[uniformlyrandom]

The question is, how much does Google make, a year, from its news aggregator pages?

I bet it is more than Bild does.

If nobody allowed Google to do the snippets, Google's news business would sink. But since they cannot pass the copyright law for the entire world, Google's business is less affected by the ban. Because it is a monopoly.

Shit, these guys have a point.

[nevi-me]

I see it from a different angle. Google has invested in creating both Google News, and search in general. Yes, Google's business would sink if nobody allowed it to do snippets, but it's also not in their interest to do that.

Let's go to extremes and say that everyone the world over blocks Google from indexing and aggregating their news sites. That means that smaller players can enter the market, but if the blocking is based on principle; then those smaller players would have to invest in infrastructure, IP, and still have to pay publishers! Then publishers then also lose out.

From reading the article, it seems like the company is saying we're shooting ourselves in the foot by blocking Google, yet we still want to piss in our revenue fountain.

[fwn]

Ok, Google will face less damage than a possible publisher cartel. That's probably true.

But how is that supposed to 1. justify Google as a monopolist 2. legitimize the cartels rent seeking ambitions and 3. make that "a point"?

[kevin_thibedeau]

Google doesn't have ads on the news subdomain. They only make money indirectly by driving traffic to publishers who are Doubleclick customers and adding new behavioral data to the profiles of logged in users.