Let's summarize what is happening here:
Big media editors AEDE, most of which pro-government, in collusion with the
corrupt Spanish politicians have managed a masterstroke which they think will:
1. Get them free money
2. Destroy the discoverability of smaller media competitors, usually critical
with the government
3. Hinder the future of Spanish internet tech business, their main competitor
4. Get more exposure, since readers won't have access to media agreggation and
will resort to reading just one or two outlets
In reality, what is likely to happen is:
1. Google will close Google News Spain, no big problem
2. Spanish media aggregators will move their business abroad and won't
contribute taxes to the country
3. Tech enterpreneurs will realize that Spain is a shitty country to invest money on
4. Without Google, the aggregators, and thanks to the increasing
user boycott to AEDE media, those editors will lose traffic and money.
This new legislation requires every Spanish publication to charge services like Google News for showing even the smallest snippet from their publications, whether they want to or not.
This sounds as though it won't matter if Spanish news aggregators move abroad, because the law applies to the Spanish news sources themselves, not the aggregator. Unless I'm misunderstanding (and maybe I am, so correct me), if a news publisher inside Spain doesn't demand payment from an aggregator located outside Spain, the publisher in Spain gets punished by the Spanish law.
This approach would be a nasty way to do as you said: limit the ability of smaller, alternative news sources, to attract readers. Unless they left Spain, they would not be allowed to volunteer their content to any free aggregator anywhere, and if they DID leave Spain, they would lose the ability to report on local Spanish issues.
Or to put it another way: with no way to find Spanish news sites online, Spaniards would become entirely dependent on foreign news sites, which creates an incentive for foreign sites to focus more on Spanish news in Spanish.
And yes, as spaniard this is another shit from our beloved government that basically is butchering the whole entire country and giving all, blood flesh and bones, to carefully nurture his friends and family. A small and really happy minory. Everyday is his/her birthday.
I know very little about Spain situation, but even then I'd guess that it's easier than hosting it in Spain. Smaller media can certainly do that.
It's a shame that this irony isn't more widely understood.
The party in power (Partido Popular) is on the right of Spanish politics, and sits with the right wing EPP group in the European Parliament.
For what it's worth, while the US tends to think of Europe as being socialist, I can't think of any EU countries with socialist governments except Austria and Denmark.
> I can't think of any EU countries with socialist governments except Austria and Denmark.
Off the top of my head, France, Czech Republic or Slovakia. And the _previous_ Czech government was a prime example of a left-leaning gov. in anything but name.
That's the funny thing about this. PP is a right-wing conservative ultra-catholic neolibertarian mixture. Not a trace of socialism...
This is simply crony capitalism.
However the Spanish rules might constitute a restriction of competition under EU law, but since the political climate is a bit anti-Google right now, maybe it won't be investigated too closely.
Of course we all know what that means and it seems very sensible in 2014, but remember - if someone had told you in 1998 that a certain website would not be operating in country X, you would have laughed and explained to them (like a child) that the Internet was a single global network and that if one had Internet access at all they would have access to the site in question.
All of that simplicity and innocence has slipped away.
The actual story is, "The 'Spain' version of Google News won't be accessible to anyone."
Will the company hosting the site have to pay up?
For that very reason many are worried about Menéame fate, a very popular Reddit-like site here in Spain.
I think this is a good overview in English: https://medium.com/@JulioAlonso/the-story-of-spains-google-t...
Basically it ended with a fine (which seems absurd to me) but that UK guy had to fight for 18 months against a request of extradition to the USA for having created a web site in the UK which (I quote Wikipedia) "did not host any infringing media, but American authorities say it contained indexed links to media hosted on other sites, and defined it as a "linking" website". This looks like Reddit and HN to me.
Even if your country doesn't comply with the request it's not possible to shrug it away unless an agreement is reached, or you have to be careful never to step into a country with extradition agreements with the one that is trying to get you. That is a severe limitation to personal freedom.
Everything falls apart if we start applying everybody's laws to everybody in every country of the world. I'm pretty sure I violated some laws of some countries writing this.
Same with consumer laws, those apply if I buy a product in other country. For example Spanish law says I can get a refund 7 days after the purchase, no reason required.
Yea, doesn't make sense and probably they can't enforce many of these, but that's how they are redacted. I would set the legal team on alert mode if I were Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Menéame.
Maybe you are not aware of the new EU VAT on digital downloads, which is taxed in the country of purchase, not country of sale.
