press outside of Spain.

      If Spaniards come to see domestic newspapers as dispensable, those newspapers are the only party that loses. In fact, I would bet that before long, some of the minor Spanish news outlets will break and announce that they have arranged an fee exemption for Google news. Without domestic competition, these sources will suddenly have top billing and a surge in traffic. And suddenly, everyone else will announce their own fee exemption, and this whole thing will end how it started.

    33. Re:Imagine that! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2

      Funny how, just like in Germany, the newspaper publishers scream that Google is killing them, but when Google leaves they complain that Google's leaving is killing them.

      Germany is looking for a final solution to the Google problem.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    34. Re:Imagine that! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "2. Corruption in Spain is rampant, in every aspect of life."

      No, not in every aspect of life but, unluckily it's rampant on politicians.

    35. Re:Imagine that! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Maybe Telefonica will ressurect Lycos again. Sorry I mean Terra.es.

    36. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 2

      It is illegal in Spain to not collect the fee. That's how the Spanish law differs from the German law. On the other hand the possibility of Spanish internet news moving abroad is very high. The first wave of bankruptcy would be the secondary Spanish news sites which depend on Google to drive traffic. So they are going to be highly motivated to sell their content to a Mexican newspaper with a Spanish news section...

    37. Re:Imagine that! by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Most European cultures including Spain do not have such a culture. Instead, they would likely prefer to negotiate with google on the issue."

      You just don't understand the issue here.

      This legislation is so utterly stupid (I'm Spanish), so utterly against everybody but AEDE members (you see, they don't even represent the press but only the six biggest press companies), that everybody except AEDE and their government mates where *prying* for Google to stand its current position as the only hope for the law to be dismissed.

    38. Re:Imagine that! by DrJimbo · · Score: 2

      But instead of negotiating or even trying to compromise they [Google] just took their ball and left.

      Here is a better analogy:

      A: If you don't pay us a bunch of money we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot!

      B: That's a ridiculous business proposition. We aren't going to pay you anything. Shoot yourselves if you feel you must but we don't recommend it.

      A: Wah! You are such a big baby! Why won't you at least negotiate or compromise?

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    39. Re:Imagine that! by cheesybagel · · Score: 0

      No. The first place I heard with that kind of moronic market segmentation was AppleInsider and worst of it all some people are eating it hook line and sinker.

      Apple is going down into the 15%-10% niche of the market the belong into...

    40. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's easy, heck Lycos still exists. The question is how do they get their population to use it?

    41. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude it isn't moronic. The market segmentation has a lot to do with the profits on handset sales, the profits on cellular contracts, the profits from software, the profits on advertising. The top 11% of customers are worth more than the remaining 89% by a lot. Heck the top 3% may be worth more than the bottom 97%.

      You can desegment the "transportation facilitation devices" and list shoes, bicycles, cars and airplanes in one big pile. But that doesn't change the fact a single airplane sale is worth many many sales of shoes.

    42. Re:Imagine that! by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      Corruption is rampant nearly everywhere. Plus last time I heard Spain was a democratic regime with a parliamentary monarchy.

      In the USA the MPAA and RIAA pass stupid laws all the time why do you think in Spain things would be different?

      He doesn't, he was telling that to the naive person he was responding who thinks it should be different.

    43. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be the 800lb gorilla all you want if no one is as good as you. Even after 15 years, no one is as good as Google, and Google doesn't need to use patents or lobbying. Pure talent.

    44. Re: Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spain is a democracy in the sense that your bank is a democracy. You need sobres and some chorizo to get anything done.

    45. Re:Imagine that! by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Publishers do not have legislative powers. Democratically elected leaders owned by publisher lobbying organizations do.

      Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

    46. Re:Imagine that! by tlambert · · Score: 1

      This is the standard Anglo approach to the problem. Present a false black and white argument instead of the actual argument, and then present an ultimatum.

      Most European cultures including Spain do not have such a culture. Instead, they would likely prefer to negotiate with google on the issue. Google instead chooses to openly extort the country by offering them only two choices which you suggest.

      I presume your middle option would be:

      S: Pay us a lot for our content showing up in your search results and news!
      G: No.
      S: We have passed a law that makes you pay us, so pay us!
      G: Buh Bye!
      S: Savages! They should negotiate on the amount they will pay us! Have they never heard of under the table kickbacks?!?

      Isn't that really how you are saying things should have gone?

      Or were you thinking that Google should have charged your newspapers for listing them, an amount equal to the amount the newspapers were charging them for "their content" (but then pay Spanish taxes), so the newspapers get an expense write off on their taxes, they get the status quo, and the Spanish government gets more taxes out of Google?

      I'm really curious to know what your idea of a negotiation would look like here...

    47. Re:Imagine that! by tlambert · · Score: 1

      That's easy, heck Lycos still exists. The question is how do they get their population to use it?

      Pass a law in Spain that people must use it instead of other search engines?

    48. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the market. I think that Levy's, McDonalds, Chipotle, Best Buy, Target, Walmart, Macy's, Ford, Toyota, Exxon (and many others) care more about the bottom 97 than they do about the top 3.

    49. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's a tough law to enforce and likely to provoke a heck of a lot of backlash.

