© strikes again - Google gets hit
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Alright, Google's not getting hit that bad. It's more of a setback for the foolish publishers who filed suit.
Google could face daily fines of €25 000 after losing a court battle with Belgian publishers over the scope of its Google News service.A court in Brussels ruled on Tuesday that the search engine had infringed the copyright of several newspapers after it included their stories in its news services. But experts said the judgement could prove a pyrrhic victory for newspaper owners.
Copiepresse, a group representing copyright holders in Belgium, started legal proceedings against Google last March on behalf of 18 French- and German-language newspapers. It had argued that Google News, which runs short extracts of stories from around the world, infringed authors' rights.
Lawyers for Copiepresse said Google was harming the interests of newspapers because some stories could be read for free via the search engine even after they had been placed behind a subscription wall on the original websites. Google's lawyers had countered by labelling Copiepresse as protectionists who ignored the beneficial effects that links from its pages brought publishing organisations.
Isn't that precious - one monopolist calling another monopolist a 'monopolist' in a court of law that grants each their respective monopolies.
However, in a series of hearings last year, Google had been ordered to remove all stories, photos and links to the newspapers in question along with potential penalties of up to €1-million a day [!!!] for non-compliance. Tuesday's ruling confirmed that decision but saw the judge slash the fine to a maximum of €25 000 a day -- although it is still not clear what Google will pay as it removed links to the websites in question after the ruling last year.
"Google is disappointed with the judgement, which we will appeal," said a spokesperson. "We believe that Google News is entirely legal."
Danny Sullivan, the editor-in-chief of SearchEngineLand.com, said that though the judgement was a minor blow for the search engine, it was only a partial success for litigious European media owners.
"Google's not going to be pleased that they didn't score the victory here," he said. "Copiepresse have certainly rallied a group of publishers together, and Google clearly will cut some deals with the application of pressure ... but I think it's not even really a thorn in their side."
Sullivan added that the decision marked an end to the wider ambitions of media owners to force Google to pay them for the right to use their stories on its news pages.
"It really makes a mockery of the whole argument in the first place," he said, "because their goal was really to try and force Google to pay for the content on Google News."
This is all such nonsense. If there were no copyrights, there would be no problem.
Writers would still be paid. Publishers would still make a profit.
And the whole world would have affordable access to knowledge.
But, to be exceptionally successful, publishers would have to do something other than have lots of money.
-->"If there were no copyrights, there would be no problem. Writers would still be paid. Publishers would still make a profit. And the whole world would have affordable access to knowledge."
I respect your intentions, QRS, but I don't think abolishing the copyright would work out. Take this hypothetical situation: I write a brilliant novel. The publisher pays me, and prints up thousands of copies. The copies hit the book stands and the critical reviews all praise my book. (It could happen!)
Now Publisher B, a cheap crook, reads the reviews and decides to publish my book. He prints up several thousand copies and puts them out on the rack for half the price. If there is no copyright, there is no protection for my brilliant book. Everyone will buy the book for the cheaper price and the 1st publisher will lose money.
In fact, if there is no copyright, I would have no protection when I show my book to a publisher. Publisher Cheapcrook could read my book and start printing it.
In my view, the US Congress erred by granting the right for too long. The Constitution says: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing FOR LIMITED TIMES to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." A lifetime plus seventy years (the current length of the copyright) seems to be stretching "limited times" beyond the limit.
If you think about it, a lifetime is the longest period of time of which a human being can have actual knowledge. I will go out on a limb here and claim, therefore, that a lifetime is the empirical equivilent of an eternity. To extend the copyright beyond the span of a life time (by another lifetime), the Congress seems to have violated the "limited" aspect of the copyright delineated by the Constitution.
I can't comment in detail tonight, but I will soon.
Thanks, for your patience.