Once things were easier for news aggregators |
Last month, following a similar initiative
in Germany (see Iona's
post here), leading French
newspaper publishers had in fact called on Hollande's government to
adopt a law to force internet search engines such as Google to pay for
content.
Guillaume
Frappat, head of economic and digital affairs at SEPM (the French national
magazine publishers society), said that German draft law stands as a
demonstration that "there is really a problem between the
content producers and the filter that is between the content and the viewers."
As pointed out
on PC Advisor, SEPM is
not the only organisation that wants to enhance discussion in this respect (and
possibly obtain payment from Google and similar operations, too). The French
union of the daily press (SPQN) is also interested, as news publishers
might be hurt more than the magazine industry, explained Frappat, who added:
"In general, publishers are
interested in all the initiatives that put the debate back on the table ... But
we don't want to break the balance between copyrights and innovation."
Google is upset at possible French legislative initiative, which is viewed as "harmful
to the Internet, Internet users and news websites that benefit from substantial
traffic" sent to them by
Google's search engine.
News aggregation in progress |
With print advertising revenues
rapidly and
constantly declining in the newspaper
industry everywhere (revenues are now less than half what they were in 2006),
attempts to share some of the profits made by news aggregators seem
unavoidable. However, the question whether Google infringes
copyright by returning a search result has not been given a satisfactory answer
yet.
The
rulings delivered by some national courts in Europe (notably those of the
Brussels Court of Appeal in Copiepresse - reported
on the IPKat here -,
and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Meltwater - on which
see the latest comments here and here) and
the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Infopaq I (IPKat
report is available here)
and Infopaq II (which
has been commented here),
do not look particularly friendly to news aggregators.
However,
the last word has not been said yet, as copyright enthusiasts are keenly
awaiting the response of the UK Supreme Court in the Meltwater saga, which will appear sometime
in 2013, probably at the same time when the decision in parallel proceedings in
the US is published.
No comments:
Post a Comment