Digital Media

Google said Friday that a Paris court has ruled against it in a lengthy copyright infringement case filed by a French publisher.

The court has ordered the search giant to pay 300,000 euros ($430,000) in damages and interest to French company La Martiniere, which runs the Editions du Seuil publishing firm. The lawsuit charged that Google was infringing on the copyrights of the publisher's books by scanning excerpts to include in its Google Book search results. La Martiniere's argument was that Google should compensate authors and publishers if the company is going to scan and publish their work on its site.

As part of the ruling, Google must also pay 10,000 euros each day until it removes the extracts. Unhappy with the verdict, Google said it plans to appeal, according to Bloomberg.

"French readers now face the threat of losing access to a significant body of knowledge and falling behind the rest of Internet users," said Philippe Colombet, director of development for Google Books in France, in a statement e-mailed to Bloomberg. "We believe that displaying a limited number of short extracts from books complies with copyright legislation both in France and the U.S.--and improves access to books."

The suit was originally filed in May 2006 by La Martiniere and later joined by the French Publishers Association and French authors group SGDL, which had initially asked the court to fine Google as much as 15 million euros, according to Reuters.

This suit is just one of several filed by publishers and authors upset with Google posting excerpts of their books online without fairly compensating them. In 2008, Google lost a lawsuit filed by the Authors Guild and was ordered to pay authors and publishers $125 million as compensation. An amended agreement in November clarified certain changes and updates to the settlement.

But objections to Google's book digitizing projects have been especially strident in Europe, forcing the company to make concessions to European publishers over which books it will and will not scan and publish online.

Google is reportedly in talks to buy Yelp for $500 million. Sure, buyouts are a fine exit strategy for start-ups, but does Google (insert any other Web giant here too) have to buy everything that someday could be a threat?

TechCrunch first reported the Google-Yelp talks and The New York Times is confirming them.

Now let's play this out. Google buys Yelp, a big review site for local businesses. It gets access to local listings and reviews. Google then connects it all to Google Maps and its trendy bar code scanning toy and lines up local keyword ads. Through the purchase of AdMob it gets all mobile on you and sends you coupons to your phone (an Android-powered device of course).

Read more of "Google covets Yelp; Here comes the Borg of local content" at ZDNet's Between the Lines.

Google ventured into new territory on Monday with the launch of a new URL-shortening service it's calling Goo.gl.

Unlike some existing and high-profile shorteners such as TinyURL and Bit.ly, Goo.gl is not a general-purpose link shrinker that users can access by going to a standalone site. Instead, it's been built into Google products, beginning with Google's browser toolbar and its Feedburner RSS service. Both of those services can now create shortened Goo.gl URLs that link to the source content while using fewer characters. This is especially important for sharing on places like Twitter, where there are size limits.

The feature goes hand in hand with the launch of a share button for the Google toolbar that lets users share whatever page they're on with a number of social services. As for its integration with FeedBurner, Google now provides feed owners with a way to automatically publish certain posts directly to Twitter, which will again help keep the number of characters to a minimum.

Google says the shortening service is both fast and stable. The company has also placed the same security measures that go into its search index to block pages that may contain malware or phishing schemes.

In an introductory post on its official blog, Google said that it may eventually roll out the service as a standalone site, but that for now it's being built into Google products. Such a feature would likely allow third party sites to build Goo.gl link shortening into their own products. In the meantime, other Google properties that could certainly benefit from having link shortening built-in include YouTube, Maps, Reader, and Blogger--many of which have integrated sharing features.

Update 2 p.m. PST: As we should have mentioned before, .gl is the top-level domain for Greenland. Also, Google's launch comes on the heels of Facebook having quietly launched its own URL-shortening service called FB.me. Heading there in your browser simply takes you to Facebook's home page, whereas sharing links through Facebook's mobile site will shorten them for you using a shortened FB.me URL. More on that as soon as Facebook publicly acknowledges its existence.