    50. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. I was talking the cell phone market in terms of profit share. Rich people don't spend that much more on food than poor people. I'm not sure it is worth segmenting. Apparel spending is falling across all income brackets, but assuming that's transition then we can track it. Women spend most of the money on clothing and the rule of thumb for them was 5%. That holds up to about $120k and then mostly levels out. Men however are nowhere near as lucrative when it comes to clothes. So even here you want to segment a bit by sex. Some things like rent and tobacco correlate negatively with income.

      Electronics though (Best Buy) oh heck yeah income matters. Spending on electronic devices doubles for every 50% increase in income. That doesn't level out until you get over $200k / year in income.

    51. Re:Imagine that! by Koby77 · · Score: 1

      I suspect they get to pull this once, maybe twice, after which EU will offer them a choice. Work with EU regulators and withing EU law or leave world's single biggest market.

      I thought Google was supposed to be the monopolist? With talk like that, I guess not.

    52. Re:Imagine that! by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Google is the target du jour.

      Because that is where the money is

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    53. Re:Imagine that! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The Publishers have elected leaders in their pockets. They pulled out their pet politicians and put them to work earning their keep by passing their master's legislation. I find it quaint that you seem to think politicians work for the people who elect them. What a novel idea.

    54. Re:Imagine that! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      There was no negotiation. The Spanish publishers had a law passed to force Google to pay. That's not negotiation that is regulation. Google had two choices under that situation, either pay up or leave. They chose to leave. Now the publishers are pissed because they didn't want that to happen. They wanted Google to pay them and now they realize that they hurt themselves when they had the law passed. Cry me a river.

    55. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail to understand how thoroughly the publishers control democracy. That is the entire reasoning behind the free press.

    56. Re:Imagine that! by JasperHW · · Score: 1

      Do you have a source? Asking because I'm interested.

    57. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I put this together from several sources. But some good general articles

      http://www.clevelandfed.org/re...
      http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...
      http://www.bls.gov/cex/2010/st...
      http://visualeconomics.creditl...

      You can Google and find a ton on this.

    58. Re:Imagine that! by paiute · · Score: 1

      a lot of people across Europe are not fond of Google's obvious disregard of them as unimportant enough to not even be negotiated with.

      In general, most European nations have a tradition that these things are negotiated on. US/UK tradition is in direct conflict with this, and is more of posturing and ultimatums.

      Bullshit. European tradition is to have a monarch dictate policy. US tradition is to argue everything out because we got rid of our King, so we had to vote on policy.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    59. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I hope google stops indexing all the web so the world sees the light.
      Oh, wait! Google is worthless without other's content.

    60. Re:Imagine that! by tlambert · · Score: 1

      That's a tough law to enforce and likely to provoke a heck of a lot of backlash.

      You mean like the Spanish people pulling out of the country?

    61. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am surprised Google did not decide to list Spanish language newspapers from other countries on the Spanish Google news website.

      That would have taken traffic away from newspaper websites in Spain, so Google could show their power.

    62. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Google don't make any money directly ...

      It's so obvious. Those Spanish news media should pay Google for clicks to their web sites. It's how the rest of the internet advertising works.

      ... instead of negotiating ...

      Spanish businesses can negotiate if they obey the law? So cool.

    63. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What isn't acceptable in this case as much as the Microsoft case is for Europe to demand that American companies reorganize in a way that requires the globe be subject to European law.

      An alternative view might be - want to participate in our market? Then you've got to abide by our laws.

      The alternative option is obvious, and is the one which Google has taken in this case - leave that market.

      To turn your argument on it's head, should the US market be accepting of European (or even Chinese) business practices and cultures, or do you feel the US might just have the right to say "play by our rules or f*ck off".

      Whilst a company participating in any given market might bring some benefits to consumers, never forget that the real potential benefit (and therefore the motivation) is to that company. They're not here to make us happy and content, they're here to make profit (or in the case of some, hide profit :) ).

      So, yes, it is acceptable for any market to demand an American company re-organise it's operations within that market to abide by that market's rules, just as it would be acceptable to require that a Chinese company reorganise it's US operations to comply with US rules. To think otherwise is nothing short of blinkered.

    64. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, they would likely prefer to negotiate with google on the issue

      Pray tell, what is there to negotiate ?

      The Spanish gouverment/law has put the cards down and said "Pay!" -- and a law is nothing anyone is supposed to be considering as "up for negotiation" (at least, not from where I'm from -- three countries up)

      Google instead chooses to openly extort the country by offering them only two choices which you suggest.

      Thats a bit rich when that same country did not even offer Google a choice, but just put down a law and said "You're going to pay. Full stop."

      Or, now that google has made the only choice available to them, they start to claim that Google, by its dominant position in this field, doesn't actually even have that choice.

      The next thing you hear is mw. Lanzaco saying "Google has not taken a neutral stance". I ask you, what neutral stance ? How ?

      As long as Google aggregates news they have to pay -- or break the new law and suffer the consequences. And pardon me, but starting to pay is not what I would call "a neutral position". Even if Google would be allowed to defer paying until the outcome of the "negotiations".

      So, Google did the only wise thing they could and stepped back to a place where it could truly say that they would be on equal grounds and would have a "neutral (starting) position".

      Ofcourse, that is not at all what the Spanish gouverment/companies wanted, so they now start to bitch about it. Thats all. A political story thats not even worth the (news)paper its printed on. :-)

    65. Re:Imagine that! by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Google, being in a monopolist position may not be in a position where it can extort entire countries by just walking away (which it is doing in Spain). With current mood being like this across the EU, it just may trigger a pan-EU response.

