Slashdot Mirror

The news of the world and the News Corp?

You're referring to Fox News, a CABLE channel.

No matter how good you think you can read minds, you're wrong, I was not talking about the cable channel Fox New, Fox also owns TV and radio broadcasting stations.

Falcon

Rupert's company knows about robots.txt. See, they allow everything.

And Foxnews is even kind enough to provide sitemaps targeted at facilitating Google

Rupert's mantra should probably be listen to what I say, (pay no attention to what I do)

Maybe the answer is robots.txt; but that is not what you tell a billionaire if he asks you.

Why not? It's a pretty simple concept.

http://www.fox.com/robots.txt
http://www.myspace.com/robots.txt
http://www.newscorp.com/robots.txt

http://www.newscorp.com/news/bunews_39.html
http://www.newscorp.com/news/bunews_40.html

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/402737/The-News-of-the-World-was-the-subject-of-some-ferocious-attacks.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124713962333917725.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124710587096916143.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124725579809924597.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2528020/Met-Police-No-investigation-into-hacking.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2530062/No-truth-in-News-of-the-World-phone-tap-claim.html
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Article/200907215334404
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Article/200907215335802
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25762968-401,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25763994-23109,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25759684-7582,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25757545-2703,00.html
http://www.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=351326
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6670747.ece

just a few links about it from News Corp. owned sources.

/deafening right?
//oh and in the end, it seems like the guardian (a rival newspaper to News Corp. in the uk) got a bit carried away with reporting this because they didnt seem to have any of the evidence of the claims that they were making.

http://www.newscorp.com/news/bunews_39.html
http://www.newscorp.com/news/bunews_40.html

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/402737/The-News-of-the-World-was-the-subject-of-some-ferocious-attacks.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124713962333917725.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124710587096916143.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124725579809924597.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2528020/Met-Police-No-investigation-into-hacking.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2530062/No-truth-in-News-of-the-World-phone-tap-claim.html
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Article/200907215334404
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Article/200907215335802
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25762968-401,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25763994-23109,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25759684-7582,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25757545-2703,00.html
http://www.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=351326
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6670747.ece

just a few links about it from News Corp. owned sources.

/deafening right?
//oh and in the end, it seems like the guardian (a rival newspaper to News Corp. in the uk) got a bit carried away with reporting this because they didnt seem to have any of the evidence of the claims that they were making.

In a republic, the rule of law prevails rather than the rule of despots. These courts and Newsom stepped miles outside of the bounds of their offices as set by federal and state constitutions to override the will of the people. The courts and the executive are not there to invent their own laws.

You'll be alarmed to find out that there's a news corporation. Chilling.
News Corporation

There never has been anything stopping someone who has homosexual desires or has acted on such desires from getting married- though they're unlikely to want to do so. If there were a class of people who couldn't marry then it would be a matter of civil rights. But it makes no more sense for people to complain that they can't "marry" another person of the same gender than it does for them to complain that they can't "marry" their dog or their inflatable doll. What Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa did was radically redefine a word that has a perfectly clear meaning. Why? To grant legitimacy, official recognition, and government subsidy and benefits to a relationship which under any accurate name is easily recognized as entirely different from and inimical to the kind of marriage which is the fundamental building block of society.

By marriage, I mean a marriage license issued by the state in which two people live. (There are civil benefits derived from that license.) Obviously, two people are free to be emotionally attached to each other however they like regardless of law. Again:

There never has been anything stopping someone who has homosexual desires or has acted on such desires from getting married- though they're unlikely to want to do so.

What do you mean?

Again, if some group of people democratically decides that they want to spend their tax dollars subsidizing perversion, teaching it in their schools, and propagandizing each other about how wonderful sodomy really is, then to the extent that people are free to leave that society and other societies are insulated from that society's poor decision, all one can say is "may the best set of ideals win in the long run." But to have a few corrupt officials force it down the nation's throat by declaring that gender has nothing to do with marriage and to have anybody who holds other standards labeled as a dangerous "antiprogressive" is abominable. Nor will those pushing the homosexual agenda be content to browbeat and threaten those who don't agree with their views in their own country (as well as resort to actual violence when they don't get their way- see the violence against blacks and Mormons after prop 8 passed in California) - they want to push their agenda down the throats of every nation in the world.

