Slashdot Mirror
Murdoch Demands Kindle Users' Info
In yet another move to display how antiquated and completely ignorant of digital culture he is, Rupert Murdoch has started demanding that Amazon hand over user info for all Kindle users. This demand comes right after Murdoch just finished negotiating a larger share of revenue from Amazon sales. At least Amazon hasn't decided to comply with this request yet. "'As I've said before, the traditional business model has to change rapidly to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their old margins of profitability,' Murdoch said. 'Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting.'"
What the hell is this? Twitter? some blag? Where on earth is the link to TFA?
This story doesn't have a story?
No link to a story?
I could look it up, but I want to emphasize first just _how_ antiquated the man is.
How long have we been doing this dance? Still don't know the steps?
Uhhh want to include a link to the referenced article?
Could we have a link to somewhere that actually posts this alleged request that Rupert Murdoch supposedly made? I've seen the quote in the summary before but I'd really like some source for the alleged request besides the summary of a slashdot posting.
Quality journalism really isn't cheap, Slashdot can't even bother to link to an actual source for any of this information.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
What does Rupert Murdoch, of all people, know about Quality Journalism?
...but only to those who turn over their personal information and credit card billing info.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/05/murdochs-ultimatum-to-amazon-give-us-the-names-or-else/
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
WTG Slashdot! At first I thought a story that was posted without a link or attribution of source was a mistake. But then I realized it's really just a super-subtle acknowledgment of John Hughes' passing....
"My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Rupert Murdoch pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious."
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Murdoch is constantly grandstanding! If it wasn't for the Simpsons, I'd be able to ignore Fox completely!
Murdoch's ultimatum to Amazon: Give us Kindle subscriber names or else
Jeff Bercovici
Aug 5th 2009 at 7:00PM
Rupert Murdoch's mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore. High-handed treatment from Amazon, that is.
On News Corp.'s (NWS) fiscal-year-end earnings call with analysts, the notoriously shoot-from-the-hip mogul suggested that The Wall Street Journal will cease to be available on the Kindle e-reader unless Amazon starts offering a more generous revenue split and more publisher-friendly policies.
Murdoch acknowledged that the Journal recently negotiated a slightly larger share of the revenues Amazon gets from selling Kindle subscriptions to the paper, "but it's not a big number, and we're not encouraging it at all because we don't get the names of the subscribers," he said. "Kindle treats them as their subscribers, not as ours, and I think that will eventually cause a break with us."
Jeff Bezos, consider yourself warned.
On the call, News Corp. announced adjusted full-year operating income of $3.6 billion, a 32 percent year-over-year decline largely attributable to the advertising recession afflicting print and broadcast television. Much of the call was devoted to News Corp.'s intensive drive to get consumers to pay directly for digital content of all kinds. Murdoch revealed that the company plans to introduce pay models for all its news websites by the end of the next fiscal year. Moreover, he said that it won't be only the newspaper sites that adopt this change; foxnews.com, he said, will also start charging for content. "It has a huge and loyal and profitable [web] audience already," he said.
"As I've said before, the traditional business model has to change rapidly to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their old margins of profitability," Murdoch said. "Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting."
Other highlights from the call:
-Murdoch on this year's television advertising: "We're doing well, or we think we're doing well, on the pricing, but we'll probably keep more back for the spot market than last year....There's money around. I'm not saying there's a vast recovery or anything like that, but we are in the process of reaching understandings with a lot of advertisers."
-On whether News Corp. will develop its own e-reader to compete with the Kindle: "We're not in the hardware business."
-On rumors that Guardian Media Group may close the Observer: "I did read that document that went to the staff of the Guardian that swore allegiance everlastingly to the Guardian but said nothing about the Observer. I think I made the same conclusions as everybody."
-On whether News Corp. would buy the Observer: "Hell no. Why?"
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Sure, *quality* journalism probably isn't cheap, but if Rupert's paying much for Fox News-caliber journalism, he's getting ripped off.
Why Rupert Murdoch would suddenly care about "good reporting" is anyone's guess.
For those of you joining late, for the first few minutes the Slashdot story didn't link to the Daily Finance story.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
There is plenty of related stuff out on the internet that gives credibility to this.
And this sort of malarkey is why I'm not buying one of these any time soon.
