<< Sometimes Google just makes me jump up and pump my fist, yelling, “Yes! You show those motherf-ers!” >>

Nathan, I couldn't agree more! :-D

While I don't side with the out-of-touch Beligan paper at all, this does potentially worry me. Google has so much power and I really think they should never intentionally punish anyone (I'm not saying they necessarily did here). As by far the most popular search engine they need to be whiter than white and to start blacklisting could eventually lead to Google's competitors being blacklisted.

BTW I don't necessarily think there's anything nasty going on here, as Nathan quotes the judge:
'and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and “cache” Google or any other name'

I just don't agree with Nathan or Tony.

I don't agree with blacklisting sites for the sake of it – or just because they're competitors. And Google definitely shouldn't operate an "all or nothing" attitude where sites have to listed in all of their services or not at all. But that's not what happened here.

However, Google did exactly what they were told to do here – and my comment above was in reference to that fact after reading Nathan's entire post.

Having said that, at the end of the day, Google can do whatever they like to their results. If they want to remove their competitors (or anyone else), whilst it might be evil to do it, they're well within they're rights to do so. (Although some whack-head somewhere would undoubtedly try to sue them for doing so...)

IMHO, being in Google is a privilege you're given – not a right – and people should appreciate that.

Google didn't remove them from the search engine to punish them...

The plaintiff took issue with the site being cached as well...

We know that when you do a search and google returns a result... they're ranked. That ranking is based on Google's cache of the site... it doesn't go out and hit all the sites again when ranking them, nor does it pre-rank for every concievable term...

with no cache, and no DMOZ, one can't easily return the result in a google search.. there's nothing to show.

Since they told google not to cache the site, google can't use it in their search.

If you ask me, things like this are all controlled on the web server. You don't want google caching? set it up in your robots.txt file. You don't want links from off site pages? Set it up in mod_security or .htaccess.

All of these things are under the control of the webmaster, just because they don't know how to do it doesn't give them a right to sue Google for it. It's a shame to see these cases succeed.

My respect goes to Google. Great move. Maybe now the people see Google as a proxy and less as a cache/mirror. And Google still decides who they want to index and who not.

"Having said that, at the end of the day, Google can do whatever they like to their results. If they want to remove their competitors (or anyone else), whilst it might be evil to do it, they're well within they're rights to do so."

Of course that's true. I take that for granted and I'm basically just saying it would not be in the interests of the internet as a whole.

As Ryan says though Google likely had little alternative.

I think Google has done the right thing. The Old stye die hard media needs a slap in the face ..ok make that a big slap in the face. Their court order was stupid and anyone could see what was going to happen.

On the same note, will google remove all of "(aka “Leopard") screen shoots in their index ?? Yes would be wrt Apple MacOS

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=5002

I think what's more worrying here is that apparently any company can get a court order in Belgium to keep someone else from quoting them in fair use. Freedom of speech includes quoting someone. Then again I don't know if Belgium takes freedom of speech as seriously as the US... almost no country does.

While I agree with you on the importance of fair use, I don't think it's a freedom of speech issue.Freedom of speech is about being able to express your views. The illegality of copying a whole book doesn't violate freedom of speech and I think that even banning fair use wouldn't violate freedom of speech.

But I'm not saying I disagree with Fair Use, which is incredibly important, just not on FoS grounds.

What I meant is that fair use (quoting someone) is covered by freedom of speech. Take away fair use and you take away an important part of freedom of speech. Copying a whole book is not freedom of speech IMO.

I call this the Larry and Sergy stare :)-

http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/meercats_paws_up.jpg

once you're delisted by request or after a lawsuit against Google, can you get relisted on the index later on? if so, what are Google's terms as for delisted sites who hold a lawsuit against them wanting to come back?

As a Belgian I can say there's not a real problem with free speech in Belgium. The only things that you can't speak about is e.g. negationism and racism. But for this last topic, it's a difficult discussion where is the line?

There is a lot of discussion going on on that...

Google will appeal (as I read in the newspapers) the courts decision and I'm pretty sure they will win the case. So it's too early to jump to conclusions about free speech in Belgium I think...

