What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
39 Comments
- moiety, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Holy cow: http://www.google.be/en
- toran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8they already have a way:
robots.txt - Stig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm from Belgium myself and I think this ruling is just another great example of how the courts here need to get a grip on internet reality. I however do realize that google is generating huge revenue on content they don't own. I think that this is the real reason publishers don't like google indexing their content.
- walugi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If they threatened the world with its luscious chocolote than I would abandon Google for....... msn search.
*cry* :*( - JW00000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem was actually the cached pages. Especially, after some weeks these newpapers would make their articles subscriber-only, and Google still had them in cache. So that means that you could read articles you would normally have to pay for, for free on Google.
- TripleDots, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Back in the mid-90's, one of our "great" (ahum ahum) Belgian ministers (don't remember which one, though) had a similar idea: ban proxy servers, since they cache copyrighted material. Fortunately, the idea was shot down by local ISP's and forgotten about.
I hope the precedent set here will not set in motion similar court cases elsewhere. Google is an invaluable tool to both visitors and those who are indexed. In the end, everybody loses. Regular visitors come to your site anyway, and occasional visitors mostly find their way through a search engine or blog. - vonnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem isn't that google is linking stuff. The problem is that Google is caching articles. After a few weeks those articles move to a subscriber-only section, but you can still read the articles using the google cache feature.
I guess hiring a bunch of lawyers and wasting their time in court was cheaper than simply putting a 'noarchive' metatag on their webpages. - deadeyes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think it's only fair that when journalists and newspapers invest time and money in bringing a story on their paper and websites, that you can't just publish that in your own name. What google does here is creating content, with copying content from someone else. Instead of just linking to it like it does when you search for news items (that would be fine). There's a big difference in a search or a newsportal. In any case, if they would jsut pay the papers involved it's all solved.
On the other hand, the newspapers all have such lousy websites that it's normal you turn to google to read the articles. At least google has a good interface and better archives. Newspapers are struggling, and they do it again in the wrong way: in court instead of building a portal of their own all together they would blow google away I think... - vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -0/+3The articles were previously open to the public but then later changed to members only, despite this Google kept it's cache of the articles public available. That's what caused the lawsuit.
- Eoxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3By the way - ... news editors are not stupid - they know what a search engine is and they know what a link is ... the problem here is - if you let someone use your copyrighted content freely you let the door open to future abusing stuff ... Let say I buy 5 journals a day , scan them, make a mix and print them then sell it on my name - or even give it freely ... that would be fun .. the journal would have had the most reader ever and in two months from now this journal won't exit anymore .... that is a damn good way to destroy free press !!!!
Let get some facts ... People knows the newspapers that are in line ... so they go directly to the site or use RSS feeds (for Firefox user it is so simple - IE users have alternative ) to know the news if they want to ... So Google News is not the most useful Google service out here ...
Google news is an information portal not a web search engine !!
Google did things wrong :
- it didn't ask the permission to use condensed view and photo of copyrighted article of newspaper websites on this portal - Google change the original copyrighted article by doing so ... Editors can't control modified content that is published on their name on google site !
- Google keeps info in cache even when the news is no more on the original site ...
=> some part of the cache in Google permits not to pay for the content of the full article on the original site !!!
The archiving of an article must be paid on the original site and on google it is accessible freely in the cache
Newspaper needs independence, control on the diffusion of their articles and money to stay independent ... Money they earn by themselves not through Google ... !!!!!
@ saftaplan - read the newspaper you like don't blame editor to decide what is good or bad for them ...
@ Zypher - You shouldn't be ashamed ...
considering that the Law is respected - Google should respect the law like anyone .... that is Democracy ... but perhaps do you like another political regime .. let say dictatorship ...
@ vonnie - You're wrong - only some Flemish people think so ... and Not all do ...
