Parece que Kirchner la plantó porque sabía que no era trigo limpio (?).
Hablando de tecnología, ¿vieron que a Google lo condenaron en Bélgica por levantar contenido noticioso de medios a través de Google News? Es un tema de por sí complejo que gira en torno a quien hace plata con la web, pero una buena foma de pelearla para Google sería hacer justamente lo que quiere el fallo: cerrar Google Bélgica. Que dicho sea de paso, tuvo que publicar la sentencia en la página de inicio.
Para ver de qué lado se pone la opinión pública.
¿Puedes vivir sin Google? ¿Usará Google este cardenal para escribir su blog?
Por último, en Alemania creen que las victorias electorales de la extrema derecha dañan su imágen ante el mundo.
Hablando de tecnología, ¿vieron que a Google lo condenaron en Bélgica por levantar contenido noticioso de medios a través de Google News? Es un tema de por sí complejo que gira en torno a quien hace plata con la web, pero una buena foma de pelearla para Google sería hacer justamente lo que quiere el fallo: cerrar Google Bélgica. Que dicho sea de paso, tuvo que publicar la sentencia en la página de inicio.
Para ver de qué lado se pone la opinión pública.
¿Puedes vivir sin Google? ¿Usará Google este cardenal para escribir su blog?
Por último, en Alemania creen que las victorias electorales de la extrema derecha dañan su imágen ante el mundo.
1 comentario:
Me gustó este artículo sobre el tema:
No-ogle News
September 28, 2006
Here's the Belgian contribution to the Information Age: A judge in Brussels this month outlawed links on Web pages. Now strictly speaking, the case concerns only a handful of Belgian newspapers and Google, which was found in breach of copyright for posting headlines, photographs and article excerpts on one of its news sites. But the lower court ruling, now under appeal, sets a worrying precedent for anyone who treasures the free flow of news and views online.
The Brussels Court of First Instance acted on a complaint from Copiepresse, an organization that manages copyrights for leading newspapers like Le Soir and La Libre Belgique. Citing a 1994 copyright law, the court ordered Google to "withdraw from all its sites. . . all the articles, photographs and graphic representations" belonging to the newspapers represented, on pain of a fine of €1 million ($1.3 million) a day. Google chose to interpret "all" as including its general search engine as well as the news-only search site Google News. So anyone googling this little European country may be frustrated. Google was also compelled to post the court's ruling on its Belgian site.
There is much to suggest that Copiepresse is trying to conduct what should have been a business negotiation through a headline-grabbing court case. If the Belgian newspapers didn't want to be found on Google News, all they had to do was ask; that's the company's policy. A possible technical solution exists too for publications that want to be search-engine invisible: Some Web site administrators write instructions into their site's code that asks the Web-trawling programs sent out by search engines, sometimes called spiders or robots, to ignore them.
What Copiepresse would like, though, is not to be erased from search engines like Google, but to be paid for its content. As the organization's General Secretary, Margaret Boribon, told Reuters, "We are asking for Google to pay and seek our authorization to use our content. . . . Google sells advertising and makes money on our content." At least we now know that calling in attack lawyers first isn't only an American foible.
Google doesn't actually advertise on its news sites, but some papers fear that it soon will, thus, they argue, snatching away newspapers' own ad revenue. Of course, newspapers also gain traffic from being found online. A paper would have a hard time proving financial damage against a search engine.
Google, meanwhile, maintains that the snippets it uses on Google News fall under the "fair use" doctrine, which allows small parts of a copyrighted work to be copied without legal liability. Fair use has yet to be fully defined for the Internet age, but the logical conclusion of the Belgian court's decision is clear enough. If displaying a first sentence and a headline from another Web site is illegal, then so is much of what we do online: The blogger who links to a news story, the Fortune 500 company excerpting an article about itself, and all search engines could be breaking the law. Considering some American judges' penchant for applying foreign precedent, expect one to notice and use the Belgian logic next time Google goes to court across the Atlantic.
The Belgian case isn't the first time a news organization has tried using the courts to get Google to bend. The wire service Agence France Presse sued Google in a federal U.S. court last year for alleged copyright infringement. It's seeking at least $17.5 million in a still undecided case. Moreover Google has, on occasion, recognized that content doesn't come free. Earlier this year Google agreed to pay the Associated Press an unspecified sum for news stories and photographs that will be used on a new, as yet not unveiled site. And Google pays Reuters for news and data that it uses on Google Finance.
Neither of these deals apply to Google News, which -- though it looks like a newspaper home page with headlines organized by subject -- the company maintains is simply a news-focused version of its basic all-white search engine. The implication of categorizing Google News as a search engine, rather than some sort of meatier content-providing site, is that as long as the company doesn't pay for Google News content, it hasn't undermined its basic position on search engine fair use. But the AP and Reuters deals show that news outlets and aggregators can make money together.
* * *
With this in mind, a group of organizations representing publishers has started to develop software that could make more deal-making possible. Dubbed the Automated Content Access Protocol, the system would improve on the existing technical blocks available to newspapers -- unsophisticated software tags that indicate no access is allowed. "Most newspapers don't want to be left out, but have been pushed into a take it or leave it situation," said Larry Kilman, spokesman for the World Association of Newspapers, which backs the project. The new protocol would inform search engine crawlers of usage terms, covering who could link to what articles and for how long. So, for example, if a newspaper wanted to make sure a specific article would come up on search engines only for one day, search engine robots could comply automatically. To accomplish something similar now, publishers would have to negotiate with every search engine over every article, a prohibitively time-consuming task.
Of course, the software still has to be written, and publishers and search engines have to wrangle out terms. The Belgian judiciary, though, might want to consider the fast pace of technological innovation, and the ability of businesspeople to reach mutually beneficial agreements to tap into it, before it goes about outlawing basic behavior on the Internet.
Publicar un comentario