Visitors of Goo.gl get this page, which tells them what the service does, although will not let just anyone create shortened URLs. Instead, Google is allowing use of its service through its own products.

(Credit: CNET)

Apple was engaged in a bidding war with Google when it acquired music service Lala, The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported on Friday. That helps to explain why Apple agreed to pay $85 million, a sum that I (and others) believed was far too much for a down-on-its-luck start-up.

What has surprised some in the music sector, however, is that Apple is considering a plan to create some kind of streaming-music service and is turning to Lala's managers to help oversee the new offering. Sources in the music industry I interviewed Thursday gave varying descriptions of what position Bill Nguyen, Lala's chairman and founder, will occupy at iTunes. But virtually all of them said he and his staff will have plenty of influence over the service should Apple decide to go ahead with the plans.

One of the technology sector's most unlikely rags-to-riches stories may be unfolding before our very eyes.

Consider that Apple--the undaunted music powerhouse that altered the way people buy and listen to music and that will likely generate $2 billion in iTunes sales this year--is now seeking help from a group that cast about the digital-music sector for years, swapped out business models multiple times (without ever finding a profitable one), and basically did little to distinguish themselves.

If you're just looking at Lala's performance in the music sector, this is like the New York Yankees' taking advice from the minor leagues' Lehigh Valley IronPigs.

The big question is what can Lala possibly teach Apple about digital music?

From car sales to tech riches
Apple and Lala representatives aren't talking, but here's the first thing you should know about the deal: Nothing is set in stone yet. The Journal reported that the plans are in the earliest stages and may get altered. My music sources said that Apple has not spoken to any of the four major labels about changing their licensing agreement, which Apple would need to do before launching any new service.

To understand what Google and Apple may see in Lala, one must start with Nguyen, the company's jovial founder.

The son of Vietnamese immigrants, Nguyen (pronounced "win") is charming, wild about surfing and is well known as one of Silicon Valley's smoothest communicators. A so-so student who attended but did not graduate from Houston Baptist University, Nguyen started out selling cars but cashed in big in 1999 when he sold Onebox, an e-mail technology company, for $850 million.

Since then, he has started several other companies in addition to Lala, including Seven, a Wi-Fi software firm.

Eric Schmidt's Google charges were trying to get their hands on Lala, but Apple got the company instead.

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET )

He is very close to Eddy Cue, the revered Apple exec who runs iTunes. What may be most important about Nguyen is that he has long had plans to take down the MP3 format. (In Apple's case, the company uses the unprotected AAC format) He has often said that MP3, the digital audio format embraced by so many music fans, is on its way out. He believes downloads have outlived their usefullness and that in the future, consumers will store their music in the cloud instead of on their hard drives.

"Will you ever (in the future) use an electronic device if it's not connected or doesn't have a browser?" Nguyen asked me a year ago. "You've got to face it, there's nothing you don't do in a browser."

Palo Alto, Calif.-based Lala started as an online marketplace where users arranged to swap CDs with each other. Lala then began streaming music to Web-enabled devices. The company would scan a users' computer hard drive and then enable the person to access the same songs--provided Lala had the rights--via the Web.

According to a report in The New York Times, Lala had concluded that it wouldn't reach profitability anytime soon and approached Apple in the hopes of making a deal.

The end of iTunes downloads?
The natural conclusion to make here is that by acquiring Lala, Apple may be laying the groundwork for a move away from the traditional song download. If this is correct, it would be stunning in that Apple has built a retail empire by selling downloads.

If Apple is preparing such a plan, that would suit the music industry just fine. Plenty of people at the top four labels have long been uncomfortable with unprotected music files. The major recording companies favor formats that protect music from being copied and shared. Label executives have also said that selling individual songs isn't a good business as the profit margins are small and it's a not a model that can't grow. Nguyen's ideas appealed to many at the music labels, particularly those at Warner Music Group, which invested $20 million into the company.

