Source for that?
http://www.dw.de/german-publishers-vs-google/a-18030444
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/05/us-google-axel-spr...
In the end german newspapers gave Google permission to use snippets of content without paying any royalties. They needed Google News traffic more than Google needed them.
Which is the reason why spanish lawmakers made a similar law but with a mandatory royalties clause. Spanish newspapers cannot give an exemption to any company, under the law paying royalties for using snippets is mandatory regardless of the content owner wishes. This law is not currently being enforced, but the consequences are dramatic all the same: Google has shut down Google News Spain, and other content aggregators are under threat of being hit with fines at any moment.
And that's why I'm not currently allowing feedbunch.com users to subscribe to RSS feeds from spanish newspaper publishers, until the situation changes. Anti-monopoly legislation is fine, but sometimes it can be a hammer that the big players use to hit each other instead of a tool to help new players get in the market.
http://the-digital-reader.com/2014/10/22/german-publishers-c...
Google simply stopped including snippets from german newspapers.
German newspapers reluctantly gave an exemption to Google so that it would publish snippets from their websites again.
What more evidence do you need? Perhaps only a letter written in blood and signed "give us an exemption or else" accompanied with a horse head would convince you about Google's negotiation tactics here?
What evidence? An evidence that it is not a law that forbids putting snippets,.
The ones doping ultimatum were the German government and the publishers
> Perhaps only a letter written in blood and signed "give us an exemption or else" accompanied with a horse head would convince you about Google's negotiation tactics here?
Perhaps not the bend of reality that you're doing
I suppose that you also think that in the Spanish case the one doing an ultimatum is also google.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8667309
[2] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0IP1YT20141105?irpc...
What Google did was what the law required. And, by the way, nothing of royalty-free access to all of the content
"Before the [law] came into force on 1 August 2013, Google Germany had written to the press publishers in June 2013. They should tell Google whether they waive all rights under the law on Google News and grant [it] free license. Otherwise, their content would no longer be listed from 1 August in Google News"
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leistungsschutzrecht_f%C3%BCr_...
Really, stop, what you're linking is what the German law says, there is no ultimatum from Google.
Google asked the publishers if they will give the right to publish the snippets without paying or not, nothing less, nothing more. Just what the German law was
It doesn't have to be phrased as a demand. As a friendly opportunity it's still an ultimatum.
Original situation: Search engines put snippets of news without paying
Germany pass a law: If you don't pay you have to stop putting snippets
Google: I don't want to pay, I will stop to put snippets as the law say
Where the heck is the ultimatum from Google, the ultimatum was from the German govern and a law to the liking of German publishers.
Germany passes a law: If you don't pay or reach another agreement you have to stop putting snippets
Google: I don't want to pay, you either let me use snippets free or I will stop as the law says
There, with the gaps filled in you can easily see the ultimatum from Google. In the Spain case there is no ultimatum, Google just shut down. In Germany Google looked at the law and then gave newspapers a final choice.
Example, I use Google Apps for a while and it's free. One day Google says, guess what we're going to start charging for this service in a couple months, if you want to keep using it, enter credit card details here. I don't enter my credit card details, and stop using the service. Did I just "retaliate" against Google? Perhaps, but I can see where Oletros is coming from.
I think in this case they are saying, "if you want to be in Google News, you can be, your choice bro." I just can't see any problem with that.
It's just like robots.txt, except German law made it opt-in instead of opt-out. It was opt-out, the law made it opt-in, so, well, now they gotta opt-in! Google really was a neutral 3rd party to the whole fiasco... in this case.