The way discussion on taxation is going globally I wouldn't be surprised if more legislation heads this way, or at the very least a presence test is applied to see if the company has a physical office in country.
Yep. As silly as is.
Effectively, no Spanish-Spain news in Google news. I wonder if other Spanish-speaking versions of Google News will still link to major Spanish newspapers that are also popular in South America. I'd expect so. Many Spanish sources will actively try to get into Google News from other countries so they can bypass this levy and prevent the loss of traffic/relevance somewhat.
It is already an achievement to write the headlines of the news and to rank the importance of a piece of news. I consider this and all the editorial also as content.
With Google Search, Google does the ranking etc. and provides a substantial own service on demand to a specific search. People always go to the original site if it fits their search request. All good here. But with Google News they just copy the headlines and parts of the articles. They present it, kind of republish it in opposite to creating a search service.
Personally, I'm a bit pissed by the Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. because of their sneaky busines concepts. So my post is hostile (which it shouldn't be, but happens ...), but not insulting towards Google.
If they don't want Google to link to them, they can control that through robots.txt.
You may remember a recent German law that allowed German news sites to charge money for this, and Google removed links to news sites that didn't want to be listed for free. Pretty soon, all sites allowed Google to link to them again, because the loss of traffic hurt them.
Basically this amounts to the question: should search engines and aggregators be allowed to exist at all? Should we go back to the pre search engine days when you could only find new sites when someone discussed it on usenet, or through web rings (a network of sites about a similar subject where each links to the next one)?
In other words, it's a completely orthogonal concern to what you are talking about.
With the internet they have limited choices:
* Keep things off the internet and disappoint everyone
* Put things on the global internet and lose export value
* Put things on the internet but geolocate to the UK and retain export value
Clearly for them, the quality of their shows, and for the British public, the last option is the best.
It's a strange system because the BBC is considered public broadcasting but is still funded (i.e. paid) by us citizens. You have to take the UK only as a subscription that we have implicitly paid. Of course, it would be great if they offered an outsider subscription, but there are undoubtedly internal political reasons why they haven't.
* BBC puts things on the global internet
* Global users can discover it more readily
* BBC becomes well-known as a provider of quality content
* Demand for BBC content increases because of the online content already available
* BBC can charge more for future content (which it can export first to high-profit-margin channels, then publish online later)
Point 3, I think they already have covered. I think it's pretty safe to say that the BBC is a well known and established brand, and also a producer of high quality content.
The best way to look at it now is that they're stuck in a local maxima, they could definitely gain by broadcasting online to the world but it might take some time and will most definitely hit them financially in the short run.
There's also a political aspect wrt the BBC too. They are, as per their mandate, completely politically neutral†. But generally the left side of politics supports continuing the license fee we pay where the right side doesn't. If they should suddenly take a significant drop in revenue and it subsequently does affect what they produce then it also puts them at risk. And the last thing us Brits want to see is our BBC channels filling up with adverts.
Now is an interesting time. For a long time they were a plain old tv broadcaster. Now they're on the internet and broadcasting things there there are people questioning whether they should even be doing that. Eventually I think things will stabilize into some condition, I don't know what but I don't think we are there yet.
† of course, with politics, there are many debates about this
Different business models result in different pricing decisions. Maybe BBC has determined that keeping things free globally is just not smart business sense for it because of real revenue foregone.
I believe that BBC sells a lot of its programs to channels around the world. I also believe it also markets various DVDs of its programs. BBC entertainment is also available as a paid channel in many countries. If it made these programs free on the web globally that business might be in doubt.
BBC is currently in a binary model which is to be free in UK and then sell its programs globally. The unintended consequence of that it ends up denying global internet users its programs.
What would be best, I believe, would be to provide all choices. For people who are willing to pay outside the UK -- bring them into a subscriber model of some sort. This way BBC can continue selling its programs to companies/channels/customers around the world and let internet users watch BBC programs, for a small cost.
Who knows? BBC might actually be working on subscriber pays model on the internet. Here other considerations come into play: bureaucratic sloth in an organization as big as the BBC and the time it takes to role out a subscription oriented video website.
An alternative would be allowing people to log in with a TV license number.
If they don't feel like sharing, we can find other sources that will, there's no lack of quality content.