In May, Warner announced that it had to write down about $11 million of the Lala investment.

Some of the music execs I've talked to say they see a world where music buyers will leap at the chance to buy a song for life. In a world where music is stored on the servers of big companies, a consumer never has to worry about losing a song library to a broken hard drive or lost music player.

Of course, consumers would likely pay a premium for this life-time ownership and cloud-based service, but many in the industry feel that the public is ready for that kind of offer.

By all appearances, Nguyen could be the architect of this vision at iTunes.

Regardless of Lala's shortcomings, the company created something good enough to lure Google and Apple, two of technology's most successful companies. That alone isn't a bad resume.

And when you look at the $85 million purchase price, Nguyen engineered by far the best exit in the the battered digital music sector in at least a year.

There's something else to keep in mind about Nguyen; he recovers from spills quickly, usually in time to catch the next big wave. Hang 10, Bill.

Editors' note: This is a guest column. See Larry Downes' bio below.

It's been a bad week for those, like me, who feel the debate over data privacy too often casts information businesses as evil Halloween monsters, determined to terrorize and humiliate their customers just for the fun of it.

On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission held the first of three conferences on privacy and technology, at which a parade of consumer advocates and legal scholars warned of an imminent data apocalypse.

Recent events seemed, alas, to support that view. Sprint, for example, reported that over the last 13 months, it has received more than 8 million requests for GPS data about customer location and movement from law enforcement agencies. (Sprint is now determining the number customers affected, estimated to be in the thousands.)

Verizon and Yahoo filed objections to a Freedom of Information Act request that asked how much the companies charge to comply with government surveillance orders, claiming that release of the information would "shock" and "confuse" customers.

Then, Google's notoriously private CEO, Eric Schmidt, brushed aside a CNBC's reporter's question about concerns that users are putting too much trust in his company, saying, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

Most disturbing at all is what happened over at Facebook, the social-networking behemoth that now hosts more than 350,000,000 members. Based in part on complaints by government agencies in Canada and Europe, the company announced in July that it had begun testing a more comprehensive and simplified set of privacy settings, promising to give users "even greater control over the information they share and the audiences with whom they share it."

After months of what looked like careful planning, Facebook implemented its new privacy policy and user tools this week.

The announcement landed flat on, well, flat on its face. A chorus of the usual suspects, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California cried multiple fouls, objecting both to the nature of the changes and the way in which they were being imperiously foisted on users. "Under the banner of simplification," said Electronic Privacy Information's Center's Marc Rotenberg, "Facebook has pushed users to downgrade their privacy."

First, a word about the changes themselves. In a detailed exegesis published on Wednesday, EFF's Kevin Bankston divided the revisions into three categories: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

In the good column, Bankston noted that all Facebook users are being required to review their privacy settings and have been given new tools to simplify the process. For each individual post to their page, users can now limit who among their friends gets to see what. In the bad department, EFF doesn't like the recommended settings, which pretty much let everyone see everything.

The ugly, however, are genuinely ugly. The version of a user's Facebook page open to Facebook members and nonmembers alike will now show the user's name, profile picture, location, and gender, as well as a complete list of her friends. Most of that information can no longer be controlled other than by not providing it in the first place. (Facebook has already backtracked on the public availability of friends information.) And users can no longer opt out of letting Facebook and third-party applications, such as all those quizzes and tests my friends seem to spend most of the day filling out, access at least some information from their account and that of their friends.

Logic behind privacy policy changes
I understand why Facebook wants these changes. Given the sheer number of Facebook users, it's increasingly difficult to find friends when presented with a list of dozens of profiles with matching names and no other information.

As the company moves to find ways of making money from its network, moreover, open access to information about users is not just important--it's essential. Constraining the company's ability to publish and otherwise monetize that information limits the chances Facebook and other social-networking sites can continue to secure funding, compete in a wide-open market, and ultimately survive as a commercial enterprise.

