[dexen]

> I see that my comments in this discussion are being voted down for pointing this out, which is bizarre.

Before posting the above link, You failed to provide quotation supporting your statements, and there were quotes saying otherwise :-)

Let's see, the original ruling went:

  Orders GOOGLE to withdraw from all its sites (notably Google news
  and "cache" google or any other name) all the articles (...)

(page 9, 2nd paragraph)

However, there is amended ruling listed on page 47 reads:

  Orders Google to remove from the Google.be and Google.com sites,
  more specifically from the "cached" links on "Google Web"
  and from the "Google News" service, all the articles (...)

which confirms your story. Thanks for being persistent!

----

At any rate, this lawsuit is bullshit, and should be called out till they blush. The webserver has been likened to house left with doors wide open and robbed in absence of the owner (page 36.). Seriously?

What The Copiepresse actually did was like having welcome guests for a long time, and then suddenly suing them for enjoying themselves.

The argument of META tags and robots.txt was raised:

  In 2006, when the action was filed, the publishers
  had not activated these tags, which allowed Google
  to inventory all their pages, notably "cached".

but rejected on weird reasoning:

  However the parties do not explain how it would be
  technically possible to, via these tags, prevent Google
  from reproducing ((the content)) in the "Google News" service.

(page 35.) I say, it's the same as with law or court orders: doesn't technically prevent, just informs what is allowed and what is not.

----

For a wider picture: the newspapers joined (by publishing public websites) a well established space: the Internet. It takes serious incompetence -- or malice -- to move somewhere and not follow well-documented, mutually-benefiting local rules.

Let's be clear: Google is no schoolyard bully here -- even if it was elsewhere the other day -- and newspapers are no victim. If anything, it's newspapers that advanced from large, slowly grinding company to a fast, focused start-up and found: their playbook hopelessly inadequate, their narrow field of view constraining.

[ToadyCensored]

You failed to provide quotation supporting your statements, and there were quotes saying otherwise :-)

The lawsuit is public knowledge, with plenty of articles written and a decision published online. I think we both know that I was getting voted down because I was correcting misinformation about a court decision against Google. :)

At any rate, this lawsuit is bullshit, and should be called out till they blush. The webserver has been likened to house left with doors wide open and robbed in absence of the owner (page 36.). Seriously?

If you started a newspaper that did nothing but copied the headlines and lead paragraphs from, say, the New York Times, how long do you think it would be before you got a cease-and-desist letter in the mail? That's copyrighted material.

For a wider picture: the newspapers joined (by publishing public websites) a well established space: the Internet. It takes serious incompetence -- or malice -- to move somewhere and not follow well-documented, mutually-benefiting local rules.

There's a rule stating that content-owners are supposed to let another company take their work and make money off of it? What rules are you referring to specifically?

Let's be clear: Google is no schoolyard bully here -- even if it was elsewhere the other day

That's arguable, but more importantly, it's a dangerous maneuver for Google in anti-monopoly Europe.

[dexen]

> I was getting voted down because I was correcting misinformation about a court decision against Google. :)

Can't speak for others, but I've voted you down exactly because you were making strong claims -- opposite to sources available to me -- without support (till you linked to that document). One of my mistakes, eh.

To the wit: I don't particularly like Google. But I strongly believe each case should be decided on its own merit, not on popularity (or otherwise) of defendant.

> If you started a newspaper that did nothing but copied the headlines and lead paragraphs from, say, the New York Times, how long do you think it would be before you got a cease-and-desist letter in the mail?

If I started a website that did way more than just copying titles and lead paragraphs from wide range of media sources, how long do you think I'd have to explain to various folks it actually is legal? It's the videocassette recorder lawsuit history all over again [1]. Significant non-infringing uses.

> There's a rule stating that content-owners are supposed to let another company take their work and make money off of it? What rules are you referring to specifically?

You have twisted it strangely @_@ Nobody asks the owners to let others use their content, only to indicate their preferrence.

There is a rule that what is served with HTTP 200 OK (and has such and such META tags and permissive /robots.txt) to a robot is allowed for that robot. Most websites need their content to be included in search results, news or not. Thus the reasonable default.

There is expectation of due dilligence. If you by mistake leave your home open once and somebody robs it, it's a robbery, plain and simple.

But! If you invite somebody to live with you for a good stretch of time, with mutual benefit, you can't then claim they profited against your will. It's your conscious decision, plain and simple again.

The newspapers did the later.

Web crawlers are fact of life, pre-dating the newspapers' webservers. There's an agreed-upon protocol for dealing with them. You either show due dilligence (which, nb., is easy and cheap -- the document you linked states clearly the newspapers put proper META tags in place at some later point) or you admit mistake and clean up your mess yourself.

Want a car analogy? Nobody asks drivers to turn only left. But they must indicate turns unambiguously with signals. The newspapers lit the wrong signal and now want their scratched car reimbursed.

----

At any rate, thanks for bringing the actual ruling to attention :-)

----

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videocassette_recorder#Legal_ch...