Since there's no details in the article at all, I'm going to guess that the charity was hotlinking content from the archive's servers into the middle of their own webpage. This is generally bad manners on the internet.
I wouldn't guess that. The newspaper industry is pretty well known for malarkey like this. A few years back the American newspaper industry famously accused Google of ripping them off by including their stories in its SERPs without paying them.
Not really. Iff the newspaper allowed it in its robots.txt, Google would copy the page title and a short description of the page. This is the same thing every search engine does with every page on the Internet. Google did not copy the actual articles and sell ads next to them. The newspapers' Web teams even knew their publishers were talking crap, which is why they didn't just delist themselves and stop complaining about it.
(Full disclosure: I work on newspaper sites. I was actually one of the people who had to have the "Well, we could opt out" "BUT THEN WE'D LOSE ALL OUR TRAFFIC!" conversation.)
Comments
Since there's no details in the article at all, I'm going to guess that the charity was hotlinking content from the archive's servers into the middle of their own webpage. This is generally bad manners on the internet.
I wouldn't guess that. The newspaper industry is pretty well known for malarkey like this. A few years back the American newspaper industry famously accused Google of ripping them off by including their stories in its SERPs without paying them.
A couple of references:
http://searchengineland.com/google-testifies-before-senate-a...
http://searchengineland.com/would-someone-please-explain-to-...
I could actually understand that, since Google actually copied their text and was selling ads next to the copied text.
Not really. Iff the newspaper allowed it in its robots.txt, Google would copy the page title and a short description of the page. This is the same thing every search engine does with every page on the Internet. Google did not copy the actual articles and sell ads next to them. The newspapers' Web teams even knew their publishers were talking crap, which is why they didn't just delist themselves and stop complaining about it.
(Full disclosure: I work on newspaper sites. I was actually one of the people who had to have the "Well, we could opt out" "BUT THEN WE'D LOSE ALL OUR TRAFFIC!" conversation.)