Our society is a republic and in republics people elect representatives to represent them. You need to do anything in your power to stop corrupt people from representing you. You can vote; you can also protest. I've seen people doing this.

It's a non-binding UN resolution. Your country refused to sign it. That sounds like a win for you.

There's a reason why the decline and implosion of societies from ancient times to the present day has been strongly correlated with the rise of homosexuality and other perversions.

Please give me an example of at least one acient society and one present-day society.

You never answered how we're (1) losing 'local autonomy' (please also explain what you mean by that term) and (2) losing it to an international government.

People will subscribe to the Journal or the Times when they live nowhere near NYC and never have.

It's a publication with a reputation.

Murdoch doesn't own anything like that.

um, Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal. News Corp is not just Fox and Fox News.

Here's the list of Newspaper and Informational holdings of News Corp from their own website: http://www.newscorp.com/operations/newspapers.html

I think you have Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner confused.

Actually I chose the one who owns the larger media empire and is responsible for numerous media outlets around the world that sensationalise the issue on both sides. That being the case, I don't see how Murdoch's personal opinion is in any way relevant...if drowning polar bears sells newspapers or pulls in viewers its a good business strategy, and the more sane and moderate he appears the less people will suspect he's responsible*. Bwa-ha-ha!!!

(The obvious point here being that when someone talks about outlandish Bond-esque supervillain schemes, serious analysis is probably a waste of time)

I have a feeling you would have said the same thing last year when they were offered 2 Billion. Also, Google already has an advertising deal with MySpace so Microsoft is probably just trying not to let Google take up everything good on the web.

I submitted this same story earlier this morning but it was voted down to black in the firehose almost instantly. Probably because of the negative spin I gave it. Well, I'm not afraid of losing karma so I'll spout my ramblings in a post instead.

Rupert Murdoch owns News Corporation, a conglomerate business that, among other things, owns many news sources. MySpace is a division of News Corp as well as Fox News, The Sun, The Australian, SmartSource, The Times, New York Post, News of the World, etc.

Something interesting about Rupert Murdoch is his political leanings are often reflected in all of the divisions of his corporation. Guess why 175 of his editors favored the Iraq war.

Call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever you need to call me in order to ignore one nagging issue--is it really that safe to have so many different news sources coming from really the same man? The worst part is that there is no perceived relation between the New York Post and Fox News yet they are basically one and the same in how they spin their news on partisan issues. It's the same in Great Britain & Australia. I don't even care that he's predominantly conservative in his views, I just care that if he decided to back any candidate (possibly even Hillary Clinton) that suddenly that candidate is favored in many news sources. He's making political decisions that impact the world and he's not an elected politician.

I fear that if MySpace is edited at all by hand or by automation, it will favor articles that favor his candidates--in exactly the same way he has been running his newspapers and TV news. Beware your free and capitalist media, America because it looks as though a single man has a growing monopoly on it ...

You must of missed the memo or the previous post in this story.

MySpace is owned by News Corp one of the largest media companies on the face of the planet.

There are no small companies or individuals involved in this lawsuit.

http://www.newscorp.com/investor/index.html
News Corporation (NYSE: NWS, NWS.A; ASX: NWS, NWSLV) had total assets as of June 30, 2006 of approximately US$57 billion and total annual revenues of approximately US$25 billion.

Dear sir,

News Corporation owns MySpace.

CNET Networks owns News.com.

Have fun with your lawsuit.

Sincerely,
Me

Let's see. News Corporation is a publicly traded company. News Corporation owns MySpace. Rupert Murdoch says one of MySpace's goals isto take the market lead in online video from privately held YouTube in the next 60 to 70 days. Granted, I'm not a Murdoch fan, and I'm not going to contend that he's not a "moron", but do you really think News Corp. would push this if they thought they were going to get the pants sued off of them?

Minor correction: you mean News Corporation. News International is the UK newspaper arm of News Corp.

News.com.au is the Australian site for News.com

Er no it's not

news.com.com is http://www.cnetnetworks.com/
news.com.au is http://www.newscorp.com/

Bad link. Try http://www.newscorp.com/

"It's way too early to say whether the company would pursue licenses and litigation from its competitors," Friendster President Kent Lindstrom told RedHerring.com. "We'll do what we can to protect our intellectual property."

Though the Friendster patent could be challenged in either the patent system or the courts, opponents would face an uphill battle.

