Comments on: Belgium and Google — stupid, stupid, stupid

By: Mathew

Mathew — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:58:48 +0000

Thank you for that, Sean — a very informative interview. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the Copiepresse position now, which seems to rest primarily on the fact that Google doesn’t ask for permission to crawl or index their content. And I would just say again that even if she is right in terms of Belgian law, the Copiepresse position is inherently stupid — both in terms of how it affects Belgian newspapers, and in how it would affect the functioning of the Internet if such a principle were broadly applied.

By: Sean DALY

Sean DALY — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:08:11 +0000

Mathew, to better understand the Copiepresse position, take a look at my interview with Margaret Boribon, secretary general of Copiepresse (audio plus transcriptions in English and French). Their position is nearly identical to that of the AFP.

By: Martin Stabe » links for 2007-02-15

Martin Stabe » links for 2007-02-15 — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:24:41 +0000

[…] Mathew Ingram: Belgium and Google — stupid, stupid, stupid “I confess that I still don’t get the whole Belgium vs. Google thing. I keep reading about it and reading about it, and thinking about it — hoping that I have somehow missed a crucial point or argument in the newspapers’ position that makes this who (tags: google googlenews belgium copyright copiepresse) […]

By: Mathew

Mathew — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:04:05 +0000

Thanks, Robin. I don’t really have any interest in diamonds (or carpets for that matter), and I don’t like beer or cars all that much either — but you definitely get some props for the chocolate. Thanks for reminding me

By: google

google — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:12:01 +0000

Maybe that would help :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfTLfXmqCKo

By: Robin Wauters

Robin Wauters — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:58:04 +0000

You left out diamonds, carpets, chocolate, beer, assembled cars, …

On a serious note, I’m also editing a blog on emerging Web 2.0 initiatives coming from Belgian companies (or individuals). If you would like to follow up: http://web.2point0.be

By: Mathew

Mathew — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:32:03 +0000

Thanks for that, Robin. And as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I have nothing but respect for Belgium — particularly for the whole waffle thing, not to mention inventing French fries (although I’m not so big on the mayonnaise part). Thanks for the comment.

By: Robin Wauters

Robin Wauters — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:53:35 +0000

If it makes you feel any better, nobody I know here gets it either (I work for VNU BP, a Belgian publisher). Always a pleasure to see our country getting a lot of blog coverage, though

By: Mathew

Mathew — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:06:56 +0000

JW, I do get it — I know that Google provides the cached copy after a newspaper has put the story in their archives. I just don’t see why it’s such a big deal to use the “noarchive” tag when the status of the story changes.

Is this backwards? Only if you compare it to a centuries-old copyright system that was designed to work with physical goods such as books, or newspapers that were actually printed on paper.

If Belgian newspapers want to dig in their heels and try to force Google to operate on that basis because they want to pretend that copyright law doesn’t have to evolve in the face of new technology — technology that can operate to their benefit, rather than doing them harm — then they can certainly do that. I just think it’s dumb.

By: JW

JW — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:47:18 +0000

I think you don’t completely get it. Google is providing a free copy of the article after the newspaper decided to charge its users for it.

When a new article is published on the website of these newspapers, it is first available for free. At that time, Google caches the page.
However, after a week, the newspaper limits the article to the first few lines, and to see the rest, you have to pay. This is normal, else they wouldn’t be making any money.
However, Google still has that cached copy available in its cache, and it still does months later.
So, Google in fact provides you a back door to still view the article for free, even after the newspaper has decided to charge its users to read the whole entry.

And on the whole robots.txt and “noarchive” tag thing: isn’t that working backwards? When I publish a book, or a song, it’s also always under copyright, and I don’t have to include an additional text “Don’t copy this, please.” It’s only when I want it to be freely available to re-distribute I have to notify about this, not the other way around.