欧洲出版商可能赢得“谷歌税”之战，但会输掉整个战争

    谷歌正在和欧洲监管部门多线开战，其中之一是长期以来一直被指责搜索结果存在反竞争行为。与此同时，谷歌还在和欧洲出版商进行较量，后者指责这家搜索龙头将其出版物的节选内容列入谷歌新闻，从而盗取了他们的收入。《纽约时报》最近报道称，欧盟出版商正在大力游说政府修改版权法，从而可能让此类行为面临“谷歌税”。

    毫无疑问，这似乎是个很棒的主意。谷歌坐拥数十亿美元现金，其中大多数都是广告收入，而且这些收入从来也没进入报社的腰包。那么，为什么不让谷歌花钱购买欧洲出版物的内容使用权呢？不过，这项策略的唯一问题是它有可能成为经典的得不偿失案例，欧洲出版商可能打赢这场战役，但会输掉整个战争。

    《纽约时报》称，包括欧洲出版商联盟在内的多个行业团体一直在接触反垄断等部门的官员，以敦促后者“在欧洲范围内对谷歌及其他公司使用出版商在线内容的行为进行更严格的限制”。显然，这些团体希望把这些新规纳入新的欧盟版权法，后者预计将在今年晚些时候进行大幅修订。报道指出：“如果这些法规获得通过，那么只要谷歌的欧洲新闻汇总网站上出现了相关内容的链接，谷歌就得向报社和杂志社付钱。”

    在许多欧洲国家，出版商已经看到了对使用其内容节选的行为征收“谷歌税”会带来什么样的局面，这也让上述出版团体的行为显得特别出人意料。举例来说，西班牙出版商要求调整本国版权法，以便迫使谷歌为使用节选内容付费，甚至是很短的节选。他们已经取得了成功，尽管在这儿用“成功”这个词也许并不合适。

    西班牙修改版权法后，谷歌宣布将西班牙从自己的新闻索引中彻底清除，理由是它别无选择，因为出版商不能自行决定取消这项收费。结果呢？西班牙新闻网站的流量在一夜之间减少了两成，那些大型传统出版商的网站也不例外。一项针对这次版权法修订的调查指出，一些较小的新闻网站实际上不得不关门大吉。这项调查的结论是：

    “无论从理论上还是实践上，让新闻汇总网站因为在汇总新闻的过程中使用了出版商的内容而向后者付费都不合理。同样的，这项收费采用一刀切模式，不准出版商选择不收费，这也对很多出版机构产生了不利影响，特别是小型出版商。”

    许多欧洲国家都曾试图让谷歌为此付费，西班牙只是其中之一。比利时出版商曾起诉谷歌“剽窃”，但最终在2013年和该公司达成协议，交换条件是谷歌承诺帮助这些出版商规划数字业务。出现这种局面的部分原因是谷歌不再使用它们的内容后，这些出版机构的网站流量陡然下降。谷歌答应为法国新闻出版商设立数字创新基金后，法国出版界最终也和前者和解。

    德国出版商Axel Springer是倡议欧盟施行新版权法的游说者之一，而且一直在直言不讳地批评谷歌。但同样的，对于谷歌税产生的负面影响，Axel Springer也是有切肤之痛的出版机构之一。德国修订相关法规进而要求为节选内容付费后，许多出版商都告知谷歌，要么给钱，要么清除相关内容，谷歌选择了后者。短短两周后，Axel Springer就动摇了，称自家网站的流量大幅下跌。

    上述经历并没有让欧盟出版界退缩，看来他们已经下定决心，要集整个行业的力量来让谷歌就范。他们也许期盼这家搜索龙头不愿把所有相关内容都从新闻索引中清除，因而不得不付费。然而，除非欧盟规定必须收费，否则一些出版商就可能选择和谷歌站在一起，继续通过后者的搜索业务来获得流量，那些坚持主张向谷歌收费的出版机构则将落于下风。