It's a pity that BBC sits on a million hours of TV and radio archived shows, that are collecting dust instead of being cited, posted, commented on, tagged, submitted, etc. Their loss. The web keeps growing and the BBC archives are offline. It's a kind of 'Encyclopedia Brittanica thinking' in an age of Wikipedia - trying to monetize at the expense of global accessibility.
It seems reasonable that Google should comply with the laws of where they do business.
Lest we forget, Google News links to the articles themselves. It provides a service to news organisations, for—as far as I'm aware—free.
welcome to the EU.
just to warn you, you might find yourself laughing at their patent law, should you read it and applicable case laws
I can't find the original article. It was pretty silly, around 2008 or 2009, the court ruled something basically opposite to the written intent.
I think it had to do with a really low barrier to prior-art-baseed-invalidation, but that might have been another weakness
One recurring examples I've seen in German law training (but IANAL): two parties agree on the sale of a certain type of fish but use the wrong (Norwegian?) word in the contract. What fish is this contract about? Correct answer: What they meant, not what they wrote down.
This might (or might not) be different in common law - but obviously still isn't an issue unless one party brings the contract in front of a judge.
As for articles about legal cases: Highly popular cases typically make more sense when you dig into the details (eg. reading the actual decision, not just what some journalist misunderstood the court's abstract to be about). Sometimes they remain puzzling - but I fear that's a feature of all legal systems.
And then there's the additional complication that patent cases seem to run under ever-so-slightly different rules to ordinary civil cases, no matter where.
Quoting Spanish news sources should no longer be considered fair use inside of Spain.
Laws can be subject to other laws (and judicial review). But yeah, fair use is an American Thing.
The consensus in Spain is that this law is very bad for ALL of the aggregators
I am under the impression that walled gardens and splitting by countries or networks were also pretty common.
Spain passed a law that "forces" news publishers to collect a levy from online news aggregators.
Online news aggregators will be fined if they aren't paying the copyright levy (yeah it's that ridiculous).
Nor publishers or aggregators can optout of this arrangement.
Google is stopping the Google News aggregation in Spain. They are NOT GEO-BLOCKING IT.
As we all know, Google's reaction isn't the result the people pushing for the law intended. Do you think they will just give up? They've already gone through several rounds in several countries on this issue, so I don't. Considering that past experience, I'd say there's a substantial chance the law will be amended to be stricter and more far-reaching and/or it will be interpreted that way by the courts.
It's common for businesses in a supply chain to each pay a proportion of sales tax (e.g. GST in Australia, and in NZ), so it doesn't seem all that ridiculous for a country to do the same with a "copyright levy" in the media/search industry.
Generally I agree, however. The ethic mostly seems to be gone. And it has to be taken care of by enforcing copyright and privacy protection laws. I had my wake-up moment when Facebook started copying whole Wikipedia articles instead of linking.
Articles about this have been going around Spanish news aggregators for a while. Now that there's an official statement from Google, message will finally go around the world showing what kind of stupid laws the Spanish government is passing around with the influence of the powerful copyright lobbies.
Now, about the recent Spanish Intellectual Property reform. The particular reform affecting Google is actually called the AEDE tax. This reform will affect any news aggregator operating in Spain.
AEDE stands for Asociación de Editores de Diarios Españoles, as in Spanish Association of Newspaper Editors. This private association, together with another one called CEDRO, will take care of collecting this tax. Even if your publication is not associated with AEDE and because this reform is law, they will have the obligation to collect it.
This reform smells exactly the same as an old anti-piracy law. Just change AEDE for SGAE (another association, related to authors and editors). For a while, any kind of media support was subject to this tax. Any media support, including hard drives and even cameras, on the pretense that these might be used to store content subject to IP. This law was derogated on 2011, but not completely. Now it's the state the one who pays this tax to SGAE. I can see this AEDE tax having poor results, and either the public or the state ending up having to pay for it.
Funnily enough, this just shows how weird and different some people think. This tax is proposing that news aggregators cause loss damage to news producers just as torrent aggregators cause damages to Warner. Note that this IP reform also includes fines of around 150k to 600k euros for running a site that links to copyrighted material. Before, it was only an infraction if a site was causing "significant damages". This has been eliminated, as in, any damage is a significant damage.
Just as a remark, let's not confuse this with the so-called "Google Tax", which is related to stopping Google and other big co's from evading taxes in Europe and has nothing to do with intellectual property. To be fair, I do not even know by now, as they call "Google tax" anything that is going to affect Google, nevermind.
