Daily Telegraph wants to sue Google & Yahoo

[mad4]

http://digg.com/tech_news/Daily_Tele...e_Google_Yahoo

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greensla...le_the_ke.html

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...-news-indexing

Our ability to protect content is under consistent attack from those such as Google and Yahoo who wish to access it for free. These companies are seeking to build a business model on the back of our own investment without recognition. All media companies need to be on guard for this. Success in the digital age, as we have seen in our own company,

How stupid are these people?

[Pierce]

i think they are smart.

For a starters its about trapping a local audience, do you want your media globalized through google?

Secondly, you dont want passers by, you want loyal fans, google news can remove the loyalty any newspaper may have.

Thirdly, the daily telegraph is a big paper, that has been established over years and years of good columns, good writers, management, advertising, publisizing, etc etc, to count up all that money is quite a chunk, and google/yahoo just piggy backs on that effort. Why should they be allowed to do that?

Pierce

[mad4]

Because Google sends the Telegraph more traffic than anywhere else?

[jinnnguyen]

Interesting in the 3rd url above, the article regarding robots.txt

server robots.txt:
User-agent: *

while said:
"Our ability to protect content is under consistent attack ..."

[Pierce]

so?

Its a uk paper, the advertisers being uk based wont pay for that traffic.

Sure they could setup an ad server and target and get advertisers, but why bother they are perfectly happy with there current situation?

Pierce

[GADOOD]

Originally Posted by mad4

Because Google sends the Telegraph more traffic than anywhere else?

There's a thing called a) principal and b) law.

Let's say 1,000 people read one of the Telegraphs article on Google News.

Let's say out of that 1,000, only 200 click through to the Telegraph's website or become loyal readers of the telegraph.

Google are getting the better deal and as they state, are building a business model off of the back of their hard work, and it's clearly wrong.

Pete

[Canadianbacon]

these companies who want to sue google for these rediculous content issues are the same type of people who resisted the theory the world is round.

they need to take a look around them and realize things aren't what they use to be.

[jabb]

Originally Posted by mad4

Because Google sends the Telegraph more traffic than anywhere else?

The telegraph obviously knows that, and they obviously know the traffic google is sending them is not very useful. If the traffic was converting to a lot of new readers, new buyers do you think they would be sueing? Of course not. Like Pierce says its about securing an audience.

[seo ranter]

Originally Posted by jabb

The telegraph obviously knows that, and they obviously know the traffic google is sending them is not very useful. If the traffic was converting to a lot of new readers, new buyers do you think they would be sueing? Of course not. Like Pierce says its about securing an audience.

If I read the snippet of an article from google and click through to the website to read the rest am I not interested...

These old media companies new to wake up and mov into the digital age instead of trying to stop it by lawsuits....

[GADOOD]

They are moving in to the digital age, that's why they all have websites and are creating content and spending a lot 'moving in to the digital age'.

What they don't take kindly to, is Google nicking all of their work while passing them bread crumbs in regards to traffic!

Pete

[infonote]

Search engines do not copy their content. It is like banning a TV station for mentinoning Daily Telegraph wrote about subject X.

[seo ranter]

Originally Posted by GADOOD

They are moving in to the digital age, that's why they all have websites and are creating content and spending a lot 'moving in to the digital age'.

What they don't take kindly to, is Google nicking all of their work while passing them bread crumbs in regards to traffic!

Pete

bread crumbs?????????How would people find the daily telegraph website if not for the search engines?

[livingearth]

They may actually want to sell newspapers.
If they gather the news then they need to recieve just compensation for its use. If not and local news agencys go out of business the end result will be no quality local content for google to aggregate.

[jabb]

Originally Posted by seo ranter

bread crumbs?????????How would people find the daily telegraph website if not for the search engines?

This lawsuit is against google/yahoo NEWS not search engine. And if you don't see how people would know the telegraph have a website without them then your clueless.

[seo ranter]

they may want to sell newspapers but people are buying less and less newspapers everyday...

I'm 26 and none of my friends or coworkers buy newspapers anymore....because by the time the newspaper is available int he morning I've already read all that news the night before on CNN.com, Digg, Google News, Yahoo Newsor MSN

[livingearth]

Originally Posted by seo ranter

they may want to sell newspapers but people are buying less and less newspapers everyday...

I'm 26 and none of my friends or coworkers buy newspapers anymore....because by the time the newspaper is available int he morning I've already read all that news the night before on CNN.com, Digg, Google News, Yahoo Newsor MSN

More people still read newspapers than browse the net. And that is just my point Yahoo and Google do not have reporters on the ground or in the air in every city throughout the world. The local news agencys do. They (local agencys) bear the burden of the expense of collecting filming and editing the news in their own geographical niche. By aggregating ( scraping basically ) they (G & Y) are taking copyrighted works from the news agencys and using the content for their own profit. These agencys rely on local advertising and paper sales to stay in business. Without them they will be no reporting of local news. How hard is that to understand?

[mistermix]

I don't think the person quoted in the article was talking about google search, if he was then that would be stupid.

He was probably talking about google news. The basic issue is that people are going to google to browse news stories instead of going to the content owners pages. This may seem harmless but the content is copied directly from the article, this is where things get dodgy.

We should wait for a full statement from the newspaper before making any judgements about the case against google.

[brealmz]

The refusal to place an effective robots.txt on their website has to be the most damning evidence the Telegraph wants to force a settlement.

I think this is the issue. its all about the money. not so stupid afterall.

[Canadianbacon]

Originally Posted by livingearth

More people still read newspapers than browse the net. And that is just my point Yahoo and Google do not have reporters on the ground or in the air in every city throughout the world. The local news agencys do. They (local agencys) bear the burden of the expense of collecting filming and editing the news in their own geographical niche. By aggregating ( scraping basically ) they (G & Y) are taking copyrighted works from the news agencys and using the content for their own profit. These agencys rely on local advertising and paper sales to stay in business. Without them they will be no reporting of local news. How hard is that to understand?

You're completly missing the point. these services (google, yahoo, live) bring "additional" traffic to these news services.

[ottodo]

they can try, but what's gonna the result will be?