That, at least, is the kind of reasonable explanation for the changes the company could have provided. Instead, it announced the new policy and implemented it at the same time, leaving no opportunity for user review or comment. According to EFF's Bankston, Facebook didn't disclose the creation of the new category of "publicly available information,"--that is, information about a user that cannot be controlled--until "the very day it is forcing the new changes on users." (Facebook did, in fact, allow a one-week comment period on a draft of the new policy, which is more than 5,000 words long, in early November.)

The company's reliance on good relations with its users makes the ham-fisted and tone-deaf nature of these changes both "shocking" and "confusing." After a minirevolt erupted earlier this year over changes to Facebook's terms of service, in which the company seemed to grant itself a more generous license for user data, a chastened CEO Mark Zuckerberg quickly reversed course.

More than that, Zuckerberg promised that future modifications would be developed in collaboration with users on an open-source model. "Our terms aren't just a document that protects our rights," Zuckerberg wrote on the company's blog, "it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service."

Exactly. So why didn't Facebook learn from its own painful lesson? While the company tested the new features with some users and solicited comments on the privacy policy over the last several months, Facebook reported in November that the number of comments it received on its draft proposal "did not reach the threshold to hold a vote." That's not a good thing.

Lessons not learned
Despite the high level of emotion, rightly or wrongly, that users attach to the topic of privacy, the new policy and tools simply arrived, providing some new protections even as existing controls were unceremoniously removed. Did the company think no one would notice? These and other recent privacy gaffes and missteps have unfortunate consequences.

Consumers, already uneasy about how increasingly intimate information is being handled online, will trust companies less, raising the potential for government regulations and new privacy agencies to fill a perceived void. That would be a dangerous result, and ultimately a counterproductive one.

Introducing new layers of regulatory bureaucracy will slow the pace of exciting innovations in information technology that have kept users engaged in the first place. And interjecting government oversight over any data raises the possibility of misuse of that information by other parts of the government, a problem made all too clear by continued revelations about secret surveillance under the wide umbrella of the Patriot Act and other antiterrorism measures.

The reality is that most information services do a good and responsible job of balancing user interests in controlling information access with value derived from transactional and other data that pay for much of what happens online.

Though often implicit, users today trade the use of information about their activities, purchases, and interests for innovative and often free services that analyze and aggregate that data. Such services help cell phone users locate their friends with Loopt, consumers simplify their search for products and services on Amazon and eBay, and connect with each other in the low transaction cost world of social-networking applications such as Facebook and Twitter.

The real problem: PR
The real problem here is not of policy but rather of public relations. Start-up companies increasingly invest early and often in legal counsel, in part to navigate the complex waters of intercompany relationships and in part to avoid potentially lethal litigation from patent trolls, unhappy competitors, and a global army of business regulators.

At the same time, marketing, as well as public and government relations, get little attention, as companies believe that enthusiastic users are now the best form of PR a young company can get and at a price that can't be beat.

Maybe so. But as information exchanges have moved from the purely pedestrian business-to-business networks of the 1980s to the everything-and-everybody sharing that characterizes our increasingly digital lives, companies who discount or dismiss the emotional and even irrational attachment consumers have to information about themselves do so at their peril.

It's not that Google, Facebook, and others need to change in any fundamental way how they do business. They must rather rethink the casual, careless, and often conceited way with which they communicate to users, business partners, regulators, and other stakeholders. When the lawyers lead, everyone loses.

For companies like Facebook today and everyone else tomorrow, users and the data they provide are not just the most valuable asset; they are the only asset. As consumers absorb that fact, they will increasingly use the tools of online communities--ironically, tools provided by social-networking sites themselves--to express their dissatisfaction with unequal exchanges of information for value. Better to collaborate with them now than to negotiate later, at the end of a gun.

Facebook, as Mark Zuckerberg correctly noted, is a kind of virtual nation, where terms of service and other policy documents serve as Constitution and governing law. As such, changes to both policy and practice require honest deliberation and engagement with the residents.

