With Google Discover, users have an alternative to the old Google News, where we can receive different pieces of news from different publications. Based on article 32.2 of the Intellectual Property Law that regulates copyright in favor of content aggregation companies, CEDRO has decided to sue Google demanding a payment of 1.1 million euros in copyright concepts for Discover service.
CEDRO claims Google with the same arguments why it closed Google News
CEDRO is the association of authors and publishers of books, magazines, newspapers and sheet music, an association of copyright management, equivalent to what SGAE or SEDA represents . The company has filed the claim with the commercial courts of Madrid and claims the payment derived from the use of Google Discover.
According to CEDRO, other aggregation services such as Upday, Squid or the Huawei service are paying these rights. Services whose operation is equivalent to that of Google and occupy the same space in the mobiles where they work.
The amount of 1.1 million euros is an estimate of Google’s debt, an amount that, according to CEDRO, could lead to claiming more than 14 million euros if the company provided effective data on the use of content. As they explain, before going to court CEDRO already requested payment for copyright by Google Discover since its launch at the end of 2016 .
The Article 32.2 of the Copyright Act , which led to the closure of Google News, reads as follows:
Rights management associations considered that Google was taking advantage of the work of the media, while Google argued that it was offering benefits to the media by directing a large amount of traffic. CEDRO’s new lawsuit brings the same debate to court that a few years ago ended with the closure of Google News.
In response to Technoeager, they explain that “we cannot comment on the complaint since we have not received an official notice from CEDRO and we have not seen the details of the lawsuit. However, as we have told CEDRO several times, Discover does not is a content aggregator for which the Intellectual Property Law would not apply”,.