The conservative party massively expanded the copyright of publishers (German legislation: Leistungsschutzrecht - English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_p... )
and some of the larger publishers then started to demand payments from Google for including snippets in its news services. Google reacted by removing all those publishers from their news indexes and services.
Somewhere down the line even the dumbest of those publishers must have realised (they've been receiving 80%+ of their traffic via Google) that the laws pushed through by their sock puppets in Berlin did not give them the additional extra risk free payments they had expected (for the work of others - in this case Google). Hint to the publishers: Understand how the (distribution) medium works before you write yourself some dreamy business plans.
To my know by now almost all of those publishers have paddled back and have given Google free licenses so that they again will be included in the index - Question: Will they provided the same free licenses to other search engines or web sites? - looks like this should be another example for an overall review of the legality of these publisher friendly regulation vs fair use & censorship. It will then be another change of legislation pushed through for "special interest groups" by the current government and it's last 2 predecessors that has been declared unconstitutional.
The latest step in this play was the EU Parliament vote on breaking up Google (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/27/european-p...) - I wonder who paid for that vote.
In essence, if I were to write a song, record it and put it on youtube and it gets enough exposure, the GEMA will find it and make youtube to block it because they did not pay the GEMA for this use. Even though I am not a member of GEMA and have never told them to be my intellectual property rights enforcer.
In the case of the digital canon the organization behind it (SGAE) had eight members (including the president) arrested and charged with embezzlement (87 million euros from 1997 to 2011).
I wouldn't be surprised if anything like that happened with this new AEDE tax. Just give them time!
> In essence, if I were to write a song, record it and put it on youtube and it gets enough exposure, the GEMA will find it and make youtube to block it because they did not pay the GEMA for this use.
Completely and utterly false.
its also false because it has nothing to do with popularity. I've seen very small artists getting blocked here because youtube has data identifying them as a member of any PRO (Performance Rights Organization) that has an agreement with GEMA to get money collected in Germany and then forwarded to the PRO in the home country of the artist.
members of other PROs or anybody that does not sign on to a PRO are unaffected.
I detest GEMA and have protested in the streets against them, but the statement above is false.
Performance royalties for music are quite standard, this is one of the primary business models for music. Broadcasters earn money through advertising and pay content producers for the use of the content.
The Spanish news situation is different, since these are just search results excerpts leading directly to the news website.
This is to show how unreasonable that law is if it's really as general as it looks.
Germany passed a similar law to Spain’s and Google removed newspapers from Google News in response but in October publishers reached an agreement with the company after traffic to their websites plummeted.
(though of course they may be overstating the requirement)
Kind of like what amazon did when France forced them to charge shipping.
They made a law of no free shipping, so Amazon charged 0.01 for shipping. Seems like a loophole to me.
For online merchant, the law allowed the 5% discount to apply only on shipping and shipping can't be free.
So it doesn't matter if amazon shipping is 1cts or 1 eur, as long as it costs less than 5% it is free for the customer.
But while shipping is still free, they now have to sell more expensive books.
From the point of view of the government the law worked as intended and there is no loophole, amazon and online booksellers just became more expensive than offline shops (since they can have both free shipping and 5% discount).
Personally if find that amazon played very well there, they managed to have the public perceive as a win what was a total loss.
Of course, as with most such conservative stupidities, it fails by not understanding how the current order actually work.
I speculate that they consider Google News to have monopolistic power, so that even if a fair market in snippets would set a finite price Google News would still use its clout to drive that price to zero by removing individual papers who tried to charge. A mandatory price would counter act this, similar to the way that government mandates to publish open access give bargaining power to the researchers over oligopolies like Nature and Science.
Big news companies have complained for years about aggregation yet generally sulked when it's been removed (see Germany).
This seems much more like the reverse, where indeed the government is trying to prevent individual publishers from benefiting over others by not charging for snippets of their stories, but it seems much more in service of propping up the existing oligopoly of the news world.
>> This new legislation requires every Spanish publication to charge services like Google News for showing even the smallest snippet from their publications, whether they want to or not.
In Spain it's not possible for publishers to allow Google to post without payment.
So, yeah, in this case I missed the point ...
Do you also believe Google should remove the excerpts from web sites on search result pages?
However, you've asked the tricky question. Is it necessary to go to the website or to the original news article or not?
That's just my moral based evaluation, I guess from the perspective of a lawyer it's seen differently, much more strictly.