      You can't be a monopoly when you don't even offer a product in the country anymore! It isn't extorting Spain by no longer offering Google news there, anymore than it is extorting any other country it doesn't offer a dedicated service in. Existing, and alternative, operators can contest the market without competition from Google and unless it abuses its monopoly in search to stop them filling that niche they're doing nothing wrong.

    66. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Google had a service which was basically free (i.e. subsidized by ad revenues from search engine) in Spain, but the cost was that people sometimes only read headlines and don't click. And news sites wanted a share of that too.

      So many Spanish news sites that aren't based in Spain will now profit.

    67. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect they get to pull this once, maybe twice, after which EU will offer them a choice. Work with EU regulators and withing EU law or leave world's single biggest market.

      Too late.

      Denmark was fast, we got the law in place before google news even started in Danish, which is probably why the Danish news sites haven't thrown in the towel. Because Google news hadn't started yet, they didn't lose any visitors.

      In Germany, the news sites recently gave up, after Google simply removed them from Google news.

      And now Spain is the third country trying this.

    68. Re:Imagine that! by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Yes. Let's see Yahoo or Bing step up and be major news aggregators in Spain. Or do you think they'll get out as well since no one wants to pay to provide a free service?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    69. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So turn on the ads for Spanish users.

      Well, so the Spanish government gets to decide how Google is organizing its services? At any rate, payment does not arise for Spanish users but for Spanish sources and those could be shown all over the world.

    70. Re:Imagine that! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You want less trade that's something American might support. Americans mostly hate the wage suppression from free trade.

      No, they don't.

      They mostly hate the wage suppression that one half of free trade brings them (the half where other people get to sell stuff to America)

      They've really like the other half of free trade (the half where Americans get to sell stuff to other people).

      Going back to the pre-free-trade era mostly means losing international business on a massive scale. Which will, in the not-so-long term, affect pretty much everyone badly. Can you say "Smoot-Hawley"? Sure you can....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    71. Re:Imagine that! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Except that Google and Its employees are citizens with rights too. Everyone should be equal under the law. The law in Spain is now, you have to pay to link to certain types of content. Fine, Google is complying with the law, they tried to convince the people not to support it and failed, so now they are being a good citizen and obeying.

      Its not Google's fault you or the news papers miss'em now that they are gone. If Google is now to be forced to operate a news aggregator, than so should every other organization or individual that has a website! That is just fair.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    72. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wasn't there an article saying yahoo is already out as well?

    73. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a better analogy:

      A: If you don't pay us a bunch of money we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot!

      B: That's a ridiculous business proposition. We aren't going to pay you anything. Shoot yourselves if you feel you must but we don't recommend it.

      A: Wah! Government! Google is trying to make me injure myself! That's illegal! Make them stop!

      Fixed that for you....

    74. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Work with EU regulators and withing EU law or leave world's single biggest market.

      1) They were not given the chance to work with Spain's regulators
      2) They are obeying the law
      3) EU as the single biggest market? Ever hear of Asia?

    75. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's always MSoft BING to step in where Google left. Will Billy Gates pay the toll?

    76. Re:Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo or Bing

      You should get that stutter looked at.

    77. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      You are confusing the American people with American business. American business benefits from goods sold abroad but doesn't like the price suppression domestically from foreign competition.

      The American people's welfare has become only loosely correlated with American business. Sales abroad which are mainly services do very little for them because the labor is often offshored.

      As far as Smoot-Hawley major disruption handled badly is a bad thing. Though frankly other policies were far more destructive than the drop in trade as the post WWII economy which was low trade demonstrated. Moreover at the time the USA was a manufacturing economy running large trade surpluses. That's not remotely the situation today nor what anyone is suggesting.

    78. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No like them actually caring and voting for the minority party in the next election.

    79. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Yes. And likely grow. But more importantly the old media that decides they want to transform may have to move their internet operations including financially out of Spain.

    80. Re:Imagine that! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      They as in the other interested parties. Issue is far more complex than you present, with far more stake holders. And yes, I do in fact mean stake holders rather than share holders because there are a lot more of people invested in the issue than just shareholders. You have everyone from security apparatus that made deals with google to various companies that really like google's ad network and value it brings. All of these have vested interest in google staying in Europe.

      Europe itself would not need to replace google at all. You seem to forget that much of google's development and multiple server centres, as well as overwhelming majority of google's money flow is in Europe. Even if google could shake off the former, latter is its main artery it needs for basic survival. That is why I consistently point out that you don't go into a direct conflict with large sovereign states as a corporation - that is not a fight you stand to win. Instead you subvert the government by buying influence through various channels available to you. In this case, google's problem is that there's a lot of other stake holders that while interested in google remaining in Europe aren't interested in it maintaining its current monopolist position.

      You last point appears to be about you simply not wanting to look at the reality - that internet hasn't brought on a "global culture", if anything it did the exact opposite. It brought together the small fringe outlier groups together and created huge echo chambers where pundits peddle their opinions to their own circle which is mostly insulated from outside influence. And mind you, google is guilty of causing this more so than other companies because of the way its search personalization works. A good example of global warming issue - if you read a lot of articles and do searches on denialist side, google search will serve you mostly material it thinks you're interested in, that is denialist material in searches for facts. At the same time if you're on the other end of the spectrum, google search will produce facts that support your view on the very same searches that resulted in denialist material for the other person.

