HN Headline: <i>Google inks deal on payment of French media links (reuters.com)</i><p>Title on Reuters: <i>Google to pay 60 million euros into French media fund</i><p>Subhead on Reuters: <i>Google... will not pay them for posting links to their content.</i><p>Article content says publishers had been pushing for payment for links and snippets, and Google was threatened with legislation to pay for links, but instead settled on this fund to help the publishers make more money using Google's advertising technology (kind of like a $60M version of the $100 AdWords leads.)<p>Troubles me that informative submission titles are so often elided, while ones suggesting the opposite of the article's intent can be left as is.
>No details of the deal were immediately available.<p>I would wait for the details.<p>Edit: Here they are: <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/google-creates-60m-digital-publishing.html" rel="nofollow">http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/google-creates-60m-di...</a>
Wow, terrible precedent being set here. Now any France based startup that wants to take on Google with their own media linking service will be overwhelmed by fees before they can even get up and running. I really wish Google hadn't caved to these demands...
Only in Europe would a cartel of newspapers be aided by the government in extorting a foreign company without anyone crying foul.<p>If I were Google I would include a clause demanding positive coverage - seeing as they are paying for the damn news.