Google to publishers: We're not evil or illegal

A day after the editor of The Wall Street Journal referred to online news aggregators--particularly Google and its Google News product--as "parasites or tech tapeworms," and the chairman of the Associated Press announced an initiative to protect print media content from infringing use online, Google has fired back in a blog.

The gist of Tuesday's blog post, penned by Google associate general counsel Alexander Macgillivray: don't point fingers at us.

"We show snippets and links under the doctrine of fair use enshrined in the United States Copyright Act," he wrote. "Even though the Copyright Act does not grant a copyright owner a veto over such uses, it is our policy to allow any rightsholder, in this case newspaper or wire service, to remove their content from our index--all they have to do is ask us or implement simple technical standards."

As for the AP, Macgillivray noted that Google already pays the wire service to reprint its articles and photographs. A dispute several years ago led to this agreement.

Of course, Google News is far from the only aggregator out there. Digg, Drudge Report, and the Huffington Post are also big players. But Google is unquestionably at the top.

For the past few years, as many mainstream media outlets (particularly on the print side) began to lose revenue, influence, and readership, some of them had a pretty clear message: blame Google. At the same time, Viacom still has a billion-dollar lawsuit against Google's YouTube over pirated video content. And much of the publishing industry is far from signing on to Google's book digitization initiative.

With struggling newspapers in a panic over whether offering content online for free might not have been such a good idea in the first place, Google--the ultimate source of free content--is an even easier target.

But Google says it's part of the solution, not the problem, and insists that its search and aggregation products only serve to help drive traffic to online news sites.

"Users like me are sent from different Google sites to newspaper websites at a rate of more than a billion clicks per month," Macgillivray said in his post. "These clicks go to news publishers large and small, domestic and international--day and night."

[iRhapsody]

Basically google is saying "You cannot stop me unless you catch me!"

[Spimby]

I think Google is saying "you're free to disconnect your content from our search engine (the biggest and most used) if you want". Basically love it or leave it. The ball is in their court. I don't see them falling over themselves to remove their content from Google. They know that removing their content would be the equivalent a Mom &#38; Pop store moving their shop to a dead-end alley in the middle of nowhere. <br /> <br />Let's sit back and see how many of them actaully block Google's search bots....

[NetworkPIMP]

Catch them doing what? Posting links to content that's already out there?<br /><br />Google should stop including them in their index for one week - unannounced. Watch their traffic and ad revenue drop 20-30% for that month, and then ask them whether or not that still think Google is evil.<br /><br />Spare me the rhetoric... Print media is dying because the Internet is here and here to stay. Instead of trying to innovate, they're trying to keep us in the past. Blah Blah Blah... Google FTW.

[Super2online]

You seem to be forgeting that Google is profiting from people coming to Google to locate that information and giving nothing to most of those sites!

[TinyIoda]

thank you Super2online!!!! <br /> <br />Im glad theres a few people out there that understand the situation from other angles!!

[seven7dust]

I agree ! Google books has become the single most impotant source for my projects<br />I'm saved from countless trips to libraries thx to google<br />before I used to use torrents to downlaod certain books illegally cause they are so darn expensive<br />but now thx to google books I can read through and check it out first legally<br />and then buy the ones I like<br />The print media needs to die for the ridiculous Prices they charge<br /><br />Did you know that in India and a few other parts of asia the prices of Most books <br />are 1/10th the price we pay here in the States ! thats a crazy 90+% profit margin for these losers !<br />thank God for Google books....Google FTW !

[shootthecops]

so google is actually PROFITING by being a directory? lets lynch the phonebook guys now ok?

[Zomic13]

"You seem to be forgeting that Google is profiting from people coming to Google to locate that information and giving nothing to most of those sites!"<br /><br />Except that Google makes their money from ads and there are no ads on Google News, only links driving traffic to news sites.

[S R]

@Super2online<br /><br />So, if I am an aggregating agency, I should pay the news organizations money? Why?<br /><br />People is coming to google to locate many information. They are not trying to locate sources, but locate information. If your source provides that information, good for you. Otherwise, sorry.<br /><br />The same information is given by two sites. One that requires me to login; other that does not. Guess which site people will see?<br /><br />Google categorizes by news articles. So, there are tons of sites that report on the same news. Too bad if yours doesn't come on that list.<br /><br />The reason for having 100s of news papers in the past is because information could not be moved over larger geographical area within reasonable time. Given the Internet today, that's no longer true. So, perhaps only 10 newspapers are enough. But, let them do good journalism. Right now, it's all "yellow journalism."