They can no longer be delivered as fait accompli. For one thing, it's pretty easy for virtual citizens to revolt against a government they don't like, or simply pack up and move somewhere less tyrannical. Easier than it is in the physical world, in any case.

Sites owned by Yahoo, AOL, and Google have joined Facebook and MySpace in expelling New York sex offenders from their rolls.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Thursday that Google's Orkut.com, AOL's Bebo.com, and Yahoo's Flickr.com are among 13 additional social-networking sites to use sex offender data available through New York's Electronic Securing and Targeting of Online Predators Act (E-Stop) to find and disable accounts associated with registered sex offenders.

Other companies that have agreed to cooperate include BlackPlanet.com, Classmates.com, Flixster.com, Fotolog.com, hi5.com, MyLife.com, Stickam.com, and Tagged.com.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

(Credit: NY Attorney General's Office)

There are still some holdouts. Cuomo called on other sites, including Friendster.com, Buzznet.com, eSpin.com, Habbo.com, and LiveJournal.com, "to commit to using the list." He urged parents and children to consider not using sites that haven't complied.

On December 1, Facebook and MySpace deleted the accounts of more than 3,500 sex offenders based on the New York law.

By comparing this data with their own user roles, Facebook was able to identify and delete 2,782 registered sex offenders. MySpace deleted 1,796 accounts.

In addition to deleting the accounts of any known registered sex offenders, the companies will turn over information about the accounts to law enforcement officials.

In a statement, Cuomo said: "It is no secret that sexual predators abuse social networking websites to find and manipulate victims and to insinuate themselves into their victims' lives."

The E-Stop law, which was passed in 2008, requires registered sex offenders from New York to disclose their online identities to officials. Information must include e-mail addresses, instant-messaging screen names and social-networking account names. The law also requires the state's Division of Criminal Justice Services to release state sex offender Internet identifiers to social-networking sites and other online services so that they can prescreen or remove individuals who match the list. It also imposes restrictions on sex offender's use of the Internet if the victim was a minor and if the Internet was used to commit the crime. Restrictions include banning the offender from social-networking sites, as well as prohibiting access to online pornography or communicating with anyone with the intention of promoting sexual relations with a minor.

Cuomo is one of several state attorneys general who have expressed concerns about the danger of Internet predators. In 2008, Cuomo and 48 other attorneys general entered into an agreement with MySpace that resulted in the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, whose report concluded that the actual threat of predators is less than many had feared and that kids are far more likely to be harmed by bullying and harassment from other youth. I served on that task force as a representative of ConnectSafley.org, a nonprofit Internet safety organization I help operate.

Vevo CEO and President Rio Caraeff more or less confirmed on Wednesday my suspicion that the music service was not created to serve a new need for consumers. Rather, it was built to help advertisers and content owners (including labels, artists, and music publishers) capitalize on music videos, and to help Google (YouTube's owner) offload some of the cost associated with administering rights to them. In other words, this isn't a business-to-consumer play, it's more of a business-to-business arrangement.

Vevo's launch glitches appear to have been resolved.

(Credit: Vevo)

As he put it: music videos are popular online, fans like them, and content owners think of them as premium content. But they're too widespread, appearing on YouTube, AOL, and many other sites, and the user experience is way too varied--when a user searches on a song name at YouTube, they might get multiple copies of the exact same music video, plus user-posted remixes, live versions shot with a cell phone camera, and even parody versions. More generally, music videos grew up as a promotional tool for albums, and advertisers and users have come to see them as a commodity rather than prime product. Consequently, advertisers haven't been willing to pay much to place their messages next to them, and online music videos have lost money at a "staggering" scale.

