German press wants google to remove snippets, realises that it's a dumb move - Polidicks

[quote]In the dispute with the VG Media Google has been asked to delay the deletion of Thumbnails. Google accepted and granted two additional weeks. Google: "We have responded to this request and will therefore stop showing snippets and thumbnails of the respective publishers from October 23, 2014." Background is the dispute over the intellectual property right that protects the rights for texts, "unless there are individual words or smallest text snippets". Still it's not resolved juristically whether the snippets used by google are legal anyways.[/quote] Basically it revolves around the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers]Ancillary copyright for press publishers[/url], which basically says that you are not allowed to use snippets or images of other media unless you've been given allowance. It's also been dubbed the "google tax" since it requires other sites to pay roayalties for press sites. Now google didn't want to pay and therefore wanted to delete the pages on it's index. But as anticipated by everyone with at least a little bit of brain the companies went bananas and told google they couldn't do that due to loosing visitors on their sites. Now they're trying to figure out how to resolve the issue. Actually about 170 german publishers and sites are afflicted by this issue since they wanted google to pay. Some other publishers explicitly state that people are allowed to use or link some of their stuff. Unfortunately there's no english source available, so I did some translation, alternatively you can use google translate. [b]Source:[/b] [url]http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Leistungsschutzrecht-Google-gewaehrt-Verlagen-Aufschub-2414723.html[/url] (German) [b]Rough translation of these news:[/b] [url]http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FLeistungsschutzrecht-Google-gewaehrt-Verlagen-Aufschub-2414723.html[/url]

Well, those companies should just agree on letting google use their content for search-engine purposes. Any company that wouldn't do that would be stupid.

[QUOTE=DrDevil;46205959]Well, those companies should just agree on letting google use their content for search-engine purposes. Any company that wouldn't do that would be stupid.[/QUOTE] They still have rights to the content though, and Google technically needs explicit permission in each instance. Of course, it's phenomenally impracticable for Google to systematically gain permission for usage.

If you don't want your shit indexed use robots.txt What's the problem? ...oh right, they want to be indexed and just like extra money.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;46205986]They still have rights to the content though, and Google technically needs explicit permission in each instance. Of course, it's phenomenally impracticable for Google to systematically gain permission for usage.[/QUOTE] Then they should get the law changed or not get indexed. Can't have your cake and eat it as well.

I want to add that mostly the shit tier yellow press publishers of BILD were behind this. [editline]11th October 2014[/editline] Also other search engines like Yahoo and Bing already removed the sites in question from their index, Google didn't do it because it's the biggest search engine and the publishers were about to invoke cartel law against Google, now they can't do that to Yahoo and Bing.

Any company, celebrity or entity wanting to have a link about them removed from google - should have every link to them removed. See how popular/how much business they get now.

I feel like this can be done with some extension of robots.txt on sites - if you want to be indexed, for free, by Google don't do anything. If you don't want Google to index / snippet text then add a record to robot.txt as such.

Don't companies gain enough of a monetary benefit just from, y'know, being on Google? [quote]the companies went bananas and told google they couldn't do that due to loosing visitors on their sites.[/quote] Does Google even have any legal obligation to index any particular site? I wouldn't assume so.

[QUOTE=froztshock;46207341]Don't companies gain enough of a monetary benefit just from, y'know, being on Google? Does Google even have any legal obligation to index any particular site? I wouldn't assume so.[/QUOTE] Well, they have to comply with national laws, which means Google actually is required to follow the law in the specific country. Now they don't want to break the law and even that seems to be wrong.

[QUOTE=KillerLUA;46206501]Any company, celebrity or entity wanting to have a link about them removed from google - should have every link to them removed. See how popular/how much business they get now.[/QUOTE] Hooray for a multi-billion dollar corporation being able to exploit its monopoly to send smaller companies bankrupt!

SPOILER ALERT: The site owner has to explicitly add support for it and when it automatically pulls its not calling your content theirs! WHOAOAoaaoOAoaOAOoooaaaaaaaaaaaa [url]https://developers.google.com/+/web/snippet/[/url]

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46210114]Implying copyright trolls going bankrupt is a bad thing[/QUOTE] Those damn copyright trolls, wanting renumeration for use of content they produce! If Google don't want to pay fees to use other people's articles, they shouldn't have to!

[QUOTE=Robber;46206032]If you don't want your shit indexed use robots.txt What's the problem?[/QUOTE] That's a bit like saying "if you don't want the NSA spying on you use encryption, what's the problem?" Imo it seems the optimal solution is something in line with what DrDevil and bord2tears are suggesting; a standard permission (robots.txt extension?) allowing your content to be indexed, in addition to the right to have content removed if requested. Obviously not suing for money right away, as that just opens up the door to a world of trolling/abuse.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;46205986]They still have rights to the content though, and Google technically needs explicit permission in each instance. Of course, it's phenomenally impracticable for Google to systematically gain permission for usage.[/QUOTE] I'm just guessing but in american law there is fair use which implies that as long as the snippet doesn't contain any explicit material or summerise the work as a whole then its legal for google or anyone to use, so that allows people to cite articles and publish short bits [editline]12th October 2014[/editline] I'm guessing German law does not have such protections or the news is just trying to argue googles use isn't fair use

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46216767]If Google removes any trace of the copyright troll and their content from the search results, they don't owe them any royalties, problem solved.[/QUOTE] They can't because of cartell laws.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46217001]They can't because of cartell laws.[/QUOTE] what does that have to do with it?

[QUOTE=Medevila;46216875]nah, no it's not like that at all hence why no one bitches about robots.txt because it's totally fucking straightforward[/QUOTE] Hmmh. I agree it's straightforward, but how does that make the similarity void? All I'm saying is; the right for google (or any search engine) to index your content unless you say no (robots.txt) should instead be remade into the right to for your content to remain non-indexed unless you say yes (robots.txt), with the yes (robots.txt) being super-simplified and standardized (i.e. comes with the most basic web developing kits and whatnot, like having a checkbox default on "agree", and if you want your content to stay out of searches you simply remove it). It's a small but fundamental distinction that I feel would make things much smoother (please feel free to tell me why I'm wrong as this is just an opinion and I'm far from an expert, or indeed in any way experienced, in the matter).