11–20 of 24 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they will take this to the Federal Cartel Office now: "See, Google has such a large impact on our revenue, they are a monopoly." Of course the "Leistungsschutzrecht" has been ridiculous from the start but it might help them to prove their point to take it further.
But it's hard to argue, even with a monopoly, that someone whose free service benefits you in the millions has to pay for that privilege.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's hard to argue, even with a monopoly, that someone whose free service benefits you in the millions has to pay for that privilege.
Because google could exist without content to index...
On one hand they whine about Google's power and on the other they want the benefits too? Might as well complain about the enormous power of gravity over us and legislate it away.
I think the point here is being missed a bit. Yes they get a lot of benefit from traffic coming from Google. The point is they want that traffic coming directly to them. If people go to Google News they see traffic from other alternative news sources as well. These people are Google News users and sometimes see e.g. Die Welt content, but Die Welt wants them to be Die Welt users. The publishers are used to having a di…
The best thing about their press release[0] is that within a couple of sentences they a) complain that they'd lose seven-digits in advertising a year per brand over the short listing on Google news and resulting decrease in traffic, b) demand that Google pays them for the Google news interaction. [0] http://www.axelspringer.de/presse/Axel-Springer-schliesst-Da...
I bet it is more than Bild does.
If nobody allowed Google to do the snippets, Google's news business would sink. But since they cannot pass the copyright law for the entire world, Google's business is less affected by the ban. Because it is a monopoly.
Shit, these guys have a point.
I think the point here is being missed a bit. Yes they get a lot of benefit from traffic coming from Google. The point is they want that traffic coming directly to them. If people go to Google News they see traffic from other alternative news sources as well. These people are Google News users and sometimes see e.g. Die Welt content, but Die Welt wants them to be Die Welt users. The publishers are used to having a di…
Very insightful and true. The problem is that they can't find a strategy to make this happen and are capitulating due to their lack of ability.
That is to say, _if_ they could find a way to make aggregator customers instead into their customers, they wouldn't be backing down. What they're discovering, however, is that, even if they weaken Google, they don't strengthen themselves in the process. Readers simply turn to other sources.
This implies that readers perhaps don't value Axel Springer's content over other news sources. Or, at least, they don't value it over the value of aggregators.
Wanting to force someone to advertise your product and charge him for it sounds so backwards, especially from a right-wing company. I'm happy this terrible excuse for a publisher couldn't get through with it. Will be interesting to see the Bild headlines about it, at the moment they are still busy rallying against unions (e.g. by printing the phone numbers of union leaders).
- Bild makes money from the online visits.
- Google makes money form the online visits as well.
- Bild actually provides content for Google to generate that revenue.
Why should not Google pay for the content (a percentage of ad revenue generated by the news.google.com would do nicely)?
The best thing about their press release[0] is that within a couple of sentences they a) complain that they'd lose seven-digits in advertising a year per brand over the short listing on Google news and resulting decrease in traffic, b) demand that Google pays them for the Google news interaction. [0] http://www.axelspringer.de/presse/Axel-Springer-schliesst-Da...
The question is, how much does Google make, a year, from its news aggregator pages? I bet it is more than Bild does. If nobody allowed Google to do the snippets, Google's news business would sink. But since they cannot pass the copyright law for the entire world, Google's business is less affected by the ban. Because it is a monopoly. Shit, these guys have a point.
Let's go to extremes and say that everyone the world over blocks Google from indexing and aggregating their news sites. That means that smaller players can enter the market, but if the blocking is based on principle; then those smaller players would have to invest in infrastructure, IP, and still have to pay publishers! Then publishers then also lose out.
From reading the article, it seems like the company is saying we're shooting ourselves in the foot by blocking Google, yet we still want to piss in our revenue fountain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because google could exist without content to index...
Because google could exist without their content to index... On one hand they whine about Google's power and on the other they want the benefits too? Might as well complain about the enormous power of gravity over us and legislate it away.
Wanting to force someone to advertise your product and charge him for it sounds so backwards, especially from a right-wing company. I'm happy this terrible excuse for a publisher couldn't get through with it. Will be interesting to see the Bild headlines about it, at the moment they are still busy rallying against unions (e.g. by printing the phone numbers of union leaders).
To play the devil's advocate: - Bild makes money from the online visits. - Google makes money form the online visits as well. - Bild actually provides content for Google to generate that revenue. Why should not Google pay for the content (a percentage of ad revenue generated by the news.google.com would do nicely)?
The best thing about their press release[0] is that within a couple of sentences they a) complain that they'd lose seven-digits in advertising a year per brand over the short listing on Google news and resulting decrease in traffic, b) demand that Google pays them for the Google news interaction. [0] http://www.axelspringer.de/presse/Axel-Springer-schliesst-Da...
The question is, how much does Google make, a year, from its news aggregator pages? I bet it is more than Bild does. If nobody allowed Google to do the snippets, Google's news business would sink. But since they cannot pass the copyright law for the entire world, Google's business is less affected by the ban. Because it is a monopoly. Shit, these guys have a point.
But how is that supposed to 1. justify Google as a monopolist 2. legitimize the cartels rent seeking ambitions and 3. make that "a point"?