When Belgium will disappear (cause it is the will of some of you) you will understand what you've lost ... for no gain ... - vonnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Problem with Vlaams Belang is that it has a reputation of being racist and that none of the other parties want to work with them. So I wouldn't bet on them to be able to do anything. Maybe CD&V/NVA would be able to accomplish these goals. NVA wants to seperate, and I have the impression that CD&V doesn't really care anymore wether or not Belgium stays together. A couple of extra drops in their bucket, and they might become seperatist too.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Google is the source of 90% of their traffic."
No, it's not. See, many people actually use their local newspaper's sites without having to go through Google. And many people use the large newspaper's sites without having to go through Google. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The difference is that the copyright system is opt-out. You have to *opt out* of having your works protected as it's protected by default.
Google is making people opt in to protect their own content. That's just not cool, especially given how much Google uses copyright to protect its own *****. - JW00000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Interesting comparison:
http://www.google.be/search?hl=en&q=site%3Alesoir.be
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Alesoir.be
It seems like the site of Le Soir is still available on google.com, but not on google.be. I however didn't find any articles of Le Soir on either news.google.be or news.google.com. - P5ycHo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Google get hit with it's own stick....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then, fatdog, those people aren't going to see Googles cache of the sites, are they?
Likewise, the people who *are* seeing Googles cache arent visiting the news site directly, are they?
Anyway, part of my job deals with analyzing traffic for many websites - some that get thousands of views a minute... and 90% of their traffic is coming from a search engine. - vonnie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Personally, I don't "feel" Belgian. I am Flemish. How many people in Belgium identify themselves with being Belgian? Not a lot..
- MrBreeze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I feel quite European, though if that sounds pretentious to you, I'd go with Belgian over Flemish any old day of the week. :)
Seperatism certainly isn't mainstream. I think what everyone's picking up on is that public opinion is starting to consider Vlaams Belang mainstream. The party itself, not the ideas. Sad part is, it's all marketing, not due to a real shift to humanism within the party. They're still as crazy as ever they were. Look at the 0110 Concerts, free concerts against intolerance and such; they oppose those. They boycot them by threatening to burn CDs of the participating artists.
Plus, if they can't even get on with French-speaking folk of the same damn gene pool, how can they even function in the European dimension? Bollocks to them.
To the Belgian or Dutch people reading: hop on iTunes and look up "De Buren" podcast. Some nice debates on the whole situation there, including tongue in cheek bitching about each other. - tlmac59, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's the direct link to the article, assuming its not too long to be included in a comment: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologynews&storyID=2006-09-22T124846Z_01_L22732625_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-PUBLISHERS-SEARCH.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L3-Technology+NewsNews-2
- iNoles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow, newspaper publisher is too lazy since they can't do simple task. they can add robot.txt like deny all.
- tlmac59, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This could create some interesting problems for those of us who surf the web. Global publishers have been watching this case and are planning to launch a system that will effectively limit how Google and other search engines can use their content. See:
http://digg.com/business_finance/Publishers_take_aim_at_Google_and_others - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3These companies cry that Google is cacheing their sites, but do they not realize that Google is also the source of 90% of their traffic? How would they like it if Google decided to kick these newspapers out of its listings completely? Theyd be losing a lot more money than they currently do by letting google cache some subscriber-only pages.
- inactive, on 12/25/2008, -0/+1this to, has been deleted by google.
and it's sister company will not even let you post the bad link. "digg" - vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -1/+2... so your site has bad PR (page rank) then?
And dude, the internet is a public place. If you want something private don't upload it for the world to see - Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would feel like a giant douche bag if my government made Google post that ***** on it's main page. Looks awful.
- Zygo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just like vonnnie I feel Flemish, not Belgian. I have the feeling that more and more people are realizing that it would be in our best interest to separate and create an independent Flemish nation. If Wallonia keeps playing its dirty game I'm sure this may happen within the next 10-20 years.
Mentally we are already separated. We have different political parties, different media, different famous people, we speak different languages, there's a (slightly) different culture, our economy is different, ...