    这些出版商表示，和谷歌的争斗并不是要保护自己的传统业务，而是要为今后建立一个公平的竞争环境。然而，他们不去琢磨如何从谷歌带来的数十亿次点击和访问中收益，却要推行谷歌税，这可能无助于创造未来，而是把自己的未来抵押了出去。应该说，这就是欧盟对数字行业的整体态度，而不仅仅是针对谷歌新闻。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie

    校对：詹妮

    Google is fighting a battle with European regulators on a number of fronts, one of which is a long-running case that alleges anti-competitive behavior in the company’s search results. But it is also fighting with European publishers, who allege the search giant is stealing revenue from them by posting excerpts of their content in its Google News results. According to a recent report in the New York Times, EU publishers are lobbying hard for copyright changes that would impose a “Google tax” on such behavior.

    This no doubt seems like a great idea: Since Google has billions of dollars, most of which is made up of advertising revenue that no longer goes to newspapers, why not get it to pay for the privilege of linking to content from European publications? The only problem, however, is that this strategy could turn into a classic Pyrrhic victory, in which publishers win the battle but lose the war.

    The Times reports that a number of trade associations, including the Federation of European Publishers, have been meeting with antitrust officials and other regulators to push for “stricter, Europe-wide limits on how Google and others may use publishers’ online content.” They are apparently hoping to make these new rules part of the upcoming overhaul of EU copyright laws, expected later this year. “If the rules are approved,” the paper says, “Google may eventually have to pay newspaper and magazine groups whenever links to their content are shown on Google’s European aggregation sites.”

    What makes this latest effort so surprising is that publishers in a number of European countries have already seen what happens when they impose a “Google tax” on excerpts of their content. In Spain, for example, publishers lobbied for changes to their copyright laws that would require the company to pay for even short excerpts, and won—although “won” might be the wrong word to use in this case.

    After the new laws came into place, Google announced that it was removing Spain from its news index completely, arguing that it effectively had no choice, since publishers were unable to opt out of the payment requirement. The result? Traffic to Spanish news sites, including large traditional publishers, dropped by more than 20% overnight. Some smaller news sites actually had to shut down, according to a study done of the impact of the law change. The study concluded:

    “There is no theoretical or empirical justification for the introduction of a fee to be paid by news aggregators to publishers for linking their content as part of their aggregation services. Likewise, the arbitrary nature of the fee, which prevents publishers from opting out of receiving the payments, inflicts harm on a large number of outlets, particularly small publications.”

    Spain’s law is only one of a number of attempts to get Google to pay for excerpts. Belgian publishers sued Google for “scraping” their content, but eventually settled with the company in 2013 in return for a commitment to help publishers figure out their digital businesses, in part because traffic to their sites dropped precipitously after Google removed their content. French publishers also wound up settling with Google as well, after the company agreed to set up a digital innovation fund for newspapers.

    Among those lobbying for new EU copyright rules is German publisher Axel Springer, which has been a vocal critic of Google. And yet, it is also one of the companies that has felt the pain of a Google tax most directly: After German laws were changed to require payment for “snippets” of text, a number of publishers told Google to either pay the fee or remove their content, so the company removed them. After just two weeks, Springer relented, saying its traffic had plunged.

    Undaunted by those experiences, it seems EU publishers are determined to try and bring Google to heel using the combined forces of the entire European Community. They may be hoping that the search giant won’t be willing to remove all of their content from its index, and so will be forced to pay. But unless the EU makes a payment mandatory, some publishers will likely opt to stick with Google and its traffic-generating search results—and those who push for payment will get the short end of the stick.

    The publishers say their battle against Google isn’t about protecting their legacy businesses, but about creating a “level playing field” for the future. But by pushing for a Google tax, instead of figuring out how they can benefit from the billions of clicks and visits the search company sends their way, they could be mortgaging that future instead of helping to create it. And that attitude arguably applies to the European Union’s approach to digital in general, not just its attitude towards Google News.