Vevo is meant to provide an online clearinghouse for label-approved music videos--the kind of professionally shot videos that often cost half a million dollars or more and used to form the backbone of MTV. Vevo will be the exclusive distributor of these videos, and will handle all licensing and ad sales, although partner Google is handling the actual video hosting and streaming. In other words, if you're running a video site and you want to post a video that's in Vevo's catalog, Vevo will be your only source. By enforcing scarcity, giving advertisers a central place to buy ads, and controlling the user experience--for example, ensuring that there aren't many copies of the same video on YouTube--Vevo believes that advertisers will be willing to pay much more to appear next to these videos. So far, this seems to be true: according to Caraeff, advertisers have been willing to pay between $25 and $40 per thousand views (CPM, in advertising parlance) for Vevo-provided videos, compared with average market rates of $3 to $8. Caraeff claimed that artists and publishers will get about 50 percent of all revenues from these ads--a much higher percentage than they earn from recordings. This is why Mariah Carey and U2 were so excited about the launch.

Interestingly, Vevo will also curate unlicensed videos. For example, if somebody creates a remix of a Beyonce song with an associated video, and it becomes a runaway hit, Vevo might try to claim the video, add it to the Vevo catalog, and handle licensing for its content owners. Caraeff claims they're not going after the home video of your dog skateboarding to your favorite song, but professional-looking videos that have never been claimed, and therefore aren't making any money for anybody. (YouTube doesn't sell ads against unclaimed content for fear of copyright liability.)

So what's in it for Google? Simple--although YouTube has tons of viewers, it also has more inventory than it can sell advertisements against. Licensing for music videos is complicated, and not in Google's core area of expertise. Google is happy to hand this task off to Vevo and accept a lower percentage of advertising dollars because it believes the cost savings and higher CPMs will eventually make business sense.

Finally, about the botched launch: As Caraeff explained, Vevo was basically a B2B play, and the company didn't expect many users to visit its site on the first day. But the publicity created by the big launch party drove massive interest, and the company got more traffic in its first hour than it expected for its entire first year. For what it's worth, the company has added 32 servers in the last 24 hours, and I'm now able to get videos to play on the site with no problem.

In addition, Vevo didn't think it was critical to launch with a full complement of content--remember, it's mainly a back-end and clearinghouse for YouTube and other sites, and if you were watching videos there yesterday, you'll still be watching those same videos there tomorrow (as long as a takedown notice hasn't been issued). So Vevo launched with only about 15,000 videos from Sony and Universal Music. In January, it will add about 30,000 more from EMI and several independent distributors.

I still don't understand why they launched Vevo.com as its own Web site, but at least I understand the thinking behind the company. It won't change my behavior--I'm still going to YouTube, and if a video happens to be provided by Vevo, I'll know that the artists are making some money from it. Fair enough.

Vevo, the new music-video site operated by Google (which owns YouTube) and co-owned by three of the four major labels (EMI, Sony, and Universal; Warner Bros. not participating), launched on Tuesday to some fanfare in New York. Big music celebs rubbed elbows with Google and label execs in the kind of self-congratulatory bash that only the entertainment industry can pull off.

This is as far as I got when I tried to play U2's video for "Even Better Than The Real Thing" on Vevo.

Maybe that's too harsh, but I visited the site on Wednesday and I quite honestly can't figure out who or what it's for. It's got music videos, but only from three of the four majors and some independent distributors, which leaves huge swaths of the entertainment landscape blank. As far as I could tell from a search of the site--and the search engine should work, given that Google's behind the site--Vevo is sadly lacking in classic rock and modern indie rock, which are the two genres I listen to most.

There's no Roger Waters or Pink Floyd. No Pixies. No Grizzly Bear. No Led Zeppelin. No Animal Collective. No Beatles. No Eric Clapton. And on and on and on. Go ahead and try your own, you'll get the idea--if you can get the site to work to work at all. (It's been plagued by glitches since launching, and my effort to play U2's "Even Better Than the Real Thing" around 1 p.m. Wednesday met in failure--the video froze around 80 percent loaded.) Apparently, if you can get a video to load, you'll probably have to watch a video advertisement before it starts.