    81. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      well as overwhelming majority of google's money flow is in Europe

      Google's revenues don't come majority from Europe. Europe is about 20%. That's smaller BTW than the 27% that Google had in China when they started fighting with the Chinese government. They halved their Chinese revenue but didn't have to impose censorship. And that required the Chinese government funding a major non-Google competitor in China. I think the Spanish government would have a harder time for a variety of reasons.

      All of these have vested interest in google staying in Europe.

      That's right. In terms of the monopolist position that may not be possible. Google may simply decide they would rather go offshore than agree to European governments breaking them up. This is a company with a track record of doing exactly that with China. And as you can see Spain is getting ready to cave. The EU governments are losing. "We will shift the news Spanish citizens consume away from news produced in Spain" was a fairly credible counter threat.

      Now obviously if the governments are concerned enough they can win a war against Google. But given that Google has a monopoly in Europe because their citizenry likes Google, backlash wouldn't be shocking.

      Companies win fights against governments all the time. Ask Latin America about American Fruit Co. if you want a really extreme example. The USA governments has had problems with OPEC (a cartel but close enough) for 4 decades.
      ___

      As for climate denialism I'm not sure how that contradicts global culture. That seems to support it, showing people gathering not by geography but by political / idealogical affiliation.

    82. Re: Imagine that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all kinds of influence look alike to you, how do you explain the difference between a country like Spain and one like Vietnam?

    83. Re:Imagine that! by deuxm · · Score: 0

      European Here.

      This is the standard Anglo approach to the problem. Present a false black and white argument instead of the actual argument, and then present an ultimatum.

      Most European cultures including Spain do not have such a culture. Instead, they would likely prefer to negotiate with google on the issue. Google instead chooses to openly extort the country by offering them only two choices which you suggest.

      What you are saying is that Spain would like to negotiate something that it actually can't and shouldn't be able to negotiate ...

      I suspect they get to pull this once, maybe twice, after which EU will offer them a choice. Work with EU regulators and withing EU law or leave world's single biggest market.

      At which point any google exec that would push for leaving will have an unfortunate fatal car accident arranged by major stake holders and Google will negotiate.

      pffff .... which market ... if you thought Europe is one market you were sold snake oil ... Europe is a collection of National economies one more bigoted that the other. And frankly i can't wait for the EU regulators ... which in this case and in most cases aren't EU but national regulators .... to try and enforce Internet filtering ... Google is in a very strong position against many European governments and shouldn't negotiate . Europe needs more competition not nationalistic crap.

    84. Re:Imagine that! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that the people with more income spend more. Which is not necessarily true.

    85. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'm not assuming in the case of cellular we have good data on spends and profits.

    86. Re:Imagine that! by c · · Score: 1

      While there were extreme options available to Google, such as law suits and massive lobbying, Google took a rather mild approach

      Well, they could have taken an even milder approach... kept Google News in Spain, but only shown news from sites published outside of Spain. Sure, no more local news, much less news about Spain, and most of what was available would be slanted in ways the government and/or people might not like, but c'est la vie...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    87. Re:Imagine that! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Note the difference between "flow" and "revenue". Two completely different things. The reason why most of google's money flow goes through EU is various tax break arrangements. As a result, if it were to get kicked out, not only would it lose the market, it would lose lucrative tax deals.

      FTY: google didn't "go offshore" in China. It left China entirely. It's blocked in China now.

      Suggesting that EU is "losing" here sounds a lot like "oh EU is losing to microsoft, what can it do?" back in the days of browser monopoly fight. Until EU decided to actually take action and suddenly "oh EU is losing" whine changed to "oh evil EU is oppressing this nice US company" tune here on slashdot. And that wasn't even "gloves off" kind of action - they didn't actually plan to break up microsoft. And vendor lock in was far stronger in that case, as there are no real alternatives to much of microsoft software right now.

      Learn from the history.

    88. Re:Imagine that! by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Note the difference between "flow" and "revenue". Two completely different things. The reason why most of google's money flow goes through EU is various tax break arrangements. As a result, if it were to get kicked out, not only would it lose the market, it would lose lucrative tax deals.

      I have no idea where Google is hiding money. But I'm sure there are plenty of African and Latin American countries that would happy to play the role of illicit bank.

      Suggesting that EU is "losing" here sounds a lot like "oh EU is losing to microsoft, what can it do?" back in the days of browser monopoly fight. Until EU decided to actually take action and suddenly "oh EU is losing" whine changed to "oh evil EU is oppressing this nice US company" tune here on slashdot

      What are you talking about? Microsoft managed to hold the line on browsers for almost a decade and thereby prevent the transition to web based applications. They finally lost share to Safari, Firefox, Chrome... as those browsers advanced. The evidence for that being the transition happened in the USA as well as the EU. There is no evidence that the EU was able to effectuate an early switch.

    89. Re:Imagine that! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This isn't about banking or hiding money. This is about directing the money flow through tax arrangements that will not incur severe problems on using the said money (i.e. specifically NOT hiding money but keeping it in plain sight so that it can be easily accessed). Completely different issue.

      Microsoft got hit for about a billion in penalty as a result. And that was just about browsers. I'll let you think of the magnitude of difference when you consider browsers (i.e. non crucial product for microsoft) and google (talks are about breaking the company up).

