p2pnet sues Google News
p2pnet.net News:- Google is being sued by French news agency Agence France Presse, “forcing it to start to pull thousands of photos and news stories from its service,” says CNET News.
As it points out, tough week for Google.
And now, to make things worse, p2pnet is joining AFP in suing not only Google, but also Yahoo and any other other news aggregation services it can find for reusing p2pnet story leads, headlines and pix without paying for the privilege.
We’re demanding $50 million from each. But we’re open to offers.
Because if AFP can get away with it, we can too. And what about the other 4,499 new sources Google indexes?
Google News and similar news aggregation sites, “have become powerful, forcing news organizations like Agence France Presse to rethink their news-distribution strategies,” says CNET.
“An increasing number of people turn to search to get news, and many publishers have failed to answer readers’ shifting appetites fast enough.”
Much the same is happening in the world of entertainment where it’s not a case of the music and movie studio cartels not just responding to “shifting appetites fast enough”. They’re not responding at all. Instead, they’re trying to sue the millions of people who should be their customers into buying ‘product’.
Just like AFP which says Google not only infringes on its copyright by reusing story leads, but does the same with headlines and pix.
So does this mean Yahoo ! News is about to be nailed by Agence France Presse? After all, AFP stories often appear there. Or is Yahoo forking out to AFP? And if that’s the case, is Yahoo also reimbursing Reuters, the Associated Press and other sources for using their material?
CNET quotes the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Fred von Lohmann as saying legal precedent allows web publishers to link to thumbnail images; and, to use headlines and excerpts from the lead of a news story is fair use.
p2pnet excerpts all the time and now and again, we lead with a lead, although we don’t use pix (well, hardly ever). When we use takes from other online publications, we’re at pains to refer to the original source throughout our piece, and to link to it both in our body copy, and via the original headline. And we never include entire articles without authors’ up-front permissions.
But what about the thousands of sites (probably the majority) which re-publish partial and complete articles from the likes of AFP, justifying this by including ‘source’ at the top or the bottom, with a link to the original?
Will AFP soon be hot-footing after them as well.
[Note to self: dump Creative Commons license when you’ve finished writing this.]
Jon Newton
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
<-----I use Windows and my computer NEVER cra----->
See:-
CNET News – Tough week prompts closer look at how Google gathers its news, March 25, 2005
sued – Google sued by France’s AFP, p2pnet, March 19, 2005
March 26th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
so is http://p2pnet.net suing?
March 26th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
“so is http://p2pnet.net suing?”
See…
\Sar”casm\, n. [F. sarcasme, L. sarcasmus, Gr.
sarkasmo`s, from sarka`zein to tear flesh like dogs, to bite
the lips in rage, to speak bitterly, to sneer, fr. sa`rx,
sa`rkos, flesh.]
A keen, reproachful expression; a satirical remark uttered
with some degree of scorn or contempt; a taunt; a gibe; a
cutting jest.
The sarcasms of those critics who imagine our art to be
a matter of inspiration. –Sir J.
Reynolds.
Syn: Satire; irony; ridicule; taunt; gibe.
March 26th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
I realise that you’re taking the mickey here, but you should probably state that explicitly otherwise it could cause legal problems (real ones)
March 26th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
All AFP has to do is to have their entire site require a member login so that the Google bots won’t be able to access it.
March 26th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
this is kind of ironic for a site that has so many pro file sharing articles. but honestly, I only found out about this site through google news and now I just use the rss on my toolbar. So if it gets more readers, what the hell is the big deal?
March 26th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Google news indexes a lot of private members-only sites – which I wish they either would not do or include some way to filter it out.
March 26th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
I totally agree with you, I knew about this site through google news, and I read it almost daily since.
I do not understand the reason behind suing google if they direct lots of traffic to this site !
March 26th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Sigh…
Once again See…
“so is http://p2pnet.net suing?”
See…
Sar”casm, n. [F. sarcasme, L. sarcasmus, Gr.
sarkasmo`s, from sarka`zein to tear flesh like dogs, to bite
the lips in rage, to speak bitterly, to sneer, fr. sa`rx,
sa`rkos, flesh.]
A keen, reproachful expression; a satirical remark uttered
with some degree of scorn or contempt; a taunt; a gibe; a
cutting jest.
The sarcasms of those critics who imagine our art to be
a matter of inspiration. –Sir J.
Reynolds.
Syn: Satire; irony; ridicule; taunt; gibe.
March 26th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
If a site has a robots.txt file and block the google bot they wouldn’t have this problem.
March 27th, 2005 at 3:32 am
p2pnet and Google have settled out of court.
They gave me two jelly beans, a squishy donut and 10 cents.
Cheers!
March 27th, 2005 at 3:35 am
spend it wisely.
March 27th, 2005 at 6:03 am
Can I have the Doughnut?????
March 27th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
March 28th, 2005 at 2:50 am
For someone who brags about having a RSS intravenous toolbar, you have a hard time reading. Stop…go back and read the article. Now realize that you come across as a big dummy with your critical post.
This RSS crap is just that..crap. News articles coming out of every orifice, but none of it digested. What’s the good of having news stories every 2 seconds if you aren’t bright enough to comprehend what you’re looking at?
March 28th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Please read a letter to the editor I wrote to TheStar on this story http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/4635
There are many outdated businesses that are trying to sue their competitors or lobby government to change the law to protect them. We need to recognize that this has nothing at all to do with copyright infringement, and everything to do with these businesses trying to shut down the anonymous “no membership required” part of the Internet because it operates differently than the broadcast networks the incumbents were successful with.
This isn’t about protecting rights, but abusing the law to stop progress.
Russell McOrmond
March 28th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Considering the fact that several readers, including myself, couldn’t pick up on your sarcasm, you might want to clarify that point in your story. It’s easy to be sarcastic face-to-face. But not so easy in text form unless certain phrases are just too cheeky to take seriously.
Just my .02.
March 28th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
It’s dark humour / taking the mickey, not sarcasm. Big difference.
In a comment to a comment, I said, “p2pnet and Google have settled out of court. They gave me two jelly beans, a squishy donut and 10 cents.”
I should have put it in the post : )
Cheers!
March 30th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
We do not need cartel’s music. We do not need the cartel’s news. We do not need the cartel’s movies. We do not even need the cartel’s infrastructure, we can make our own wireless infrastructure. The only thing that we need from the cartels are the actual electronics needed to process and exchange information, and if forced to do so, we will learn to make our own electronics. Technology to do so is becoming cheaper by the day.