Why Google WILL pay for content

Why Google WILL pay for content

Summary: Why Google WILL Pay for Content!

TOPICS: Google

ALSO: Link risk: Free Web 2.0 is not a done deal

UPDATE: Despite the Googley exhortations of Doc Searls, Jason Calacanis, Paul Kedrosky...content is indeed king, paid for content that is, on and off the Web, regardless of Google's self-aggrandizing business model wishes to the contrary.

The real story is not how the Web supposedly is deemed to work, it is how business works, business law that is, on and off the Web.

Searls to "clueless" big media:

1) Earth to (Washington) Post, Google is not the Web.
2) The fact that Google settled the suit with AFP says nothing about the Web.

WRONG, on both fronts. Despite Web 2.0 utopian and wishful thinking, putting editorial on the Web does NOT encompass defacto permission for anybody to index it and link to it, not even number one search engine Google.

Lawsuits ARE, apparently, the ONLY way to pull Google’s very large financial purse strings!

APRIL 6, 2007: Agence France-Presse (AFP), a global news agency based in Paris, has settled its lawsuit against Google Inc. allowing posting of news and photos from AFP journalists at Google properties, reports the Associated Press.

BUT, to pay or not to pay, that is NOT the Google question!

Google does not believe in paying for content and it is betting its entire $150 billion market cap on a die hard belief that it does not have to, at Google.com, at YouTube, or wherever the Googleplex sets its sights on next.

Not only does Google rely on a risky fair-use, DMCA gamble to back up its no need to pay for the content of others modus operandi, it doesn’t want to let partners, or prospective partners, know what they will REALLY get out of any prospective relationship, financial or otherwise, with Google.

Trust us, Mountain View says, because we ARE the best and you know you need us.

Google AdSense, case in (big) point. Google asks and answers:

How much will you earn through the program?

Advertisers pay either when users click on ads, or when the advertiser's ad is shown on your site. You'll receive a portion of the amount paid for either activity on your website. Although we don't disclose the exact revenue share, our goal is to enable publishers to make as much or more than they could with other advertising networks. The best way to find out how much you'll earn is to sign up and start showing ads on your web pages.

REALLY? Standard business partnership dealings have always entailed both sides agreeing to clear and itemized financial terms, BEFORE consummating any deal.

Google has apparently consummated some type of authorized content deal with AFP, AFTER being subject to a AFP copyright infringement lawsuit regarding Google’s unauthorized use of AFP content.

A settlement of the lawsuit is announced, in typically unfulfilling Googley style:

Financial details of the settlement weren't disclosed.

The deal will allow Google to use headlines and photos on Google News and other services that drive online traffic to sites displaying AFP news. The companies didn't disclose where else AFP's news would be used by Google.

Google moral of the story? Lawsuits ARE the way to pull Google’s very large financial purse strings!

SEE: Link risk: Free Web 2.0 is not a done deal and YouTube: Why Google is running scared

ALSO: Google blurs line between advertising and content, again and Google clients ‘frustrated’ by unprofitable AdWords buys and Google (will be) a monopoly and Does Google SEO success ’suck’?

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Ball two, high in the inside, feathering the batter's left shoulder.

    Donna, your tone and venim reminds me of a recent famous board member from HP who ended up being charged with a felony, eventually only to be dropped for reasons of health. While your article is full of name drops and a few expressions of regret that Google can even exist, it fails to see the real issue here, which has to do with the true legal and actual value of copyrighted content and how that content can and cannot be legally referenced or used.

    There is a much deeper and broader level of things in motion here, such as whether or not much of the Millenium Copyright Act is even constitutional, whether fair use is a real and valid means of referencing information on the internet and does copyrighted material all have the same exact level of protections afforded by the MCA.

    But the real question is does linking to or posting copyrighted material help or rob the source of the content?

    Here is a link to an article in the NY Times today about how the RIAA has destroyed the music business, alienated and lost millions of music customers for music and has unwittingly achieved the exact opposite of its intended goals. The article is called 'Spinning Into Oblivion' by By TONY SACHS and SAL NUNZIATO.


    My point is you are writing from a perspective that, legal or not is no longer even enforceable or effective, and the net result of your point of view if it were to succeed would only cause the the entities you are championing to end up having no voice and end up being ignored (and therefore bankrupted) in the long run. Everything you think and believe in is part of a world pre internet, pre Web 2.0 and belongs in the annals of the nineteenth century Robber Barron's book of `How I Robbed Everybody I Ever Met'.

    You need to step back and consider a few things:
    a) regardless of the MCA or RIAA or MPAA or whoever, when it comes to servicing a culture and a civilized society, there is a partial level of cultural ownership of content that defines that culture or society.
    b) the only way to deal with the issue of revenue sharing on the net is to establish a dialog, legal or not without lawsuits..
    c) consider that the world and everything in it that you know and love is gone, changed, no longer valid or even in existence. You need to look at what is going on and evaluate things from that perspective. Otherwise you will end up just being ignored. Heaven forbid.
    • wise words, and for our Donna

      thanks, Winnebagoboy.
      Narr vi
  • I would recommend talk

    ?Idea trap? leads to bad standards, bad standards lead to bad law, finally bad law become good law, and everyone forget the ?idea trap? since its now Good Idea. In this cycle, who is responsible for optimizing the ?bad things?
    I would prioritize like?
    first responsibility goes to people who is introducing Idea trap for becoming richest in the world, if they don?t do, second responsibility goes to people who suffer a lot, if both don?t take responsibility on time, finally governments suffer a lot.

    when group of people suffered by Idea trap means, there should be a standard to resolve the whole issue for everyone.

    In this copyright issue, Google trying to hunt One-by-One to avoid setting up standard, hence I would expect from suffering people to ?form a media community especially to resolve this issue? by talk.

    Kind rgrds
  • Interesting......

    Apparently you claim that it is against the law to "index it and link to it" with regards to web pages.

    US Courts Have looked at this issue BTW. US Courts have ruled that such is indeed legal. Perhaps you missed the [url=http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/03/35306]TicketMaster Case[/url], just one in many cases in the US Courts where they ruled linking legal. BTW the judge ruled in that case [i]"Hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act," Hupp said in his ruling. "There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.[/i]

    Actually with what you are suggesting... we may as well shut down the internet.

    The audacity to call linking and indexing said links as stealing takes some real gall.
    The fact that you are claiming US copyright law prohibits such and is an infringement of US copyright law shows no research at all on your part.
    Edward Meyers