Sometimes
it’s as if someone has only seen one side of the argument and proceeds to go
half cock into resolving only what they see withoutout stepping back and taking
in the wider picture and implications. How many times have we witnessed knee jerk
reactions and in-trenched positions that have unravelled once people have taken
a more measured viewpoint?
The
French publishers originally launched their hostility at Google claiming that
they and other search engines were republishing headlines and the first
paragraph of articles without compensating them - the provider of the content.
It is easy to see the delima as one service wants to be seen as the source and
to get the hits that they can potentially monetarise, whilst the other wishes
to index a broad range on content in order to provide a single portal and get the hits, that they can monotorise.
Then
in steps a government, who probably has been heavily lobbied by one side and we start
to slide into a 'hotch potch' of unworkable or counter productive legislation. Last
week the German cabinet gave its support to a draft law aimed to extend
copyright protection to snippets of news articles republished by search
engines. It would allow publishers charge search engines such as Google for the
republishing of headlines and first paragraphs of articles. In essence the French
and German publishers want to share in the revenue that Google earns from
advertising displayed alongside their news snippets. They also believe that a headline
and summary of an article that is published on Google News is often sufficient
to satisfy the reader. The result they claim, is that the reader then doesn't click through
to the publishers website, who then loses potential advertising revenue.
So
one could first question why the publishers haven’t created their own collective
news service? Is the Google service sufficient, or do people actually click through? What
would be the equitable revenue share the publishers seek? Do the publishers want the share revenue or be paid per article hit? The questions go on
and soon become as irrelevant as asking any TV news or radio channel for a
share of news related revenues that they earn alongside the news. Google aren’t
pretending the news is theirs, nor are they divulging the whole story. They are
merely serving up a snippet. If that snippet didn’t exist how much traffic
would even find its way to half the publishers who are demanding payment for being 'ignored' and bypassed today?
What would be the implications of extending this Franco German logic past news and magazines to other media
such as books. If Amazon hadn’t pulled the industry through the metadata hedge, we still would have limited jackets on display and ‘search inside’ would be a
bridge too far for many. Would book publishers now demand a fee from Amazon for creating
a jacket, or search inside library that sells their content? The question of book reviews and fair use of
what is basically marketing material by third parties is a very interesting
point.
Sometimes
we all have to recognise that the Internet is about connectivity and linking
information to add value. It is about creating a ‘quid pro quo’ environment
where different parties, that may have different business models and drivers, help
each other for mutual benefit. Google makes money from advertising, publishers
make money from publishing. Google merely uses snippets and gives full linkage
and accreditation to them. They do not plagiarise the work, pass it off as
theirs, or publish the full work, and they provide the publisher in effect with ' a
free advert' and the more the publisher is indexed and seen, the more their brand
and reputation is enhanced.
It
would be perfectly responsible for publishers who don’t want to be indexed to
opt out, but how many really would?
No comments:
Post a Comment