      I do understand that slashdot is probably not the place to talk about non-nerdy part of the business. Most people here simply do not comprehend how these things actually work and why they work that way.

  5. A step too far? by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One has to love the unforeseen consequences. By the way, this is the first time I saw that the Spanish legislation went further than the German ones - The German court decision merely gave the right to charge, but per the article the Spanish one mandated charging.

    I can't help but picture that AEDE is going 'NOT AS PLANNED NOT AS PLANNED!!!'. Though how they could expect Google's actions to be any different in this case than it was in Germany, I don't know.

    Spend many millions in lobbying efforts to force Google to pay for doing X, only to have Google go 'Fine, we won't do X', costing them potentially millions more in advertising.

    Now, one should remember that consumer protection and business regulation is much stronger over in Europe, but deciding that a business has to continue to run at a loss is pushing it. It's more likely that they'll get a emergency overruling of the 'must pay' system.

    Because let's face it: NOBODY is going to want to run a news aggregator where they have to pay to list the news. It's more likely that the news sites would have to pay to be listed.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:A step too far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > unforeseen consequences.

      I think most of us seen this coming.

    2. Re:A step too far? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2

      It's more likely that the news sites would have to pay to be listed.

      That is an option. Wouldn't it be lovely if Google offered to bring back the news aggregator only if subsidized by the papers?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    3. Re:A step too far? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      It's more likely that the news sites would have to pay to be listed.

      That is an option. Wouldn't it be lovely if Google offered to bring back the news aggregator only if subsidized by the papers?

      Better yet, getting permission to put more than just snippets online. Host the whole damn paper, rather than the individual publishers having to have their own platforms. The publishers still get ad revenue, and an improved online presence, without as much overhead in their online department.

      Of course their print edition will tank, but it already is, so what DO they have to lose?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:A step too far? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Spanish legislation went further than the German ones - The German court decision merely gave the right to charge, but per the article the Spanish one mandated charging.

      Keep in mind that wasn't an accidental difference. In Germany, the publishers that opted out of the scheme (and kept their presence in Google News) benefited from absence of those who didn't opt out, which created a motive for all publishers to opt out in a sort of tragedy of the commons situation. The Spanish lawmakers wanted to prevent that.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:A step too far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Saw

    6. Re:A step too far? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      The Spanish lawmakers wanted to prevent that.

      By what realistic measure did AEDE expect Google to pay, when it outright stated that it'd shut down in Germany before paying? Did they expect Spain to be different?

      Like has been said, news aggregation is a loss leader for google - they don't even get advertising money on those pages.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:A step too far? by qzzpjs · · Score: 2

      That is an option. Wouldn't it be lovely if Google offered to bring back the news aggregator only if subsidized by the papers?

      I always thought this might be a good solution for Google. The news clips they publish on the search page are technically adverts for the full article. Google should charge the news sites for that advertising which would include the cost that Google pays to the news site for copyright, plus a nice 5-10% or so to pay for the extra administrators Google would need to employ to manage it. A useless waste of time and money transfer, but that's the way their law demands it now.

    8. Re:A step too far? by jlar · · Score: 1

      "Keep in mind that wasn't an accidental difference. In Germany, the publishers that opted out of the scheme (and kept their presence in Google News) benefited from absence of those who didn't opt out, which created a motive for all publishers to opt out in a sort of tragedy of the commons situation. The Spanish lawmakers wanted to prevent that."

      The legislation is an attempt to create a law mandated news cartel:

      "In economics, a cartel is an agreement between competing firms to control prices or exclude entry of a new competitor in a market. It is a formal organization of sellers or buyers that agree to fix selling prices, purchase prices, or reduce production using a variety of tactics." (Wikipedia).

      If they had been succesful the consequence would be that Spanish media consumers would have to pay more for their news. Fortunately it seems like they will not be succesful and hopefully Spanish consumers can use foreign media outlets that are not part of the cartel.

    9. Re:A step too far? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      By what realistic measure did AEDE expect Google to pay, when it outright stated that it'd shut down in Germany before paying? Did they expect Spain to be different?

      Basically, yes, they thought that Spain would be different.

      I think their assumption was that the Germans were a bunch of savages squatting in the ruins of a civilization that could safely be ignored, but that SPAIN! was still the center of civilized culture in the world, and therefore the rules were different....

      It's the sort of parochialism you see in backwaters everywhere. And yes, I'm including the USA in that "backwaters everywhere" - entirely too many Americans forget that the half century after WW2 distorted the world's economy in ways that favored the US couldn't last forever, and was NOT the natural state of the world....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re: A step too far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The natural state of the world is whatever man wars it to be.

    11. Re:A step too far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the sort of parochialism you see in backwaters everywhere. And yes, I'm including the USA in that "backwaters everywhere"...

      You lie! America is awesome!!11

    12. Re:A step too far? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Heck, Google cut loose Twitter when it came to having to pay for it and that was something that it probably was worth paying for. Don't mess with the G.

    13. Re:A step too far? by swillden · · Score: 1

      By what realistic measure did AEDE expect Google to pay, when it outright stated that it'd shut down in Germany before paying? Did they expect Spain to be different?

      Basically, yes, they thought that Spain would be different.

      I think their assumption was that the Germans were a bunch of savages squatting in the ruins of a civilization that could safely be ignored, but that SPAIN! was still the center of civilized culture in the world, and therefore the rules were different.

