As IPKat readers will remember, following a similar outcome in Belgium, a few weeks ago Google concluded an agreement with French Government which put an
end to a 4-month long dispute over Google News.
Building on previous commitments to
increase Google investment in France, the agreement provides that Google will create a EUR60m (approx £52m) "Digital Publishing Innovation Fund to
support transformative French digital publishing initiatives", and
deepen its partnership with French publishers to help increase their
online revenue using Google advertising technology at a reduced cost.
Although
there were declarations by French President François Hollande and
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt saying how pleased both they were with
the outcome finally achieved, it now seems that - overall - this was not a truly
"happily every after" conclusion (also because of this).
|
Wished this was the end of the story? |
In fact, shortly after the conclusion of the
deal, Google made it clear that at the
moment there is no intention to replicate initiatives like the creation of the
French fund support model elsewhere in Europe.
A few
days ago, also the European Publishers Council (EPC) released a statement which criticised the deal concluded between
Google and France. Underlining the need for a copyright-aware internet,
EPC’s Executive Director Angela Mills Wade said that “The type of deal arranged between
Google and a group of French publishers does not address the
continuing problem of unauthorised reuse and monetisation of content, and
so does not provide the online press with the financial certainty or
mechanisms for legal redress which it needs to build sustainable
business models and ensure its continued investment in high-quality
content.”
|
... Alas! We are not there yet ... |
EPC's
argues that what is needed is longer term solutions based on the law, rather
than these types of arrangements. This is why "the EPC is supporting
its members in Germany and elsewhere who are holding fast and demanding
laws in their countries that would allow publishers to charge aggregators
and search engines for reproducing publishers’ content. The proposed
German law, currently in draft form, would apply to any aggregator, not
just Google, and would provide a legal basis to prohibit unauthorised use
of publishers’ content.”
Google
is opposing the proposed German law, claiming that not only
it would damage German economy, threaten the diversity of
information, result in massive legal uncertainty, set back innovative
media and copyright, but also break the founding
principle of the Web, ie its hyperlink-based architecture [in case
you have missed it, see the recent Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the pending reference
before the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-466/12 Svensson].
In the meanwhile, FIEG (the Italian
Federation of Newspaper Publishers) has highlighted the need for the
forthcoming Italian Government [elections
will be held on 24-25 February] to
address issues pertaining to online copyright protection. Following last year's
unsuccessful attempts of the Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM) to adopt a specific
regulation on online copyright (here),
FIEG has stressed that,
while publishers have been adopting innovative models to remain competitive,
there have been no actual political initiatives in Italy to protect content
producers and safeguard all the economic, political and technical resources
which are indispensable to produce quality contents.
So it would seem that, overall, the Google News saga is
still far from its conclusion …
The confidence with which Google is negotiating with different European governments shows that it knows how powerful its (effective) monopoly position is. However Europe is a different beast from the US, and ultimately the European Commission can wade in whenever it needs to, and it's never afraid to suggest new ways of regulating things. China's solution in similar circumstances is to provide home-grown equivalents, and perhaps one day Europe will also learn that trick when US companies start to become a little too aggressive.
ReplyDelete