Are you saying that quoting and news aggregation must be illegal without consent?
edit: Something that sticks out is that the law dictates how any agreement involving ip is to be done even if previous agreements are in place in order to cover costs "equitably". Yet I can't see how Google isn't already beneficial. The wording suggests Google would be causing damages since damages can be included in payments under this law.
For Spain, speaking sociologically, how long can an advanced country have 30%-35% real unemployment, before there are severely destabilizing effects that tumble out of that (culturally, politically and so on). Greece is facing a similar context and similar extreme unemployment problems. I would think it dramatically increases the risk of getting dangerous politicians that start making fantastical promises, with voters increasingly willing to buy into them.
There has been a near total collapse across Europe of the system of promises that were made, that support the premise of the modern welfare state. Only a few countries have been spared (either partially or totally), such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. France's economy for example is smaller than it was in 2004 inflation adjusted. GDP for the whole of Europe is still below 2007 levels. Even Finland's per capita GDP hasn't increased since 1990 inflation adjusted. How long can such stagnation continue before there are severe consequences.
As a European who watches the US, I hope the irony of your statement has not escaped you.
The NSA, the Can-Spam act, the TSA, Guantanamo Bay, how Obama gave a kill order on a US citizen without due process, how the hardline christian right and hardline libertarians across the pond would make most of our local extreme right wing clowns look like socialists, how some major libertarian voices in financial news are regularly cheerleading whacky anti-Europeans, the list could go on ad nauseam.
> Even Finland's per capita GDP hasn't increased since 1990 inflation adjusted. How long can such stagnation continue before there are severe consequences.
Doesn't sound so dire... The main reason that inflation-adjusted income has increased in the average US family unit since the 1970s is that it went from one bread earner to two. (See e.g. Elizabeth Warren's research on debt or her books, for instance The Two Income Trap, for the gory details.) I'm not seeing pitchforks.
In more seriousness, this is not meant to be a contest. The point is that things aren't as bad on the continent as you might read in Anglo-Saxon news outlets.
There's some uneasiness and some distress, sure. Here, like on the other side of the pond, the main cause of it at the end of the day is economic woes, most of which stem from bailing out the well connected instead of having let the financial system collapse -- for better or worse.
The most important take away, imho, is that we're at peace. Consider... Since the fall of Rome, we had been almost constantly at war with each other. Whereas besides the Balkans in the 1990s, and the ongoing skirmishes in Crimea, there has been no war here since WW2. That's the longest period of peace between Europe's major powers in history. And thankfully, no ending of this streak is on anyone's radar.
There's no irony in fact. I didn't claim the US condition was X Y or Z.
There's nothing ironic about a heart disease patient pointing out the condition of another heart disease patient. Nor does pointing such out, imply that the observer is lacking of heart disease.
Your reach is a failure of the application of logic. Just because I note that Europe has X problem, that does not mean I automatically think the US is lacking in X problem. Your response was emotional, the classic need to point out another's flaws because your flaws were pointed out. I get that.
I don't get my European news from Fox or CNN. And I pay close attention to the economic data coming from just about every country in Europe. I'd argue I'm likely better versed on the economics of most every country in Europe than most Europeans.
Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. ;-)
To be fair, he did say freedom seems to be on the retreat globally. The US and the EU are both guilty of this, though I'd argue that torture and illegal detention are a bit worse in that respect than banning newspapers from the internet (or maybe not, now that I've formulated it like that).
The EU does have the edge that these movements away from freedom are somewhat balanced by other movements towards guaranteeing freedom (like the user data protection directive).
What do you mean by "large number of the population"? Most of the wasted money that Spain, Portugal and Greece pay are the interest on the loans they had to take to bail out the banks.
Including having billions sitting around waiting for the banks to fail. Of course the banks say they don't need it, but the interest is almost nil, so they all took loans from that money to borrow to the economy with giant profits. Those loans provided by the international institutions are simply wealth redistribution, from the poorer southern countries to the richer countries.
I don't know how you draw that conclusion. What source are you using? Interest expenditure in Spain is around 3.5% of GDP, just look at the Eurostat numbers. Then, mixing Spain's and Portugal's economic situation with Greece's is just comparing apple and oranges, as both suffer crisis for completely different reasons.
Have a start here: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index....
> Those loans provided by the international institutions are simply wealth redistribution, from the poorer southern countries to the richer countries.
If no loans where provided the savings of millions of people would of been wiped out, literary. It seems you would of preferred that.
> If no loans where provided the savings of millions of people would of been wiped out, literary.