[InklingBooks]

The problem with Google News isn't that they're violating copyright law. News aggregation may well be the only area in which they respect the limits of fair use.<br /><br />No, the problem with Google News is the reason I quit using it. It's aggregation is stupidly done. They assume that a few very powerful news sources, many of them government controlled and some with a clearly undemocratic political agenda, are somehow "better." <br /><br />For me, the final revelation came when Google was top-ranking the China government news agency's coverage of that silly runaway bride in Atlanta a few years back. The apparent stupidity of that didn't bother me as much as the fact that it was the result of the deliberately established policy I mentioned above and, I suspect, also part of a deliberate policy to curry favor with the largest repressive government on the planet. Money had trumped both good sense and ethics.<br /><br />Has Google News changed that official 'bigger is always better' ranking algorithm? I doubt it, but frankly I don't care. The core problem, currying favor with the wrong sort of people by helping them censor the Internet and spread their propaganda, isn't that likely to change. <br /><br />Goggle's problems aren't with the technicalities of the law. Google's problem is that it has grown into a enormous machine that lacks a beating heart. All its other problems flow from that.

[sythara]

"They assume that a few very powerful news sources, many of them government controlled and some with a clearly undemocratic political agenda" <br /> <br />site your source

[calculatorwatch]

haha yeah I was searching for information on the Zimbabwe "election" (they've had a dictator for the last 30 years or so) and one of the top stories was by the official government controlled newspaper, needless to say it didn't give me any real information<br />I don't think google does it on purpose though, I think they just need to figure out how to give better ranking to papers according to their neutrality, or flat-out delete those with an obvious political agenda

[InklingBooks]

Someone asks: "site [meaning cite] your source."<br /><br />My source was Google's public statements. The date of the runaway bride should tell you the time within a few weeks.<br /><br />It's a readily understandable policy. I'm not faulting them for having a policy. There are thousands of news sources, so all can't be displayed on the front page. But good sense and good ethics need to guide the selection process rather than sheer size (or age, which was their other criteria). Google, being huge, seems to equate being huge with being good. That's a common failing, but it's one deserving of criticism.<br /><br />China's government brutally represses political dissent, so why give it a top rank? Much better for Google to publicly state that, given the government's behavior, its news service will get the lowest possible ranking. You don't need to be well-versed in Chinese politics to do that. You just need a heart. At Google, greed trumps courage on a regular basis. Almost every business does that from time to time, but Google seems to do it more often than most. <br /><br />Also, don't forget that bullying is often closely linked with cowardice. The same Obama who forced GM to fire its CEO also bowed very deeply when meeting the Saudi king, something no other US President has done and something that violates the stance we have taken as a nation since we rebelled against George III long ago. Why did he do that? Because GM is bankrupt and the Saudis are rich. Similar attitudes drive Google's policies. China is big and rich.<br /><br />Even much praised news sources have their blind spots. The BBC has a tendency to develop a party line. During the critical years before WWII, that party line was appeasement. Britain was in the midst of a fierce debate over how to respond to German aggression. The majority view, appeasement, got an abundance of air time on the country's only broadcaster. The minority view, led by Churchill, got almost none. The BBC's much vaunted anti-Hitler fierceness came only after the invasion of France, a bit late to prevent war.<br /><br />SImilarly, I have been told that Reuters' Middle-east news service shares the same building in which Reuters has staff who produce, under a lucrative contract, the news for the government broadcast services of several Arab countries. Does anyone want to argue that that doesn't slant its coverage of the Middle East? Bias like that should mean that Reuters gets a lower ranking on Google News. I doubt it does.

[cleftobrainiac]

I agree that big doesn't necessarily mean better, but basing ordering of articles on traffic or relative trust of a website is something you can quantify and write an algorithm for. You can't write an algorithm to order them based on a human interpretation of "good sense and good ethics" of the articles.

[wdodder]

The problem is that the AP has become an competitive to its members, and a defacto monopoly. I really think that the AP needs to get investigated just like ATT and other monopolies.<br /><br />A great read is:<br />http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-the-ap-good-for-america/

[cleftobrainiac]

After reading that excellent article, it seems that newspapers have more beef with the AP itself than Google. I get the feeling that the AP is attempting to position itself for success while leaving its' membership out in the cold. Are they properly compensating contributors with the fees they receive from Google?<br /><br />How can they expect to survive when the business model they've used for over half a century is broken? I think blaming Google and the internet for your lack of foresight is counterproductive.

[scottthesculptor]

If Google didn't link them then they would accuse them of blacklisting them. <br /> <br />I don't go to the news sites and search there. <br />I go to a search engine. <br /> <br />Google alerts gathers what I'm looking for and then I'll go to the sites that have what I'm looking for - if they haven't already proven to be idiots. <br /> <br />If the news outlets don't want to be aggragated then fine - they'll slowly disappear into the backwaters of the net.

[LuvThatCO2]

Google is not illegal. Evil? I wouldnt rule that out.

