Shared publicly  - 
Here's a picture of Google's ad campaign in Berlin taxis, fighting German publishers' efforts to pass a law to charge for snippets of text. Earlier explanation here:
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen's profile photoScott Michaud's profile photoJon Nichols II's profile photoMitch Stokely's profile photo
Ich weiß nicht, ob diese Kampagne wirklich sinnvoll ist.
Meines Erachtens sollte sich Google komplett raus halten und erst falls das Gesetz tatsächlich wider jeder Vernunft gültig wird, einfach alle Verlinkungen auf Presseprodukte unterlassen.
While I'm a huge fan of Google, I'm not really a fan of bad analogies used inappropriately. Food businesses have relatively static menus and customers get 0% filled up scanning the headlines.
Zusätzlich AdSense für sämtliche deutschen Zeitungswebsites einstellen, das tut mehr weh.
What next, are the newspapers going to demand money from newsagents for showing the front pages to entice people to buy the papers?
I agree with the premise here....there is a problem looming with Google and the current search model we have.

Why are we, as users and consumers, all publishing billions of blogs, text, images, and video online so a handful of search engine vendors, social media sites, and content exchanges can makes billions of dollars reselling that content to advertisors ???

Does that bother anyone else? Why are we not sharing in the revenues from this web model? In that light, I agree with the Germans.
That ad is just wrong. The analogy is that the cab first drove by the restaurant, stole all the dishes and served them to its own customers for free in order to attract more business to itself. You are of course free to visit the restaurant after having the dish but then you'll miss all the other stolen dishes from other restaurants (at google news).
I like google but I can see the publishers problems here.
Google pretends its advocating for Internet freedom and the purity of a hyperlink....yet they themselves have a near monopoly in deciding how those hyperlinks and text are searched, and in addition get a cut in advertising dollars from use of that text and hyperlinks via adwords, etc.

Something is rotten in Denmark, here....
+Pär Crusefalk A closer analogy still would be the cab company giving the restaurant a choice: (a) give us free samples and we'll hand them out to our customers and send them your way, or (b) don't give us free samples and we won't.

The "restaurants" are trying to create option (c): you pay us for the samples and then tell your customers about us.

But that doesn't look as good on a taxi.
+Bracken King Actually whats happening now is d) The cab is charging the restaurant through adwords to drive customers to it, making customers drive the cab, and half the time the customers get lost and never make it to the restaurant. And many are the WRONG customers!
Option d) for restaurants would be to edit their robots.txt to say "please don't take any samples nor recommend us to your customers". But I guess 'the restaurants' both want the cake and eat it.

The real problem lies not with linking to content, but with Google and Facebook paying hardly any taxes, not revenue based, not ad taxes, no nothing. Newspapers and other traditional media have to. That is unfair competition. Amend that, but don't restrict the internet. Linking to content is part of what the web is about. And it is easy to opt out from beeing indexed. Making it illegal or opening up for a "licensing business" for links would be an utter mess.
Agree but does robot.txt stop advertisers or adwords links from being clicked. I dont think so.

Yea agree with the tax codes....not just Google but numerous US corporations that call America home use shell companies overseas and creative accounting in the caymans to avoid taxes. Facebook will be paid $400 million in tax rebates this years on a billion in income!

Again, something is rotten in Denmark here....and the World Wide Web is far from being free and open. A monopoly holds sway and content creators have no rights or control whatsoever, nor we the users in this broken model.
This is about Google News, +Mitch Stokely, not adwords.

Google should just remove all who complain from News, ban them from their search engine results, and remove pages citing their sites. Let evolution run its course. As traffic plummets, advertising revenues will dry up, relevancy is reduced, and... only the strong ones survive (if any)

Darwin would have loved it.
+Sander Raaymakers And then Sandy, the rise of a truly agnostic and free search engine model and web would evolve where content creators have control over their content and who makes money off of it, wouldnt it? :)
It would be an interesting experiment for Google to stop referring people to German websites if it requires a snippet of text or a data scrape... basically only using the meta data flagged for Google description.

I expect the result would be a massive decline in business, page hits and revenue. Then what would the German government do?
+Mitch Stokely We do share "in the revenues from this web model"
free email, free forum to discuss this...
As "free" as broadcast TV. Remember that?
+Mitch Stokely gets a service without having to pay for it himself. How much would e.g. Google+ be worth to you?

The cab allegory would work better if the cab driver showed the passenger a selection of restaurant menus to choose restaurant from, and the restaurant wanted to charge the driver for this extra service. Noone prevents the customer to go straight to the restaurant (newspaper site) without sitting in the menu-presenting cab (going via Google). The newspaper sites need to examine why they do not.
+Mitch Stokely (Your Quote) "Agree but does robot.txt stop advertisers or adwords links from being clicked. I dont think so."

Really? It's common sense, not a Google screwing content creators conspiracy: People who pay for adwords wanted to buy the adword.

A shame that common sense is so difficult to find in copyright discussions.

Why the hell would someone buy a sponsored search result for a search engine they did not want to be accessible from?! Google owes you nothing; if you bought adwords, you clearly felt like you owed them.

Seriously, just imagine the dummy who buys Google Adwords for a site all while voluntarily requesting for Google to not list it in search results. Who would do that? More importantly, why would Google owe them anything?
I think you guys are missing the point I made. The question we all should have is not how much free stuff you can get, or what Adwords provide, it should be how much your content is worth and why YOU do not have any control how its searched, indexed, or consumed online beyond what a handful of highly proprietary SE vendors decides. And why we all dont make more money off our content. Why is that income and control funneled to a handful of search engines and social media domains???

I am not demonizing Google or Facebook or any one vendor. But I am saying the web does not serve the User or content holders like it should.

What I am proposing is a "User Web" or a new model, where search is completely free of corporate control and controlled via open source search standards and where web site content holders and user data is managed and controlled exclusively by the user, you and I, not search engines and not social media. Call me a dreamer or an idiot. Its fine with me. But I am seeing more and more of these stories of publishers complaining about how their content is used online.

Its common sense that we should think of all sides of the problem and look at improvement, not just a blanket acceptance of the status quo.
+Mitch Stokely Because you cannot make any income if no-one can find you. 

What is happening is content creators are struggling with income, they look around and see profitable companies around them, and they struggle to convince themselves that they are being ripped off. They immediately latch on to excerpts to justify their feelings even their fear that users will just sit on Google's news page without clicking through any result is ridiculous.

And as for a “User Web”, think about it: if someone wants to find information, they cannot query themselves. Search directs a user to a resource when they feel incapable of finding it on their own. You will always need some standards bodies to control the method of discovery. Keeping it in a consortium helps prevent individual entities from pivoting in a way which breaks compatibility or freedom, but you are still headed in the direction the blob rolls.

Even if you have a completely decentralized P2P-based search index, you would still need some algorithm to browse it and some protocol to interface with it. Something, someone, or someones will always needs to make those.

You make an interesting grand-stand, but it does not attempt to be a solution to a problem: it attempts to sound like one.
The German courts would be wise to side against publishers, here... Were not even talking 'a page'of material here, are we? Also, awesome ad.
+Scott Michaud No offense but I better bow out of this discussion as we are talking about completely different subjects now. User Web is a web where search engines and social media pay us to use our content and we control our data in a central database.

As for the publisher question, under the current web we have now their only option is to let their links and content be controlled by search engines and give up that control like everyone else, unless they want create a subscription site behind a secure login.
Add a comment...