Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 11:54 UTC
Legal "The European Commission has imposed a EUR 561 million fine on Microsoft for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft until 2014. In today's decision, the Commission finds that Microsoft failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012. 15 million Windows users in the EU therefore did not see the choice screen during this period. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that time." Burn.
Thread beginning with comment 554384
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Typical EU
by Alfman on Wed 6th Mar 2013 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Typical EU"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

BallmerKnowsBest,

I'm not terribly familiar with those laws, but from the sources I see (including yours) everyone is allowed to display excerpts, such as those displayed by search engines today. It's just longer pieces that would need to be licensed for republication.

I can understand why google opposes it, but it still isn't their content to do with as they please. If the copyright owner wants to license it to google, then google should pay or forfeit publishing rights. I am aware that google cannot pay them for their content without setting into motion events that would undermine google's principal business model of using everyone else's data for free. Still unless I'm missing something it's hard for me to side with the pro-google agenda. Publishing rights beyond excerpts should lie with the content creator.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Typical EU
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 8th Mar 2013 21:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Typical EU"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

BallmerKnowsBest,

I'm not terribly familiar with those laws, but from the sources I see (including yours) everyone is allowed to display excerpts, such as those displayed by search engines today. It's just longer pieces that would need to be licensed for republication.


Really, now? From the very first paragraph of the first article I linked to:

"The lower house of the German parliament, known as the Bundestag, has approved a new bill that would require search engines to pay a license fee for re-publishing content longer than 'individual words or short excerpts.'

Of course, the actual amount of text isn't defined, so for all we know it could be anything beyond the headline. That would be consistent with the earlier extortion attempts by French media:

"Google already has a licensing deal with Agence France-Presse, the French newswire. That deal was struck in 2007, after AFP filed a lawsuit saying Google's use of snippets violated copyright."

I can understand why google opposes it, but it still isn't their content to do with as they please. If the copyright owner wants to license it to google, then google should pay or forfeit publishing rights. I am aware that google cannot pay them for their content without setting into motion events that would undermine google's principal business model of using everyone else's data for free. Still unless I'm missing something it's hard for me to side with the pro-google agenda. Publishing rights beyond excerpts should lie with the content creator.


In that case, they (and you) should be thrilled that Google has stated that they will simply stop indexing news from countries that pass protectionist IP laws. But no, they seem to be even more about about that possibility.... it's almost French & German news media want to have their cake (referral traffic from Google news) AND eat it too (laws that allow them to leech money from foreign companies). But that can't possibly be it, we all that things like that only happen the US.

Frankly, I hope those idiotic laws pass and Google stops indexing those sites. And I'm sure there are French news sources in other countries that would be more than happy to get that referral traffic & fill the gaps.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Typical EU
by Alfman on Sat 9th Mar 2013 02:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Typical EU"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

BallmerKnowsBest,

I honestly think your making a bigger deal than it is, especially if you are just going by the arstechnica links. I don't see it as very likely for google to pull french and germain indexes as revenge for an ideological grudge when they can still legally use excerpts without paying for them. That would put their search results at a competitive disadvantage to others who are operating within the law.

I'd bet that after all the commotion settles down, the only change you'll notice is that google will have to pull full-text articles from their webcache.

Edited 2013-03-09 03:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Typical EU
by Alfman on Sat 9th Mar 2013 06:43 in reply to "RE[3]: Typical EU"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

BallmerKnowsBest,

"Of course, the actual amount of text isn't defined, so for all we know it could be anything beyond the headline."

If it's the ambiguity of "excerpt" that bothers you, then yea I can agree it's a problem. While the principal of the law doesn't bother me much, leaving such obvious ambiguities in the wording is bound to provoke and even encourage merit-less lawsuits.

Lawyers never get things right the first time, it gives them job security ;)

Edited 2013-03-09 06:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2