Regarding news aggregation, Google's actions are probably not illegal. Their other properties like YouTube are a different story. What they're doing there is mass copyright infringement on a scale which is felonious. <br /> <br />Google is EVIL. They bully people every day. People don't want their Google to take pictures of their houses and put them online. Google does it anyway. Book authors have rights under the copyright provision and Google decides to scan and put their books online anyway (it is 100% irrelevant if the author could possibly have benefit, without their authorization, they have no right to do this). Google decides to launch their own web browser (instead of fixing and rebranding Firefox) which dramatically increases the cost of developers to test their applications (those who think standards based browsers are all the same are kidding themselves). Google customizes open source for use in its datacenters and laughs at terms of the GPL by not giving their mods back (since gpl2 and even worse gpl3 allow this, they are at fault. But a company with purports to do no evil, should try and do some good).

[loose_screw]

Your stupidity astounds me.<br /><br />I can take a photo of your house and put it online, and there's nothing you can do legally to prevent me from doing so. It provides valuable information for the public trying to get directions to their destinations. <br /><br />Google is scanning abandoned, out of print books and making them available (free to libraries), and they have offered easy ways for the copyright author to reclaim ownership.<br /><br />Finally, Google's new browser is heavily tested to ensure compatibility with most sites, and it provides a faster experience for the end user. I could give a crap about developers, as a consumer I appreciate their efforts.<br /><br />Oh, and this is all done at NO COST to the end user. Again, it is all about the end user, and I love Google for that.<br /><br />EVIL? I guess you can call them evil if you're a competitor and hate the fact that they're providing valuable services to the public for free.

[GMUHistorian]

Newspapers are acting like petulant children and throwing a temper tantrum simply because they can't have it their way and are going out of business. I interviewed with a newspaper as a reporter several years ago and the publisher vehemently said he wasn't interested in the 'net. I guarantee he's out of business by now or soon will be. <br /><br />Instead of still trying to kill the 'net, newspapers need to figure out how to make this new model work for them. Flailing their arms and trying to kill the net isn't going to work and only serves to make them look stupid. They're still stuck in the past and that mindset is going to kill them all. <br /><br />I totally agree with NetworkPIMP, let these newspapers request being left out of Google's service for a month and see what happens to them. Their internet site will die just like their print edition.

[NetworkPIMP]

1) Yes, Google profits (probably in some way) from browsers coming to them to get linked to stories of interest to them. Spare me the "evil" sentiment: no one put a gun to anyone's head and said "You WILL go to Google for all your news aggregation!" - there's no law, no rule, no nothing. Yahoo does the same thing and the AP isn't complaining about them... why's that? (btw, I think BOTH pay for rights to link some of that content).<br /><br />2) This crap about violating peoples privacy about posting pics of their houses - again, spare me the rhetoric... if you live in a gated community (by choice), then you have an argument. Don't live in one? Can't afford it? boo hoo... reality check: citizens of this country are free to come and go as they please and can travel down any public street and cast their gaze upon whatever they wish. Google doesn't step onto their property - and if you don't want your house there, they make it fairly easy to remove it - but, again, it's PUBLIC roadway. Now, I believe Google is wrong when they tread into private property to populate StreetView, and they should be spanked for that - but taking pictures of that which is clearly observable from a vantage point on public ground is Google exercising the same right any of us have to do the same thing... they just do it for you so you don't have to travel there! Not interested in seeing it? Go somewhere else...<br /><br />3) a rehashing of #1 - No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to use Google's products/services for anything. People go where they find the greatest value - and for many, they find that at Google. This doesn't make Google evil, it makes them popular... and people who aren't popular always hate the one's who are, because they're jealous.

[Lumiseon]

Finally, someone in here speaks some freaking sense.(NetworkPIMP) Google's doing nothing wrong at all. And the houses are public anyway. If you're in the picture, then you can get it removed. But otherwise, stop talking. It's not the end of the world if someone can see your house. The government doesn't even really let you "own" that house anyway. So it's STILL not even yours.

[loose_screw]

Thank you! People who call Google EVIL are only angry because Google provides for FREE what they want to charge people for.

[cleftobrainiac]

I use Google News religiously, reading upwards of 100 articles weekly. I can confidently say that if not for Google or news aggregation I would never visit 95% of the the sites whose articles I read. I don't believe most online news could survive without the traffic from aggregation sites. Keep in mind that just as the newspapers, aggregation sites have to make money in some way to continue to provide their services. <br /><br />Saying Google doesn't pay for content is disingenuous and uninformed. They do pay the AP an undisclosed fee for their content. If a site doesn't want to be listed, they have that option. Certainly there are sites that aren't affiliated with the AP but I would imagine that smaller independent sites are high-fiving when their articles make the front page on Google News. <br /><br />I agree that if sites asked to be removed from Google, Digg, etc. that they're visits/advertising would go down. I just think it would be more like 50%, not 30%.

[cleftobrainiac]

I'd very much like to hear cnet's position on this. <br /><br />FYI, I hit this article via Google News...

