http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14google.htmlA Brussels court ruled Tuesday that Google had violated copyright laws by publishing links to articles from Belgian newspapers without permission. Legal experts said the case could have broad implications in Europe for the news indexes provided by search engines.
(...)
“As the first decision to condemn a search engine for indexing news articles, you can be sure publishers around the world are paying attention,” said Cyril Fabre, a lawyer in Paris at Alexen, a law firm specializing in Internet law and intellectual property. “The implications in Europe are particularly strong since copyright law is so uniform across the Continent.”
The Brussels court ruled that Google, which operates the dominant Internet search engine, must pay 25,000 euros, or $32,600, for each day it displayed content from the plaintiff publications in violation of copyright. The court scaled back a September ruling that called for damages of up to 1 million euros a day and required Google to publish the judgment on its home page.
(...)
Google believes that pointing to content on the Web is legal under copyright law, Mr. Elkaim added. “We have always explained that any licensing agreements Google does with content providers is for use that goes beyond indexing or referencing,” he said. Jessica Powell, a spokeswoman in London for Google, said the main complaints in the case — making reference to articles without prior permission, and the continued availability of articles in Google’s database after newspapers have restricted access to them — are issues easily rectified without legal action.
(...)
“It could set up a chain reaction, especially in European countries, where the authors’ rights are stronger,” said Pamela Samuelson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Policy. “If a Belgian court causes Google to change its ways, by preventing links from happening or forcing it to pay, other countries and other newspapers and other entities that have put things on the Web could say ‘me too.’ ”
---
Google is appealing, of course. Now, understood that Google may be profiting off the links to primary news sources and that they may want a cut. (Still, isn't the ultimate effect to gain more exposure for the primary news sources?)
Regardless, how is Google News's form of linking going to be distinguished from any blogger (even from this message board) who gives substantial excerpts and links back to a primary news source?
Anyone out there know this case? Does it have those kinds of implications for everyone else?