For example: 20th Century Fox is part of http://www.newscorp.com/operations/other.html which owns the NY Post, The Sun and the Times in the UK, and many many many more news outlets all over the world. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell of getting negative publicity over any MPAA action in a News Corp media business.

Bring on the Blipverts!

1. How does the RIAA control the media so well? Are the big papers and news channels really lazy enough to only report things that have press releases?

I'm afraid i can't point you to the specific patents that gemstar owns but i just quickly googled "gemstar tvguide patents" and got a lot of references to suits filed by gemstar. Here is a small selection of news stories, most of which seem to be from around 2002 (i would investigate further, but this tends to wind me up ;)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2002-01-31-gem star.htm
http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2003 /06/09/daily7.html
http://www.socaltech.com/fullstory/0002006.html
http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_110.html

And an example of them losing:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:87727511/GEMSTAR-T V+GUIDE+LOSES+PATENT+RULING+OVER+INTERACTIVE+TV+PR OGRAM+GUIDES.html

As of 2:35 PM, the summary looks like this:

Posted by Zonk on Tuesday July 19, @02:26PM
from the murdoch-immediately-propositioned-for-cyber dept.
jagger writes "a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4695495. stm">News Corp announced on Monday that it , owner of the popular MySpace.com social networking site, http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=166400491&tid=13692">for $580 million. This follows an announcement by News Corp on Friday that it is creating an Internet division to hold the company's sports, news and entertainment sites."

More correctly, it should look like this:

Posted by Zonk on Tuesday July 19, @02:26PM
from the editing-is-for-wimps dept.
someguy writes News Corp is a massive media conflomerate owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch. News Corp recently announced that they are moving into the internet market, with the acquisition of Intermix media, which runs the popular MySpace.com social networking site. For more information, refer to this BBC news article, and this information week article.

BBC Article text is:

News Corp in $580m internet buy

News Corp, the company run by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has made one of its first major internet purchases.

It has bought Intermix Media, owner of Myspace.com, the fifth most-viewed internet domain in the US and owner of other sites for $580m (£332.85m).

Mr Murdoch says the networking site will drive traffic to his Fox TV sites.

Last week the company set up a new internet unit. Mr Murdoch has said that newspapers have been slow to respond to competition from the internet.

Advertising advantage

"With a significant amount of advertising dollars moving from traditional outlets to online, News Corp, like most media companies, is looking to boost its internet assets," Alan Gould, an analyst at Natexis Bleichroeder, told Reuters.

The US market for internet advertising is growing at 15% in 2005, according to media buyers Universal McCann.

Myspace.com users connect to the site for dating, making friends, professional networking and sharing interests.

Earlier this year, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer accused Intermix of deceptive business practices, including the use of spyware that delivered pop-up adverts and redirected users to its search engine.

Intermix agreed to pay $7.9m to settle the suit but did not admit wrongdoing.

InformationWeek article:

News Corp. To Acquire Intermix Media July 18, 2005

The move triples News Corp.'s reach among U.S. Internet users and makes it a player in the online social-networking market. By Antone Gonsalves
InternetWeek

News Corp. on Monday said it has agreed to acquire Intermix Media Inc., which owns more than 30 e-commerce and media websites, for $580 million in cash, tripling News Corp.'s reach among U.S. Internet users and making it a player in the online social-networking market.

In a separate deal, Intermix announced on Monday that it has acquired the 47 percent of social networking site MySpace.com that it didn't already own.

In the News Corp. agreement, the Los Angeles based media giant would pay $12 per common share of Intermix stock, or about $580 million. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter, pending approval of Intermix stockholders.

MySpace.com and Intermix's other

9. Who are BSkyB's shareholders?
At 31 December 2004, our shareholders were:
News UK Nominees Limited.
(a subsidiary of News Corporation) : 35.75%
Other public and institutional shareholders : 64.25%

Uhh...Fox News is owned by an Aussie, Rupert Murdoch.

While Rupert Murdoch was born in Australia, he is now a U.S. citizen. News Corp., which is the Murdoch-controlled entity that owns Fox Broadcasting, is seeking shareholder approval to re-incorporate in the United States.