The amount of money in low risk investments and deposits it's a small fraction of the bailout. Not just that, the European Central Bank guarantees 100k€ for each person, no questions asked. It's the investment banking that creates massive losses.
Can you cite the source where "countries ignored the deficit limits to increase investment" and "while the smaller countries are forced into signing treaties that forbid public investment". I'm fascinated by this opinion, a source would be useful, and the name and date of the agreement too.
Again, can you provide a source for the use of capital injections as you seem to know "The amount of money in low risk investments and deposits it's a small fraction of the bailout". How small is that fraction, where can I see that split?
I've got a sense that you are quoting political propaganda, but no hard evidence. But if you want to argue with no substance, and say that 2+2=78, I'm not here to for that.
> smaller countries are forced into signing treaties that forbid public investment
This treaty defines goals that in practice leave no budget for public investment. In the last years Portugal's debt ballooned to 125% of GDP due to all the austerity implemented. Getting this to lower to the standards of the treaty in such short time forces any government to cut spending in essential public services, sell at discount prices natural monopolies such as electricity and water distribution and raise taxes (50%+ total rate for freelancers).
As for the last one, at least in Portugal the biggest amount of money was spend covering for BPN's losses, a small bank with a market share of 2% that required upwards of 5 billion euros of taxpayer's money. Another giant money sink was BPP, an investment bank.
- The "European Fiscal Compact" doesn't forbid public investment. Feel free to point me to the clause in question.
- And finally:
> a small bank with a market share of 2% that required upwards of 5 billion euros of taxpayer's money
What has market share got to do with the size of the capital requirements? Lehman Brother had 0% US retail banking market share, and yet the capital requirement was well above many of the largest retail US banks. You are mixing two completely independent variables! You are mixing capital structure with a vanity metric which is market share... it's mind boggling.
The Compact doesn't forbid public investment per-se, but the goals it sets, combined with the current situation of some countries makes any policy other than maximum austerity unfeasable. If we can't even decide how to pay our own loans, the government turns into a bunch of bureaucrats with no real power, might as well be annexed by the loan sharks.
Market Share in commercial bank should provide a metric to the size of the bank in relation to the entire financial system. It's the whole base of the "too big to fail" ethos.
No, in the specific link there is no mention of "ignored the deficit limits to increase investment in their economies had no sanctions". Your words, not mine.
Ok, so we can agree that "smaller countries are forced into signing treaties that forbid public investment" is a false statement.
Before I give up on this conversation: "Too big to fail" does not refer to market size. It refers to the entities that systemically affect risk with one another, and it includes institutions that are non-depository in the financial system... unlike the Portuguese banks you mentioned. It's really frustrating to read comments like yours on Hacker News, based on loose buzz words, but empty in substance.
If the population doesn't pay, who does?
The way taxes work, is that the population pays the taxes to the government, and the government in return pays for/provides certain services. Taxation is basically just like insurance, coupled with some sort of progressive redistribution or wealth.
Like in most countries, including the US, budget deficit is paid with debt, and increase in taxes. That is the problem. The solution here is to uncover the underground economy, make them pay taxes (at reasonable rates), although this is no silver bullet.
Probably at some point some guy in some country without strong ties to spain (Probably not south america) is going to wise up, make some kind of spanish-content-only Reddit from there, and earn a shitton of money from the ads.
One of the most iconic examples:
At least I see no reason for them not to do it. There is money on the table.
I wish Google would just block all their spanish services starting tomorrow. Also get MS and others to join in, and block all major internet services to Spain. I think it is even easier: block facebook and we have half the political party screaming because they actually have to work.
[Sorry for the rant. Just get so fed up with this BS...]
If that is the case, big local newpaper/portal will be happy. Because right now, there will be more people to buy the real newspaper/visit their site directly. Maybe they will see to a certain increase in their readership. However, the trend of information digitization is inevitable. Fundamentally ,internet is more efficient in collecting, organizing and delivering information than any other media. Eventually everyone will become loser.
I don't know how this is going to end, because law is not something that could be taken back easily. Hopefully, they will be smart enough to figure out something to bypass it.
This reminds me the situation is actually bilateral. Unlike the precedent cases, it will block NOT ONLY Spain but also the WHOLE WORLD to access to a lot of Spanish content. In effect, this is, IMHO, even worse than China's infamous Great Firewall, which is evil but not stopping google to index local articles.
