The Belgian court copyright infringement ruling against Google News will not ultimately damage the search engine service, but it will bring the company to the negotiating table with publishers who are concerned about how their content is being used online.
Losing Copiepresse's content will not in itself cause Google News too many problems.
Many publishers see the Google News service as a fantastic traffic driver that ultimately results in a potential increase in revenue.
However, if other content providers start winning similar copyright infringement court rulings around the world, Google and leading other online content aggregators - including Microsoft and Yahoo! - would be in trouble.
The most likely outcome of the stand-off between content providers and aggregators is a compromise offering publishers greater control of what material is picked up by Google News and its peers, and how it is used.
But Google and other aggregators will stop short of agreeing to pay for content, according to industry experts.
Following the Belgian court ruling, Google said it will appeal the decision, that its service is "entirely legal", and that if Copiepresse wanted out of Google News it could have done so easily.
"Hundreds of news publishers in Belgium and around the world are delighted to be included in Google News because it helps more people find their websites and read their articles," said a defiant Rachel Whetstone, the Google European director of communications and public affairs, on the company's official blog.
"That's why Google receives far more requests for inclusion than requests for removal," Ms Whetstone added.
"If a newspaper does not want to be part of Google News, we remove their content from our index - all the newspaper has to do is ask. There is no need for legal action and all the associated costs."
While Ms Whetstone is absolutely right - a small piece of common technology called robots.txt can opt out content from Google News - for publishers the issue is about Google's negotiating tactics, or rather, lack of them.
Larry Kilman, the director of communications at the World Association of Newspapers, said: "Overall, the underlying issue is that publishers and content providers have to be part of the discussion.
"This lawsuit has come around because of the unilateral decision by Google - and others - on how content will be used."
The answer, say content providers, could be a system called automated content access protocol - or Acap.
Developed and funded by the European Publishers Council, the International Publishers Association and the World Association of Newspapers, Acap will be a "permissions information" technology that can be attached to content on a media organisation's website.
Acap will tell the web crawlers - used by Google to aggregate content - what they can do with each piece of information, such as how long the piece can stay on Google News, image rights, and how long an article can be.
Content publishers on board to test the product include AFP, Reed Elsevier and the Independent. Google is involved on the technical board.
Mr Kilman said that the idea is that, just as a news agency such as Reuters has a commercial relationship with those that want to use its content, so Acap might be an option for any content provider who wants to charge for use via Google.
"The status quo [Google News aggregating content for free] is fine with some publishers. It definitely has value," added Mr Kilman.
"But it is not for all, there have to be commercial agreements if some content owners demand this route. We don't think law suits are the answer. We do think that co-operation is the way forward."
Pressure from unhappy publishers like Copiepresse is likely to have played a part in Google - along with Yahoo! and Microsoft - joining the discussion about content aggregation.
However, the continued defiant stance adopted by Google is a probable indicator that it will ultimately balk at any development of Acap that proposes payment.
"Losing Copiepresse listings will do no damage to Google News, but if things escalated and it lost every member of WAN, then that would hurt," said Struan Robertson, a senior associate at law firm Pinsent Masons.
"Google will discuss the Acap proposal and will decide if it is workable for them. Technically it is straightforward change, it comes down to a commercial decision for Google to decide and if it wants to go down that route," he added.
"Google is likely to agree on Acap specifications, it wants to keep publishers happy, but it is likely to draw the line at paying."
Mr Robertson said that wealthy Google is readily seen as a target - evidenced by companies such as Viacom threatening legal action over copyrighted video clips to improve its negotiating position with Google-owned YouTube.
"Most newspapers - including those represented by Copiepresse - want to be found by Google's search engine," he added.
"They know exactly how to keep Google out, using a technical change that requires maybe five minutes' effort. But they choose not to do that.
"Instead, Copiepresse's members want a slice of Google's wealth and they're hoping copyright law will cut it. The newspapers involved have been dropped from Google News and newspapers across Europe could follow suit if they were so inclined. But I don't see that happening."
