Scotland’s Sunday Herald is running a story reporting that Google has secretly reached deals with several large UK news groups to formally license content for Google News.
The report notes that the deals are being kept secret to prevent other media sites asking for a similar deal from Google.
I’ve always bought Google’s defense that Google News drives traffic to other news sites and that linking to external headlines and providing a snippet of the news story constitute fair use. Google lost that argument in Belgium and it would appear now that it no longer believes its previous position is sustainable in the United Kingdom, possibly even worldwide.
Google has argued that as they do not run ads on Google News, they don’t profit from it and morally this holds them in a superior position. Yet if Google is forced to sign deals to provide links and traffic to media outlets, is Google News sustainable in its current format?
It’s a catch 22. If Google starts running ads on Google News now it would only strength the case of those media companies arguing that Google News infringes on copyright. And yet already the cost of these deals will be driving up costs for Google. Google will want to find a way to recoup these costs without having to pay thousands of additional media outlets for the right to syndicate content.
The issue is not Google’s alone. In theory any site that indexes and provides snippets of content from big media companies could easily face the same problem. Topix and Digg immediately come to mind, let alone the many smaller startups and personal sites that index news from the mainstream media.
Fair use provisions are stronger under US law than in Europe so it may remain primarily a European issue at this time. However with a growing number of media companies challenging Google over copyright on YouTube, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that Google News could be next, and there is a precedent. Google has already signed a deal with Associated Press in the US to syndicate content on Google News, a perfect argument for others seeking a similar deal or looking to challenge Google on the legality of Google News indexing and providing snippets of their content.
It’s about time. Licensing AP and Reuters stories provides most of the pageviews and revenues for Yahoo! News, CNN, MSNBC and everybody else in the category. That’s why when you look at the total traffic, Google one-upped Yahoo!, but when you look at the online news traffic, Yahoo! is #1 and Google is usually #5 or #6, since people don’t stay much on Google News page, don’t link to it, etc. Both AP and Reuters are fair with their prices, i.e., they charge the same as they charge similar large sites, and with Google’s keyword-matching relevant ads, the question is why they didn’t do it before.
its ridiculous…Google is simply a search engine with default settings which the user can alter.
How will the media sites compensate Google for the traffic they receive?
If I were Google, I’d tell them to goto hell and stop indexing them. There is no shortage of breaking news and in depth analysis.
Just like th RIAA big media seems to have lost the plot.
I wouldn’t say that it’s all negative. There are some benefits to licensing content and getting the data as a feed. Some of the comparison shopping sites started by scraping content and ended up doing deals with the e-commerce sites to get data feeds. This relationship worked really well for both parties.
Google could do something similar with the major newspapers. If they could get some rich data feeds and also access to richer metadata inside the newspaper databases, they could provide a much richer interface.
Duncan, I think you’ll agree that “social news” sites like Digg aren’t doing the same thing as Google News. Having users post their own comment about something they’ve read and provide the link to the source is something quite different than scrapping content automatically and posting an excerpt it at your site.
I don’t even think that what social news sites are doing needs to be declared as “fair use”. It’s pretty much how the Internet works: you see something you like, you write about it and provide a link to the source. You just did that in your article BTW
Is the comment above my isibingo classified as spam? Certaintly not adding to the discussion.
If Google is intending to buy the story, and display the story on its own site (like Yahoo! and others) with contextual advertising, then this might be the monetization of Google News. If they are having to pay for the privilege of posting a link to the story, then this is going to hurt other sites that do similar things.
sesh,
deleted.
RBA: I’d lump Digg as being closer to Google News than say Slashdot or similar sites (even TC) because of format. Digg links with headline + quote and although the site may be centered around voting the copyright use is similar to Google News, where as your Slashdots are strictly fair use plays, link, quote but then value add. It’s an interesting legal line probably best left to lawyers.
If Google were to display search ads alongside news’ search results it would be fair for it to share revenues from those ads with news publishers.
BREAKING NEWS….
Google in partnership talks with Salesforce.com –
Advanced Web based software to compete with Microsoft
http://www.reut...127967220070521
Search engines existed on the net long before newspapers went online. We are also VITAL to the success and widespread adoption of the internet for consumers.
If media companies do not understand the internet model then they should not publish their content online. Anyone who publishes online should expect their content to be indexed by search engines such as ours or google’s. That’s how the internet works and flourishes.
