[0] http://www.axelspringer.de/presse/Axel-Springer-schliesst-Da...
On one hand they whine about Google's power and on the other they want the benefits too? Might as well complain about the enormous power of gravity over us and legislate it away.
Doepfner said the resulting dramatic drop in traffic to his company's publications was proof of Google's overwhelming power in the search market. He said he hoped lawmakers, courts and competition regulators would take action to curb its powers.
"Others will have to pick up the ball now," the Springer boss told reporters on a conference call following the publication of the Berlin-based company's quarterly results.
So indeed it sounds like that's exactly what they are saying.
I bet it is more than Bild does.
If nobody allowed Google to do the snippets, Google's news business would sink. But since they cannot pass the copyright law for the entire world, Google's business is less affected by the ban. Because it is a monopoly.
Shit, these guys have a point.
Let's go to extremes and say that everyone the world over blocks Google from indexing and aggregating their news sites. That means that smaller players can enter the market, but if the blocking is based on principle; then those smaller players would have to invest in infrastructure, IP, and still have to pay publishers! Then publishers then also lose out.
From reading the article, it seems like the company is saying we're shooting ourselves in the foot by blocking Google, yet we still want to piss in our revenue fountain.
But how is that supposed to 1. justify Google as a monopolist 2. legitimize the cartels rent seeking ambitions and 3. make that "a point"?