The aforementioned artists are all over the place on YouTube--a site that everybody knows and loves and is largely free from video advertisements. And because Google is behind both sites, videos licensed for Vevo will also appear on YouTube, with Vevo getting the credit (and ad bucks) when a YouTube viewer watches a Vevo video. So why would anybody go to Vevo? Why bother building it, instead of just making it a new channel on YouTube? Who is this for?

The music industry, that's who. It wants to control the online music video experience--Universal Music Group CEO Doug Morris flat out said so. They're tired of mean old Google using its content to sell advertisements. But I honestly can't imagine why Google agreed, unless the labels held it over a barrel, refusing to license their content for YouTube unless Google agreed to help them create a music-industry answer to TV-streaming site Hulu.

Here's the thing. The big winners in the old music industry of yesteryear don't like the Internet. U2 manager Paul McGuinness has said that Internet service providers should bear part of the blame for piracy. Doug Morris earned some scorn two years ago for a Wired interview in which he revealed that his label didn't even try to come up with a digital strategy in the early days, when P2P file-trading networks first started becoming popular.

If you don't like the Internet, you're not going to be able to create an Internet service that people like. More than 15 years into this Interwebs thing, some people still don't understand that if they create an experience that users don't like, it won't get used. It's like they're still living back in 1973 when we only had three TV networks and one or two daily papers and a handful of local radio stations. We now have unlimited choice. Offer me something better than what's out there now, or please, save yourself some money and effort and get out of my way.

Hulu succeeded not only because the TV companies played hardball, refusing to license their content too broadly to other distributors, but also because it launched strong, with a big selection of desirable content. Vevo could certainly turn itself around, but its launch doesn't look very promising. I suspect it'll end up like every other entertainment industry effort that offers no clear benefit to users: on the digital scrapheap.

Google has often been seen as a competitor to traditional newspapers, but the search giant is now teaming up with two major papers for a new experiment in presenting news online.

Google announced on Wednesday "Living Stories," an experimental new feature designed to deliver news stories, updates, editorials, and multimedia focusing on specific topics, all on one single Web page.

Each Living Story, whether it's on health care, global warming, or the war in Afghanistan, has a permanent URL that you can follow. That page displays everything from headlines to summaries to in-depth articles on that subject. By clicking on the various links on each Living Story page, you can read the articles, view photos, watch videos, and access a time line for an historical view of the topic. As new stories and updates are posted, you can read them on the same page.

Google Living Stories page

(Credit: Google)

The Living Story keeps track of your activity, so it alerts you to updates you haven't yet seen and grays out or collapses older news that you may have already read. You can also subscribe to e-mail updates and RSS feeds of your favorite stories, so you don't need to return to the Living Story page to grab the latest news.

Since Living Stories is a new experiment in the Google Labs sandbox, the number of topics is limited. Google is working with just two media partners to start--The New York Times and The Washington Post. The newspapers decide which topics appear on their own Living Story pages. But Google has plans to develop open-source tools so other outlets can create their own Living Stories. If the concept takes off, it might prove a money maker for other publishers, according to the Times, as they could sell ads on their own pages.

Newspapers have been hit by declining business as more people have flocked to the Web to grab their daily or hourly news fix. In some corners, Google has been seen as the enemy to traditional print outlets. Media maven and Wall Street Journal owner Rupert Murdoch has even accused the search giant of stealing his content and threatened to remove his sites from Google listings.

Responding to such concerns, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt recently wrote an editorial in the Journal in which he argued that his company could actually help newspapers boost their business. And in the face of lower revenues, many news outlets have started to embrace the Web rather than compete with it.

From its perspective, The New York Times seems optimistic that the Living Stories experiment could lead to bigger and better things.

"It's an experiment with a different way of telling stories," said Martin A. Nisenholtz, senior vice president for digital operations of The New York Times Company, in a statement. "I think in it, you can see the germ of something quite interesting."