[unknown unknown]

oh no, heaven forbid anyone send traffic to their websites. I wouldn't be surprised if they find a lot of the linking and aggregation is fair use. <br />I didn't think it was possible but AP sounds even more clueless than the RIAA.

[Magallanes]

Google news is like 99% of the bogs of the net, they are not content creator but parasites that copy&#38;paste content from another source. To put or not a link of the original source do nothing.

[NetworkPIMP]

um... have you been to Google News?

[cleftobrainiac]

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Google only posts the headline and maybe the first sentence of an article while showing the source and crediting the authors at the same time. You've still got to go to the site to read the article and in doing so, view the paid advertising on the site for which the article resides. A far cry from stealing content or plagiarism.<br /><br />What's worse though, making articles available through aggregation or not having anyone read the articles at all? Isn't having news articles show up in a general Google search the same thing? Who would ever find most news articles if they couldn't find them via search engines at all? I understand that most news outlets would love to have all the traffic they have now but have it all be direct traffic but that's a ridiculous notion. Without news aggregators and search engines, I don't think that most news sites would garner enough traffic to stay afloat since they can't compete with CNN.com, Reuters, etc. for direct traffic. Local and regional newspapers need to gear up for the future because print newspapers aren't long for this world and at that point they're competing nationally and even globally for readership and advertising dollars. <br /><br />I've got a feeling that news is going to become much more regional as many smaller news outlets will fail, contract or merge into viable 21st century entities that can survive on a

[cleftobrainiac]

I've got a feeling that news is going to become much more regional as many smaller news outlets will fail, contract or merge into viable 21st century entities that can survive on advertising alone.

[Iocane]

Maybe I'm from Bizarro world or something, but isn't being linked at the top of a Google search desirable for writers of online content? Links from Digg and Google mean page views from people who wouldn't have otherwise seen your site. New viewers can become regular viewers - and lots of regular viewers means ad revenue. It's free advertisement to people who WANT to read your article, from your site. It's free money.<br /><br />Is there a hidden catch here? Maybe they're Google Amish and believe being listed in an internet search can steal their souls.

[Davey44]

That's the hilarious (as in Dumb and Dumber) part. People buy books, go to school, hire "experts" in SEO -- "search engine optimization" because the thing they want most is the world if for Google and the other search engines to notice their sites. So monumental moron factories like WSJ and AP are living the dream and want to punish Google for making it happen. If they don't want their stuff linked all they have to do is put a "don't crawl" instruction in their site's code. They don't have to ask Google permission or speak to them at all. But like idiots everywhere, they'd rather whine and lie in hopes their keeper will give them more candy.<br /><br />It's truly scary that organizations this profoundly stupid have responsibility for providing the information we need to make our system work. It explains a lot about how a gang of thieves got away with the biggest robbery in the history of the world without a peep from our so-called journalistic sources. The sooner they crash and burn the better off we'll be.

[loose_screw]

Print media is DYING, and I for one won't miss it one bit. I will also be glad for all the trees that won't get chopped down, litter the streets or fill up the landfills.<br /><br />Get used to it and quit trying to blame resources like Google.

[stigmattaman]

But I think what's missing is that online ad revs aren't enough to pay for news organizations to provide their services effectively. Part of that's Tough Sh*t for them, because evolving business models are par for the course, but this will end up hurting Google's news services in the future as it will lead to less original, well-written content.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Good for Google. Give 'em a cracker.

[sent2null]

The objection that people are making to google news based on the apparent random ranking nature of multiple stories for a given event which are not amenable to a particular readers personal political slant is a weak one. The whole purpose of the "all XX articles" link is lost on these people, click it and you get not just the most popular articles but articles over the entire aggregation space for the topic at hand. I may start by reading that first headlined item but I usually follow up with at least 2 or 3 articles down the list to gain objective balance on the story. That is why google provides this context , to help you make a more objective determination of what are the "facts" despite what may seem like obvious bias on the part of the source of particular articles. It is by using google news for example, that it is very clear that Fox News has a strong conservative bias in its article choices and writing. Conversely, it is clear that Xinuah provides a very sanitized China neutral presentation of stories covered when compared to outside sources. <br /><br />Complaining about the ability to objectively weigh news articles efficiently and quickly without having to buy 4 or 5 news papers to do it, is just missing the point.

[perspectoff]

Most newspapers recycle content anyway, which they have obtained from AP, Reuters, or some deal with another newspaper syndicate.

[jtabell1]

If and I say "if" they are losing readership due to online use of their articles or news stories then why do they have a website to begin with? If they are wanting to keep revenue coming in then they should start up a paid membership site to access their newspaper site much like buying a printed news paper.. I agree with most everyone in that I thought that all site owners wanted higher rankings among the search engines, and back links are one of the ways to achieve that..