Now that Qualcomm has to pay $975 million to settle an anti-trust in China, you’d think that’s the last we’d hear about it. Nope. It appears that South Korea is going to take its turn to investigate Qualcomm’s practices in that country according to Mobile World Live. In 2009, Qualcomm paid $200 million in fines for “unreasonable and discriminatory terms for licensing its patents” in South Korea, so this isn’t the company’s first rodeo there. Although Qualcomm chips power the bulk of smartphones and tablets today, nearly a third of its $27 billion in revenue last year came from royalties and licensing of its patents.
Google has decided to shut down Google News in Spain. The decision follows the passage of a law in July that obliges any news aggregator quoting snippets of text or using thumbnails of images from a copyrighted publication to pay royalties for doing so.
In a blog post late Wednesday, [company]Google[/company] News chief Richard Gingras said the service makes no money because Google doesn’t advertise on it, so it would be unsustainable to continue operations in Spain. With the law set to come into effect in January, Google News will shut there on 16 December.
Spain is not the first European country to pass a so-called ancillary copyright law – Germany did so in March 2013 – but its version is much more heavy-handed.
In the German law, publishers can choose whether or not they want to grant a news aggregator such as Google News the right to use snippets of their copyrighted text in its search results without compensation. This is how the German publishers ultimately caved in: Google refused to pay royalties, so it stopped listing the articles of publishers who belonged to the relevant rights collection group. The publishers in that group ended up granting Google the right to use their text without having to pay up, but did so grumbling that the case demonstrated Google abusing its market power (never mind that other German aggregators had done precisely the same thing.)
Under the Spanish “Google tax” law, that simply wouldn’t be an option. There, the levy is an “inalienable right”, meaning publishers couldn’t give Google News a free pass even if they wanted to. As Weblogs CEO Julio Alonso recently wrote, that applies even to those who publish their content under a free-use copyleft license, such as Creative Commons.
Google’s struggles with European publishers predate these ancillary copyright laws of the last couple years, and on two occasions it was able to stave off anything as drastic as legislative changes. In late 2012, the company struck a deal with Belgian publishers through which it appeared to buy millions of dollars’ worth of advertising in the relevant publications. And in early 2013 it established a fund for French publishers, to “support digital publishing initiatives.”
Now, following the German and Spanish examples, the idea of the “Google tax” may spread, as the European Commission’s recently-installed digital economy chief, Günther Oettinger, has been making noises about applying it across the EU. The German commissioner, who has the copyright reform file, recently said: “When Google takes intellectual works from within the EU and works with them, then the EU may protect those works and demand a levy from Google for them.”
The issue is also a major strand in the Google search antitrust case although, as I have previously argued, it is a copyright issue that bears little relation to the other elements of the case, and it should be considered separately. The other elements of the case are about harm to consumers and Google’s direct rivals, while this element is only about giving the publishers money for nothing.
The Spanish publishers will no doubt now see their traffic drop off a cliff, just as their German counterparts did, and this will almost certainly hammer their advertising revenues. But, because of the severity of the law they themselves forced, they will be able to do nothing about it. It’s not even a move that could see local rivals to Google flourish, as the law is not specific to the U.S. firm. I have asked AEDE, the relevant collection society, for comment.
In the overall theme of Europe pushing back against U.S. firms – a narrative that I find overplayed sometimes, as there isn’t nearly enough coordination in Europe to make this some kind of plot – Spain is fast emerging as the most heavy-handed player. The authorities there seem more overtly protectionist than elsewhere in Europe, and they’re not afraid to cause severe consequences for internet users and businesses.
When Spain banned Uber earlier this week, for example, the injunction also ordered Spanish ISPs and payment processors to block Uber’s customers from being able to use the service. And, as the EFF has pointed out, the same copyright law that introduced the “Google tax” will also introduce criminal liability for websites that refuse to remove links to copyright-infringing material.
Aereo is back in court with a brand new legal theory for why it should be allowed to continue to operate. If it prevails, the implications could be nearly as far-reaching as if it had won in the Supreme Court.
From Amazon’s point of view the licensing fees it pays rights owners are merely part of the subscriber acquisition costs for Prime’s two-day shipping plan — a number Amazon needs to keep as low as possible.
Here we go again. The music industry is taking another run at Pandora and other digital services in Congress, claiming they should pay for pre-1972 recordings even though AM/FM stations do not.
On Saturday, Comixology, the dominant digital comics distributor recently purchased by Amazon, released a new iOS app that removes the in-app comic book store, in a move designed to avoid Apple’s standard 30 percent in-app purchase fee.
A court ruled that Pandora should pay songwriters about the same amount as AM/FM stations. The ruling may seem fair, but it disguises the much deeper problems of an outdated system for compensating musicians.
Are digital services like Pandora paying their fair share to support musicians? A new ruling will add fuel to the debate: here’s all the details.
Two Indian handset makers will reportedly not pay a fee to Microsoft for licensing Windows Phone. Is this the first change of a bigger strategy for Microsoft? Perhaps, and it may not be a bad idea.
Pandora is trying to buy KXMZ-FM in the small town of Box Elder to make a point about unequal music royalty rates, but appears to have tripped over a regulatory hurdle involving foreign ownership.