      I think they thought that Spain would be different because surely Google couldn't refuse to show snippets for all Spanish publishers. They assumed the German ruling didn't have the same clout because obviously many publishers would opt out.

      Alternatively, I've seen it suggested that the Spanish knew exactly what would happen, and it's what they wanted. Or, more precisely, it's what the big, influential publishers wanted, because their size allows them to attract more visitors directly to their home pages, at the expense of smaller publishers. Another Slashdot poster claimed that it was political horse trading between big news organizations who are pro-government and the government to shut out smaller (and anti-government) news organizations, with an understanding that if the change hurt the big orgs too badly, the government would funnel cash to them to prop them up.

      I don't know anything about Spanish politics, but those possibilities seem believable, and perhaps more believable than that Spanish lawmakers didn't believe Google would just shut down Google News in Spain.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. Just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...be careful what you wish for. You want the free increased traffic Google gets you via Google News? You're going to have to let them show free content snippets then. They were never going to pay for that just like you were never going to pay for the listing, and what use is a result on Google News with no content? The media outlets only have themselves to blame here.

  7. They used the wrong attack angle by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    These publishers used the wrong attack angle. They should have negotiated some nominal fee say US$100/yr in return for Google linking to their sites as it saw fit.

    Their argument would be that the relationship entranches Google's mindshare among users and furthers its hegemony in search. That can't be bad for Google.

    Google would have come to the table.

    1. Re:They used the wrong attack angle by tomhath · · Score: 1

      They should have negotiated some nominal fee

      Why? They tried to squeeze money out of Google and failed; charging a nominal fee serves no purpose.

    2. Re:They used the wrong attack angle by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Why? They tried to squeeze money out of Google and failed; charging a nominal fee serves no purpose."

      That they tried to squeeze money from Google is the stated true in press they even called the law "The Google Levvy". What they don't tell is that this isn't their only purpose. The real purpose of the law is to silent all voices not within AEDE. In Spain is not the press that it is the fourth power, AEDE is, and they want to stay that way.

  8. Why is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's a lot of comments stating that this is surprising or unforeseen, but this is an obvious result. What other option made any business sense? It makes no sense to pay to advertise for companies who tried to do a legal shakedown of you. Shutting down Google News Spain was the only rational move to take. There really isn't a middle ground.

    Turning on advertising, while it sounds like it might work, would just be a waste of their resources. Why would they put forth that effort? Even if they broke even, this would only benefit the extortionists, and encourage others to try similar legal maneuvers. There really was only one course of action. It takes some serious slef-delusion to imagine any other outcome, really.

    I can't think of a situation in which a free service would remain open if the main beneficiaries tried to squeeze cash out of them. The inverse referral fee is not a valid business tactic.

    1. Re:Why is anyone surprised? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Google is very much aware of the "camel's nose" problem.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  9. To Spanish Newspaper Publishers, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be careful what you wish for...

  10. Oh, woe is me! by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    That I no longer have Google with which to access my porn!

    I mean, what did they do back in the heady days of JaNET and dialup BBS, yanno, like "Before Google"??

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  11. Actions have consequences. by Lokinator · · Score: 2

    It Spain wishes to use its "authoriteh" as a nation to attempt to extort protectionist fees for a service that already serves as a benefit to the very business they are trying to protect - Google is, as a private entity, well within its rights to terminate the availability of Google News in Spain and take additional steps up to and including delisting targeted classes of companies entirely from their general index as a method of showing their dismay.

    --
    "It is morally wrong to initiate the aggressive use of force.." Of course, defensive force is fair game...
    1. Re:Actions have consequences. by onepoint · · Score: 1

      While I don't know where you are located, the word "right's" in a business sense, might not be qualified to use in the EU. They have different rules that they play by. Googles stance, of "it's my ball and I'm leaving the game" might be a legit Right in the USA, but in the EU it might not be.

      This action might be a painful lesson for both the EU and Google. Google's Spanish subsidiary might be forced into action that is unwelcome ( I believe it happened in google china ), the EU might have to intervene and say a business has the permission to go out of business or you will have to offer it a subsidy, and I don't think google would want a subsidy since that would disclose traffic information.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    2. Re:Actions have consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Googles stance, of "it's my ball and I'm leaving the game" might be a legit Right in the USA, but in the EU it might not be.

      So, what you're saying, is that someone can be compelled to perform/provide a service in the EU? How is that anything other than slavery?

    3. Re:Actions have consequences. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Googles stance, of "it's my ball and I'm leaving the game" might be a legit Right in the USA, but in the EU it might not be.

      In the end, it's not a right but a simple fact. It *is* Google's ball and they can take it and go home if they want to. The EU can enact levies and bans to punish Google but in the end they can't make Google do business if they don't want to.

  12. Price of leveraging fiat government powers by Karmashock · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You didn't ask google or negotiate with google. Your government said they'd use their state agencies to cease google assets or go through international diplomatic channels to cease google assets unless google started paying you money.

    Google responded by taking that power away from you by shutting down all excuses you would have to use such powers.

    Quid pro quo.

    This for that.

    Action = Reaction.