This is really so typically Belgian. Being an English man living in Belgium I see things like this all the time. Some body having to prove a point just for the sake of it. Not realising until later that they are hurting themselves in the process. And at the top you have businesses. Companies in Belgium think they are always right, were as in the UK and US 'the customer is always right'. You walk into a shop don't expect a smile from the cashier, and when they make a mistake expect it to be your fault.

Where the hell in Belgium do you live? (little guess, Brussels?)

Leuven

Bluey, I don't understand what you mean by that statement.

I only feel that I can say what I like to say in Belgium (i.e. Freedom of Speech). I don't think I'm trying to prove anything. Although you're statement may be right, it has nothing to do with my posting...

(BTW If it's such a bad place for living here, maybe you should think of moving to some better place like the US or the UK? Don't take me wrong on this, everybody should be very welcome overhere, but they shouldn't be frustrated about being here.)

Don't get me wrong I know loads of really nice people in Belgium. I am speaking of the country as a whole, a stereotype if you will. I live here because the cost of living is a lot cheaper and because my wife loves her job (she's flemish).

Oh sorry, I wasn't referring to your post, I was referring to Le Soir and businesses in general, sorry if my post was confusing.

OK, bluey, my excuses, I don't like Le Soir actions too, so we're back on the same track, sorry for the confusing. Whenever you come to Bruges, please be welcome to drink a beer at my house and to whitness that there really are some belgians (in fact I'd loved to be called flemish iso belgian) with a smile on there face ;-))

Hey Art-One – am I invited too ?? I like beer :)-

Does ever google kicked someone else?

>Does ever google kicked someone else?

Google has removed lots of sites from their index, at least temporarily, for questionable optimization techniques (high profile example: bmw.com).

>Companies in Belgium think they are always right, were >as in the UK and US 'the customer is always right'. You >walk into a shop don't expect a smile from the cashier, >and when they make a mistake expect it to be your fault.

It seems like the Belgians are adapting to our German ways. :)

/pd: sure, every nice person is ;-) You certainly discover some good ones...

AN: no, no, no ;-) I was lunching today at a restaurant and they were smiling all the time ... At first I thought it were americans :P

It looks like LeSoir is back in the index http://www.google.be/search?q=site%3Alesoir.be

Gone again!

Update: Danny Sullivan posted an excellent and extensive follow-up on the issue.
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060920-152314

One thing I notice that gets left out of these discussions is the person searching Google for information. I find a growing number of sites that I am looking for information from are almost impossible to access from Google and I am force to use Dogpile, Yahoo, and others to find the information. I know I found it at one time on Google and I know how I search for it on Google and I can very clearly specify what it is I am trying to locate and who produced it. (I just can't remember the URL) and Google does not produce the result where there is little effort needed to produce the result on the other big search engines. My point is that Google's punitive delistings and stringent re-listing criteria is interferring with the goal of delivering relevant results for searches. They should instead be scrubbing their results and cleaning out the sites that only offer ad spam.

Google is in the business of providing service to the people searching for information not the websites to where they are being directed to. (we are not speaking of Adwords here) Google has a moral and a legal obligation to respect the copyrights of the information that they are caching. It seems a small problem for a company with the intellectual power of Google to implement a cached information expiration scheme for those companies such as news outlets and publising houses who are trying to protect their revenue stream from their products. Google could charge for this and/or include it as a premium for sites who use adwords.

Negative publicity in this respect is not helpful to Google.

After reading Dan Sullivan's post it is possible that Copiepresse intent is to generate buzz about their news outlets as a marketing ploy. Their logic for filing the case is shaky.

Breaking news : Belgian court rejects Google's appeal against publishing judgment on home page.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/sep2006/googlepublishingjudgement.php

Tomhtml: it's not really a rejecting of the real appeal. The court only says there is no need for a 'short procedure' and so Google has to comply with the initial judgment until the real appeal can be finished...

more on:
http://www.lesoir.be/la_vie_du_net/societe/2006/09/22/article_google_contraint_et_force_publiele_jugement.shtml
(french)

Ooops, I have lost this thread so I created one with the BIG news here :
http://blogoscoped.com/forum/68813.html

source and screenshot here :
http://www.zorgloob.com/2006/09/google-belgique-affiche-finalement-la.asp