A blog called Inside Google says the search giant's decision to comply with a court ruling and completely exclude Belgian newspapers from its search results is "Ballsy":
Old, dying media, here’s your lesson for the day: Google doesn’t steal your content, it just points its millions of users at you. That is to your benefit. Don’t blow it next time.
I beg to differ. That's not ballsy, that's scary. Hello search engine and (by default) internet business monopoly. Microsoft's been down this road, and it's not a pretty one.
I'm not sure I understand why this makes them a monopoly.
From Wikipedia: "In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods."
A Google user can always search several dozen, if not more, search engines available on the Internet. They can also go directly to the newspaper effected--if they still want to visit the old-school.
Posted by: Richard Giles | Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 04:57 PM
Take my initial reference as a bit tongue-in-cheek, and an extremely vague reference to the power of Google as illustrated by John Battelle's 'database of intentions' idea. (Perhaps if we wrap in Yahoo it's a duopoly?)
Either way, the effect on the Belgian newspaper group's websites must be dramatic.
Posted by: Mark Jones | Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 07:08 PM
Fair enough Mark.
As for the effects on the Belgian newspaper....they should figure out how to leverage the traffic from Google to make money...rather than charge Google.
Posted by: Richard Giles | Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 12:07 AM
If you bother to read the comments on the blog post, you'll note that this was done because it's what the court order actually asked for.
Posted by: Anonymous | Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 04:11 AM
Anonymous - yup, read them, as per the reference in the first sentence of my post (did you read that?). The debate seems to be over Google's interpretation of the ruling. Instead of barring them from Google News Belguim, they decided to go an extra step barred the group from ALL of Google Belgium. That's where it gets interesting.
Posted by: Mark Jones | Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 11:21 AM
I think this URL summarizes why I think you've misunderstood:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060920-152314
The wording of the ruling:
"Order the defendant to withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order, under penalty of a daily fine of 1,000,000.- € per day of delay;"
Note the "from all their sites". That would include search, would it not?
Posted by: Anonymous | Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 11:44 AM
It's public content, it's the internet! How is that a monopoly?
Posted by: scientaestubique | Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 02:12 PM
Ok, so I'm back after being buried in work for a few days.
Now, to respond to "Anonymous", last weekend I wrote a feature about this in the Weekend AFR. I read the Search Engine Watch story prior to your comment and link. One of the points I raised in the story is that it was Google's interpretation of the Belgian court ruling that has sparked debate within publishing circles. Removing content from "all their sites" is indeed the key part of the story.
I liked what Danny Sullivan and Search Engine Watch had to say about this:
"In addition, Google has removed the [Belgian] sites from Google News worldwide, saying it is treating the ruling as it would any request to be removed from Google News. In those cases, you're dropped entirely, not on a country-by-country basis."
So that's the kicker. I'm not entirely sure if Copiepress wanted to impose a geographic-ban or an international ban on its content. But Google's compliance with the court order had international consequences. ie. all content from these publishers will not be available to anyone, anywhere.
I get the sense Copiepress doesn't think this is a problem. It's actually massive problem because if you don't exist in Google, you almost don't exist on the web. Sure, you'll get picked up by Yahoo and so on, but Google has become the de facto standard for search.
Here's a quote from one of my AFR stories back in June to support that claim:
"Locally, Google commanded the greatest share of both website visits and search engine visits, with 8 million unique visitors and 72.6 per cent market share, according to figures from the Nielsen/NetRatings, NetView, April 2006 report. On a global basis, Google is used for 60 per cent of searches, followed by Yahoo! at 20 per cent and msn at 9 per cent, according to a report by Jefferies & Co."
So of course it's not technically a monopoly, but it is the 800 pound gorilla!
Now, before you label me a newspaper apologist, I don't think this suit was a smart move. Quite the opposite. I'm amazed by this story because it seems Copiepress has not fully considered the economic impact of being granted their wish to be removed from Google. Copiepress have everything to lose from the social media revolution, and fighting Google would seem to be a way of speeding up that process. As they say, be careful what you wish for because the result could be scary.
Posted by: Mark Jones | Thursday, September 28, 2006 at 01:35 PM