    What needs to be walked back is the Spanish law or attempt to make google pay. If you want google to do some sort of ad revenue sharing or whatever... then have that discussion. But ultimately, if they don't want to pay you... then at the end of the day you're either going to have to accept that google considers the money they get from ad traffic to be all theirs... period... or that you're going to have make a viable internet business without google's help.

    Choose.

    I, like many here, am very supportive of what google has done here not so much because it sticks it to spanish newspapers which I have no opinion on. But rather because it should scare arrogant government ministers into accepting that they actually aren't all powerful.

    Similar things happened in Hungry when they tried to take bandwidth. We have these aging institutions that are being bypassed by the internet and they don't like it. Rather then adapt they're just trying to legislate the internet into paying them.

    Fuck them. Either join the 21st century or subsist on existing revenue streams.

    The media business is very hard these days. Nothing unusual about that. Many US media organizations are going bankrupt. But if you look back in time, you'll see that that isn't that unusual. The media business has always been a tough one. Typically it is dominated by deep pockets that dominate the industry with ruthless powerplays.

    We'll see where it goes.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Price of leveraging fiat government powers by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Or, maybe google offer create a fee structure for listing something in google news that covers the IP cost plus a reasonable administrative fee.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Price of leveraging fiat government powers by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Why?

      How about this...

      Google agrees to not list anything a site has on google news unless they sign a EULA or whatever that says google isn't going to pay them for it.

      Then individual news outlets can individually choose if they want to be listed or want to be ignored.

      There you go. Problem solved.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Price of leveraging fiat government powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't. Spanish law is made so that individual publishers can't negotiate (only the association), and they can't negotiate waiving the payment completely, only the price.

    4. Re:Price of leveraging fiat government powers by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      Except that the spanish law forbids this from taking place to prevent a repeat of Germany....where this did take place.

    5. Re:Price of leveraging fiat government powers by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Then having been denied an ability to negotiate the contract, google is doing the right thing by shutting down operations in that market.

      When they're ready to be reasonable they can enjoy being linked again.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:Price of leveraging fiat government powers by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      What are you referring to?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:Price of leveraging fiat government powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, the German law said that news sites could choose to demand payment. The small news sites didn't want payment, and stayed on Google News. The large news sites were removed from Google News, and lost readers to the small news sites. The big news sites pretty quickly learned the lesson, and stopped demanding payment.

      The Spanish law requires all news sites to demand payment, preventing the small news sites from out-competing the large news sites this way. Because the organization that bought this law represents only the large news sites.

    8. Re:Price of leveraging fiat government powers by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      Wrong. That is showing you market forces in action.

      What this makes clear is that google is vital for their online advertising which by the way google is not charging them for... are they?

      The small sites knew that the advertising was worth more then the google news clicks. And so didn't try to piss google off.

      The big sites were probably older media institutions and not terrbly internet savvy. And they clearly didn't understand how important google was to them. So they shot themselves in the foot and now understand something the small media outlets knew all along.

      They are all small fish. The entire government of Spain apparently needs to learn this lesson as well.

      There are many international spanish sites that will provide spanish speakers with international news. And probably more then a few of them reprint stories from spanish papers that are not especially credited.

      Which puts the spanish papers in spain in the same position they're in now. Only now, their readers won't even know the link feeds are coming from their papers.

      If I were spanish media, I'd register some alternate domains outside Spain and have them host all directed to their site. Anything to get google to relist them.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  13. No, no, no... by hymie! · · Score: 1

    We don't want you to close. We just want you to pay us.

    1. Re:No, no, no... by ruir · · Score: 1

      Brillant.

  14. They need to take it a step further... by bl968 · · Score: 1

    I think Google should not only close Google News in spain, but also delist all Spanish (located in spain) sites. I bet the Spanish government would quickly change their tune.

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
    1. Re:They need to take it a step further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes. they would ask the european union to take steps against google. and they wouöd be right - this wouöd be some variant of extortion by google instead.

    2. Re:They need to take it a step further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      redirect all links to amazon.es

    3. Re:They need to take it a step further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not entirely sure the EU commission would play ball on that one but only because I'm European but from not Spain and it from what limited understanding I have from the reports It is a case of if you want to publish our links\summary you HAVE to pay us. What do you mean your not going to publishing them then!

    4. Re:They need to take it a step further... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dude, you are so laughable deluded that it touches insanity.

      The only power any "sovereign government" have is over their own territory. If someone says, "I don't want to do business with you and your ilk, and I'm not putting my foot, nor will any part of my business pass your territory", well that's it, there's fuck all you can do against that, since "Not doing business in Spain" is not a crime anywhere but in the heads of some rather deluded Spanish individuals.

      I'd love seeing them trying to approach any other country, such as the US, and demanding they take legal action against google because "they won't do business with us". LOL

      Or are you seriously suggesting AEDE calls in it's government to start dropping Spanish paratroopers on the Chocolate Factory HQ, in the USA, to impose the imperial will of the AEDE?

      You're hilarious.

    5. Re:They need to take it a step further... by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Microsoft has more serious problems related to Azure and USA warrants. And for that matter more serious monopoly problems as they integrate their web services with Windows. Their interests are served by Google winning this fight not by them losing. The problem the EU regulators have is they don't like the internet being under the control of non-European companies. That's a problem equally with Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Verizon, LinkedIn, AT&T, CISCO... They aren't going to stab each other in the back on this.

      Corporations pick fights with governments all the time. Ultimately governments can push companies out of their county. But they can't tell companies to sell at terms they would rather not be involved with.

