more on AFP Sues Google News

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Dana Blankenhorn <dana () a-clue com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:08:04 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] AFP Sues Google News

http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/03/20/how_afp_can_win_its_su
it.php

How AFP Can Win Its Suit
Posted by Dana
As I noted yesterday Agence France-Presse's suit against Google News is
silly.

But just because it's silly doesn't mean it can't be won. .

The suit is based on the idea that Google makes editorial judgements.
Google's response it it does no such thing.

But it does make editorial judgements, at least at Google News.

Unlike the situation elsewhere at Google, Google News decides which sites
are news sites, which sites are not, and sends its robots out to spider the
Web accordingly.

For instance, Google News does not believe Corante is a news site. This
story will not be spidered there. This is an editorial judgement.

The plaintiff can show Google News is arbitrary in these judgements. For
instance, Exhibit A is on Google News today, a spectulative story on the new
Treo from EnGadget. Google thinks this speculation is newsworthy.

Note that EnGadget does not kill trees. EnGadget is a blog site, just as
this is a blog site. It is no different in fact from Corante. But Google
News has made an editorial decision to spider EnGadget, and not to spider
Corante. This is an arbitrary decision. The source and process behind this
decision is closed. But it is enforced, technically, so Google's response
that it has no technical means to grant the plaintiff relief is false.

We now turn to. Exhibit B. This is a "story" from Vincent Fiore at
RenewAmerica.Com. RenewAmerica.com is not, objectively, a news site. It is,
in fact, a right-wing propaganda site. It is only one of several such sites
that Google News spiders. Google News has made an editorial decision to
spider these sites. (It does not spider equivalent sites from the left.)

So you see, your honor, Google News can make editorial decisions. It does
make editorial decisions. Google News decides, and enforces, editorial
decisions on which sites it thinks publish news and which don't. Its process
for doing this is opaque, not visible to those affected by it, and thus
arbitrary in nature.

It could thus have easily, in response to a letter, have stopped spidering
Agence France-Presse. It could have said, in its editorial capacity, "this
is not news."

The plaintiff rests.

Now  to Google's defense.

Exhibit A for the defense. This is an Agence France-Presse story published
on its customer site, Velo News. It has been spidered by Google News,
obviously without the express written permission of Agence France-Presse.

But is it possible for Google News not to spider this story? Yes, it is.
That would require only AFP to include a robots.txt file on stories it sends
affiliates, instructing those pages not to allow spiders or robots to see
them.

Of course, if AFP did create such robots.txt files, it could hide all its
files from view, and the suit would be moot, wouldn't it? Relief is in the
plaintiff's hands, and the cost to implement it is nearly zero.

The defense rests.

------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/