I used to work in book publishing, and have also done consulting work for a major U.S. broadcast network. I've had to explain dozens of times that there is no relationship between Uncle Rupert and me. 8-)

Any company that has a hyperlink marked "Investor Information" above-the-fold (shown without a need to scroll down on a typical 800x600 setup) is automatically a bit suspect.

Murdoch was an Australian citizen. He started out inheriting 1 daily newspaper in Adelaide, Australia. He grew to control most daily metro & regional newspapers & magazines in Australia.

He also bought some UK newspapers and had a large run in with newspaper unions that he won with help from British PM Margaret Thatcher. He also eventually took control of BSkyB, the leading UK satellite service.

When he went to the US and bought 20th Century Fox and established the Fox brand through TV station acquisitions he had to change his citizenship to US as a requirement to own as much media as he does.

News Corporation, the parent company of the various media holdings, is still an Australian company.

Cheers VikingBrad

And all it would take is for someone major like FOX News to do a story

You'd be more likely to get a coverup than a story out of Fox "We distort, you comply" News because Fox News's parent company owns a major American movie studio.

MSNBC, on the other hand, is the only major American cable news outlet not affiliated with an MPAA member. Microsoft could even spin the story to push Windows Media over DVD as a "stronger digital restriction solution".

Murdoch doesn't own News Corp outright :P He is just the main man who started it all and has the biggest interest in the company... everyone however should be required to visit News Corp's website just to see how much they own us... :P I mean, just look at all the television stations they own! (Unlike most networks, FOX owns most of the TV stations that are affiliated with them)

Yes, the British and Canadian contingient is recognized and appreciated. As is anyone else willing to send their money and their aircraft and their boys (and girls) to open a can of whoop-ass on all those who would destroy freedom in the world.

A cynic would note that the U.K. would likely not exist in its present form had it not been for its former colonies coming it its rescue about sixty years ago. Me, I'm not so certain, but I'm bloody sure that if it hadn't been for Tojo's insistience that Yamamoto awaken the sleeping giant, France would be speaking Russian these days... (not German; Hitler, like Napoleon before him, made the mistake of starting a land war in Asia after Easter... and the Red Army would not have stopped at the Rhine without Patton (and Monty!) there to keep them from it.)

So you Tories will excuse us Yanks a little tongue in cheek arrogance, no? After all, the RAF's next fighter aircraft will be built in either Marietta, Georgia, or (hopefully) right here in Seattle....

I will give the Brits credit, though. They have some of the best news services in the world.... unlike the crap we generate here in the States.... (I think it's funny that perhaps America's best news network is run by an Aussie... )

--
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
-- Mr. William Shakespeare, Henry V
(yes, of course we love you, John Bull, now quit being tetchy about it.)

I can't see how people can object to actions that stop piracy - people seem to think no-one gets hurt by these things. They are wrong. The people working for record and computer companies have jobs and families too. And these are the ones that get hurt by the revenue lost.

It's never the big boss that gets hurt. Not Julia Roberts or Leonardo Di Caprio. It's the man who's packing the videos for $8/hour. It's the guy making them. He's the one losing the money.

The (Sunday) Times is owned by Murdoch's News Corporation - if they don't have a stake in some such money-spinner, I'd be amazed...

Disney does own ABC, but who owns NBC, CBS, UPN, etc..

UPN and CBS fall under the Viacom umbrella, which includes Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, MTV, VH1, TNN, Showtime, The Movie Channel, Flix, Blockbuster, Nickelodeon, Simon & Schuster, United Cinemas International among other companies.

NBC is owned by General Electric, and other media connections include MSNBC, CNBC, Snap.com, Xoom.com.

Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., whose holdings in the US include 20th Century Fox Studios, Fox Studios, FX, Fox Sports, Fox Family, Fox News, HarperCollins, LA Dodgers, New York Post, TV Guide, and others. News Corp also owns cable company Sky Broadcasting in the UK and many newspapers in the UK and Australia.

And most of us should know the connections that the WB network has considering the coverage the Warner Bros/AOL merger has received in the past few weeks.

• MPAA.ORG
  MCA.Com
  Paramount
  MGM
  Sony
  Disney
  Fox

All of the above URLs are active as either email addresses or contact form pages. I would suggest that now would be a good time to exercise the /. effect and your brains (don't just copy my message) on behalf of the websites targeted by the MPAA.

P.S. If any of the URL's don't work, please fix them. I felt like it was more important to get this posted than to triplecheck all the links.