    6. Re:They need to take it a step further... by tshawkins · · Score: 1

      Google will still have people and assets in spain after the withdrawl of google news, which is after all only one relativly small part of its spanish operations.

    7. Re:They need to take it a step further... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      LOL, I really want some of whatever you are smoking.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    8. Re:They need to take it a step further... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      On what grounds?

      If I set up a website that offers direct access to every EU government citizen portal but for Spain merely links to cunts.org how am I breaking the law?

  15. Badges ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we don't need ur steenking badges.

    google

  16. NOT the general search... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is the site, where you as newspaper have to sign up to be listed. So just don't sign up (or block the google newscrawler) if you don't want free links. Oh wait, you want the links AND get paid for them. Tough luck then.

  17. Did Slashdot pay to link to thespainreport.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless I miss my guess, Slashdot broke Spanish law by posting a link to the article mentioning the response of the Spanish Newspaper Publisher's Association. This is, unless Slashdot has agreed to pay thespainreport.com for linking to their content. This whole thread should be taken down just to be safe.

    1. Re:Did Slashdot pay to link to thespainreport.com? by nacker90 · · Score: 1

      Does Slashdot operate within Spain?

    2. Re:Did Slashdot pay to link to thespainreport.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless I miss my guess, Slashdot broke Spanish law by posting a link to the article mentioning the response of the Spanish Newspaper Publisher's Association. This is, unless Slashdot has agreed to pay thespainreport.com for linking to their content. This whole thread should be taken down just to be safe.

      The law doesn't go into effect until Jan 1, 2015.

  18. What the old farts did... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    That I no longer have Google with which to access my porn!

    I mean, what did they do back in the heady days of JaNET and dialup BBS, yanno, like "Before Google"??

    A line printer, a ton of green-bar paper, a lot of tape and scissor work, hang it on the wall, and then stand way, way back to find out you've been Rick-Rolled and it's the "woman in hat" picture again?

    1. Re:What the old farts did... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      motherfucker... scammed again.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:What the old farts did... by paiute · · Score: 1

      n...e...v...e...r...g...o...i...n... God damn it!

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  19. Spanish Publishers Never Heard of Robots Txt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently not.

  20. Excellent by ruir · · Score: 1

    Never negotiate with terrorists.

  21. Unclear to me depends on google action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If google is ONLY stopping google news , then I see it as fine. Spain newspaper bought it on themselves. But if they are *also* in addition lowering the index of those newspaper in any google search started from spain (as some of the AEDE stuff seem to indicate), then this is bad, and it will bring the ire of competition/monopoly governemental oversight on google very very hard. Because that means they would be leveraging their search business to force an ancilliary business to cough up money. That's would be a big whoopsy from google.

    1. Re:Unclear to me depends on google action by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      As the law appears to state that even linking to a news site means paying, I am all for Google not linking to Spain's news organizations in their search business as well. No one can force you to do something that requires a toll.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Unclear to me depends on google action by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What if Google includes click-through rates by users in its search rankings?

      People in Spain wont be clicking through links to Spanish news sites via news.google.es so Google will algorithmically have no choice but to deprioritise those sites in comparison to e.g. Mexican ones.

      Of course, we're both assuming that Google are even allowed to link to Spanish news sites in search results - when I search google it shows me an excerpt of the matching text; if Google have to pay the news sites to include that then it's illegal for them to include those sites if they haven't paid.

      Personally I take the view that it's Google's website, Google's index and Google that succeed or fail by whether the results they show meet the needs of their users. So let them make the call and not politicians.

    3. Re:Unclear to me depends on google action by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this means that posting a link to a Spanish news organization in Slashdot's comments means that Slashdot has to pay or if it means I have to pay. If the former, I could see a revenue generation opportunity:

      1) Pay someone (preferably someone in a third world country who will work cheap) to post links to your news website on various comment boards.
      2) Threaten these people unless they pay*.
      3) Profit!

      * Sure, they might remove the link, but this just means you need to get your lawmakers to pass a law making removing links illegal.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  22. "Google has not taken a neutral stance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What?!?!? You punch somebody straight in the face and then complain that he is not taking a neutral stance by leaving?

    That's like the New York police officer complaining that Eric Garner has not taken a neutral stance by choosing to suffocate in a chokehold.

  23. There is a simple answer by maroberts · · Score: 1

    I actually think Google should charge all media organisations to be seen on News where laws like this are in effect but offer a free service elsewhere

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  24. Noooooo! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    You weren't supposed to stop routing customers to us, you were supposed to give us money!

  25. let's turn this round by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Google should now ask the Publishers to pay, for the right to be listed :)
    maybe auction higher listing positions off
    that might start some interesting competitive action
    -
    I am not a big friend of google, but I despise greedy media owners and stupid governments even more

  26. Expected response, good for them. by Pojoman · · Score: 1

    This whole fiasco is hilarious to me. When I was reading about this a couple months back I thought to myself, "Google will just leave Spain, no sane company would pay other company's to provide a service for them free of charge". Sure enough, they do just that. The best and only business decision open to them. What this AEDE wants with support of this legislation on top on trying to have Google forced to keep it's doors open in Spain is basically the business model for Slavery. I support Google's muscle flex in this case, it (Google) displays a presence of not bowing to extortion. AEDE, biting the hand that feeds you is bad business.