This matter goes right to the heart of what the internet is.
1. Displaying excerpts from news and displaying full content are two different things, and that could explain yahoo and google’s positioning difference in the news segment.
2. A year ago I read on some blog that the media companies actually pay google for the traffic that is being directed from google news to the media websites. Now this piece of story actually contradicts my knowledge.
I heard it like Tejas, websites you wouldn’t seek out for news pay Google to be a news provider and become pretty dependent on it as their primary source of traffic.
You’re wrong that Google News would face problems if they ran ads. These publishers needs Google News more than they need them.
Even if they DO run ads everyone wins. Google News only shows a small fraction of the article mandating a clickthrough . A rising tide lifts all boats.
We run a pretty deep crawl with Spinn3r (and have similar issues with ads running on Tailrank) and we’ve only had a few people ask to be removed.
Kevin
“Google has argued that as they do not run ads on Google News, they don’t profit from it and morally this holds them in a superior position.”
Well thats not entirely true anymore is it? Through their “universal search” and other tests they’re integrating search results from google news into the organic search results – and that puts media providers content right next to ads where only google make money…
/Martin
As Duncan says, this can affect all sorts of services everywhere and if Google makes these deals it could:
1. Set a precedent that could be destructive for innovation and fair use.
2. If Google makes moves to make the deals exclusive the implications could be even more significant.
This is an unsettling move for the aggregation and syndication ecosystems that should be followed closely.
Google news is a pure media outlet. You get one or two lines in a story. News sources like AP saying they loose from Google News is just messed up, it isn’t like Google is posting the whole story.
The only thing I would argue in favor of the media is that if stories are flying in, story x would only be seen maybe seconds unless you search for it. The media can say they are loosing revenue because Google only shows the first page in categories.
In fact this is why I stopped using Google News so much. When I want to know the world news, there is more than 20 stories going on. A come back would be, “that is why you use the power of Google and search for it.” Well, if I want to know what happened today because I don’t know, how do I search for it?
Google also settled with AFP. My guess is that google wants the content for purposes other than just Google news. If they wish to deeply integrate news content across the Google universe they need to start paying license fees.
I recently ‘registered’ my site with Google news. But still then, only the most widely publicised stories make it to the front page. @Yong Su Kim is positive regarding licensing in that Google “could get some rich data feeds and also access to richer metadata inside the newspaper databases, they could provide a much richer interface.”
I suggest Google take a hardball approach, and not start licensing as they already have started, but rather request special feed addresses from those who have willingly opted-in for use by Google news, such as myself. I think what’d irk the media sites is when their story is not the main one amongst the 1000’s of others that have the same story.
Not much of a news. Google news and Yahoo news in Japan are already known to pay hefty towards local newspaper giants such as The Daily Asahi Shimbun and Nikkei Shimbun. It’s good money.
One of the things no one noticed about Google’s Universal Search rollout is that with news now added to the results they are selling ads with the news.
I wonder if a cut of the ad revenue generated by pages with the news links will go to the news publications?
I’d be shocked if publishers give exclusives to Google on their content at this point in the evolution of online media and in spite of Google’s dominance.
As to whether Google should show ads, yes they should. They are providing a service to the consumer who’s ok with seeing an Ad in return for good search results. Google, along with other aggregators, enable publishers get to show case their content at all available consumer touch points, a level of reach that 99% of publishers will find hard to attain on their own.
Unless publishers are totally confident that they brand is big enough to drive readers to come to their site voluntarily, proactively and often, why stop aggregators and syndicates from freely show casing your content as a short teaser? I’m sure Sun, HP or any large manufacturer would do cart wheels if ISVs and Distributors created pushed their products commission free. Your getting the eyeballs and click-backs for free. Take it and run.
It’s interesting that Topix was one of the aggregators that came to mind considering it’s owned primarily by the largest newspaper publishing company in the US.
Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of unbiased news? When companies pay to have their news on top how can we read both sides of the story?
Perhaps this is part of a larger agreement that involves print ads as well as on-line ads and revenue sharing?
the news companies can and should hold google to the same standard that they hold the licensees of their content. failure to do so now will result in the news sources becoming commoditized, putting google in the drivers seat the same way the record companies must now yield to apple. learn that lesson reuters, if you want control in the future, exercise it now.