This is not against Google in particular, is against a tool that helped people to find news in alternative media and gave visibility to small news sites.
This law is a victory for the big News Editors that are controlled by Government and economic powers in Spain
Like we say here, con dos cojones.
Just like we have the term 'patent troll', maybe we need the term 'tax troll' for some Governments.
If I were running Google (which obviously I'm not, and probably for good reason as what I'm about to say might indicate), I would use the companies enormous amount of capital to exclude all major Spanish news outlets and pay the the independent and fringe new outlets what the law demands as an F.U. to the AEDE. But that's just me.
I understand that politics isn't Google's business, but Google (and the Internet) is fast becoming every Politician's business; And I mean "business" as in a way for them to make money for themselves. So like it or not, Google is going to get embroiled in politics. It would be prudent to nip this sort of stuff in the bud, and make a lot of noise while they're doing it.
The only way for a company grow is to innovate, Google News is a tool that could help.
At the end of the day it is a lose lose situation:
I'm not challenging your assertion, I'd just like to see it in action and measure it for myself.
Edit: in case you edit or delete your post, this is what I'm asking about:
Does still anyone believe that 9/11 was a terrorist
attack. A lot of Europeans think it was the US
More or less, the opinion that the US government was behind the attack is clearly in the minority in all polled European countries.
Interesting to see the differences between countries here. That said,one has to be careful with polls in different countries: people's answers are very sensitive to question wording, and I imagine translations can introduce biases easily.
Well, you told me to...
Popular Party socialist?
Please, don't downvote him so we can tell how wrong about the Spanish politic he is.
Google may not directly profit from Google News, but they still manage to extract value from it. We exist in a top-heavy paradigm where giant servers profiteer off the work of everybody else, capturing a disproportionate percentage of the total value created.
It's unfortunate but not unexpected that Google's response is this snarky blog post. But I wish people wouldn't pretend this is somehow a giant government tipping the scales against "openness".
I see this more as an institution in charge of making sure our collective greed not getting the better of us trying to distribute wealth to those who create it proportionate to the value being created.
Is it a futile attempt, likely unaware of its own vision? Sure. I just wish Silicon Valley would get its head out of the sand and realize that the current paradigm isn't necessarily sustainable for anyone -- whether you're the one sitting atop Mt. Server enjoying crazy network effects or the person contributing value for peanuts (if you're lucky).
If it becomes harder to consume the news, people won't bother. The economic pie for news sites in Spain is about to shrink drastically.
I don't know a single person in Spain who uses Google News. Did a quick survey and only 1 out of 20 people I asked knew what Google News was or that it even existed.
Now, think why would the Spanish government do this if Google News usage is so marginal.
Spanish news is irrelevant now. Google will just show Spanish users broader Euro news they can continue to serve freely. Spanish newspapers just accelerated their demise.
You are so arrogant. "Google News needs to be stopped". Like you think an idea can be stopped. Please. The journalism profession exists because for a time it was profitable to package the changelog for reality in a convenient form and add a price tag. It's not profitable anymore. Like the candle-making industry, journalism is dead (as we know it). It is foolish to try to change the habits of billions of people.
I wouldn't consider myself an expert on Google News, but I can't remember reading full-text articles on the service. I keep a tab open every day and click through the Top Stories every couple of hours. If it weren't for Google News, I might never have visited many news sites. Indeed, if Google News did not exist, I would probably use the New York Times almost exclusively, denying hundreds of ad impressions to smaller news outlets.
Google News doesn't even republish full text. Just intro paragraph.
But newspaper sites seem to not be willing to pull their articles from Google News. They seem to be afraid that if they do, they'll lose all their traffic to the newspaper sites that are still in Google News. I don't know one way or the other., but I don't care that much.
If anyone is killing newspapers it's craigslist which ate classified ads, and Apple, which invented this cute little device called a smartphone that's snagged a few billion dollars of local advertising. And of course, newspapers, which all when online, which meant that you had 1000 news options, as opposed to the couple of local papers.
This sounds like a bluff because if that gets traction in the US then their search business will collapse. Imagine $0.01 for every search that shows a snipet of wikipedia to the wiki foundation?
Could you please explain? I don't understand how the data (ie all the articles) would weigh one down.
Wikipedia as an organization has some cultural issues that one might want to fix. I don't really see a problem with the data that would warrant starting from scratch. (Starting from scratch might be necessary to fix the culture. But that's another argument to make.)