Unfortunately the only political party who is really serious about the Flemish independence is the far-right Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang). A left-wing of centrist party which heavily supports the Flemish independence could speed up the process I think. - moore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a difference between uploading something for the "world to see" on my webspace, and having that information duplicated and stored beyond the period I make it publically available, on a third party server, without my permission.
- moore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Yeah, sure, and proxy servers are illegal, and so are the browser caches."
The difference is 1) (caching) proxy servers are not an easily searchable public database, and 2) local caches are only relevant to individuals who have previously seen the content.
Both may be technically infringing but neither are available on a large scale to the public with convenient search methods, etc. I have no access to another ISP's cache proxy, nor do I have access to another person's browser cache, and even if I did somehow have access to all the browser caches and all the proxy caches in the world, I have no efficient method of searching through them to gain access to the copyrighted material. Google, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of that. - moore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Google is really asking for it, as are most search engines, by taking control away from content owners and giving it to themselves. Ever had Google index a page you don't want it to (a page you own, have all the copyrights to, etc.)? Google's spider hits your page, adds it to a search index, duplicates its content in the Google cache, and so on. When did you give it permission to do that? Okay, well what's done is done, say you now want your page OUT of Google's index and cache? Well according to Google all you have to do is submit this form and they'll look at it again in 3-5 working days. Want the info they've cached updated since the old one disclosed private information about you or similar? Google's line: "we'll get around to it eventually, just be patient! can't tell you how long it'll be though...". Google acts like they own everything you publish, when the law and common sense says YOU do. Google should be banding over backwards giving you control over your content, not acting like it owns the whole interne--including everything published by private citizens on their own websites.
- saftaplan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I'm ashamed to be a Belgian. I mean, these sites could adjust their robots.txt if they don't want to be indexed. But noooo, they're too lazy for that. And we're saying Americans just 'sue around'? We're not a hair better. And the text on the homepage is just rediculous. Oh well, I guess I'm lucky to speak Dutch and not French. I guess all of us now know which news sites/papers NOT to visit/read anymore (lesoir.be, lalibrebelgique.be, laderniereheure.be)
And, guess what, http://www.krantenkoppen.be/ still indexes all of the above sites :-P - SimonDonkers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Google news has zero advertisement. It costs Google bandwidth, server power, legal costs, developing time and all that but they get nothing for it in return. The only profit Google makes is branding there name and if people are on google news they might just google something up but Google news on it's own does not give Google any profit.
If they would then they can't use the news items under fair use in most countries as Google then tries to earn money with other people's work but that's currently not the case. - vonnie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yeah, sure, and proxy servers are illegal, and so are the browser caches. Copyright laws that apply to books, can't simply be applied to the online world. They need to be adapted.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Belgium...hmmm....waffles and drugs !
- ravenprice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Why offer RSS links on your website if you can't use them? It's silly.
- elf586, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1it maybe content they dont own but i garentee you that search engines give those sites 80% of their user trafic
so lets think here for a second
stopping the that lets people know that you exist and that your content is good....means less people to your site....means even less people that will sign up for anything...
so why the hell is that a good idea? - Zypher, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I feel ashame being a belgian right now!
- moore, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@vonnie So Google can do whatever they like with your copyrighted content as long as they give you a seperate opt-out clause for each violating feature they have, which must be implemented on your side at your expense every time they think up a new one? Why should web designers have to spend their time working around Google's unlawful practices? Maybe Google should look into complying with the law the first time, rather than just breaking it and telling everyone else to go do X, Y and Z if they don't want to be victims.
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -6/+2seriously wtf? go to http://news.google.com. the articles just get linked, and MAYBE get a 1liner and a thumbnail. since when is linking something illegal? and if the site owner didnt want people linking to semi-internal pages instead of the index page, IT'S 1 LINE OF CODE to prevent this. what a bunch of stingy bastards.
watch out digg, you're next! - i440, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Why didn't they just ignore it? What is Belguim going to do? Make Google disappear for not paying the fines?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is