...after which I will send my Kindle back to amazon for a full refund. If necessary I'll invoke VISA's help to charge it back. It wasn't part of the contract for amazon to erase my 1984 book off my kindle, or to reveal my info to third party assholes. I can tolerate some things but this passes the line.
Aside-
I mentioned elsewhere that amazon is holding ~$500 of my sales as a seller in limbo. Well a day after I said that publicly they immediately refunded the money, but still kept $79 for themselves. I eventually tracked-down the reason - an asshole woman in California bought a Zenith DTV box from me, and even though I already provided Amazon with proof-of-delivery, they decided to keep the $79 and refund it back to this woman. So she successfully stole my property, with amazon's help.
Grrr. I'm really starting to hate amazon.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I can see why he expects this information... he's a publisher who's spent the lion's share of his career dealing in print media. If people were subscribing to the dead-tree edition of the Journal, he would have not just their names but their home addresses and probably phone numbers as well. Now subscribers want to pay for the same publication--the Wall Street Journal--and the publisher expects to have the same information they would if they were sending the physical newspaper. What's the big deal? Just cause something is delivered electronically rather than via the post, that makes basic subscriber information suddenly privacy-threatening?
I'm as paranoid about privacy concerns as the next [rational] person, but I don't see what the big deal is here.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Apparently, he's upset that Kindle users can subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, but the subscriber information is not passed back to News Corp. so the subscription has less marketing value.
"'As I've said before, the traditional business model has to change rapidly to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their old margins of profitability,' Murdoch said. 'Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting.'"
Is it because they are a cheap news agency and they can't provide quality reporting? Is that why their viewers continuously rank at the bottom of the most uninformed TV news viewers? Oh wait, don't you own them? Hm, odd. So we should presume that, if you are given more money, that money would go into providing "quality reporting" and make the Fox News viewers more knowledgeable right?
For some reason I cannot see that happening.
It looks to me like he is not requesting every kindle users info (as the headline suggests). But he is requesting that when a user subscribes to The Wall Street Journal via a kindle, they are a customer of TWSJ and not Amazon. Sounds reasonable to me. That way the user could change devices and keep their subscriptions.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Are there any non-predatory e-book readers available?
Moreover, he said that it won't be only the newspaper sites that adopt this change; foxnews.com, he said, will also start charging for content. "It has a huge and loyal and profitable [web] audience already," he said.
Now hes CHARGING us for his bullshit propaganda? Jeeeeeeeeez.......
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
He says he wants info on Kindle users who subscribe to his paper via Amazon. Not quite "hand over user info for all Kindle users".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Talk about a reason not to own a Kindle.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Quality journalism is not cheap...
How can something that doesn't exist be expensive?
I love this gem in the article:
Moreover, he said that it won't be only the newspaper sites that adopt this change; foxnews.com, he said, will also start charging for content.
You go, Rupert. Making Faux News a subscription site. Thank you! And, hey, don't forget to jack your rates on cable providers, too. I'd really stick it to those freeloaders.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
That's "Cristal", you prole. :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
In yet another move to display how antiquated and completely ignorant of digital culture he is...
I expect this kind of bias from slashdot comments, but when the articles themselves are slanted...
Let us formulate our own opinions before you shove yours down our throat.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
"to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their old margins of profitability" Rupert Murdoch really is an ignorant fool. How is making the industry "as profitable as it was before" related to the quality of information? According to what he says himself, they are still profitable, just not as much as they were before. So what should we expect from a more profitable industry? A better product? Or better revenue for the shareholders? So if he says he's going to improve the profitability, either he plans on keeping the quality the same as it is right now while increasing the price to access this content, or he's planning to cut on the quality while maintaining the prices. The fact he's saying he'll improve on the quality of the content by restoring the old profitability level is either A) A lie B) An inacceptable mistake in public communications C) A proof that we can't expect quality content from a company who can't produce quality propaganda.
I once ordered a book from Amazon. It never showed - even though the postal service said it was delivered. I jumped through all their (Amazon's) hoops and they made good on it.
To this day I don't know what happened. Usually, the carriers - UPS, USPS, Fedex - just leave the package on the front stoop that's visible from the road. I that woman lived in a shitty part of town, some asshole could very well have lifted it; especially, if you shipped it in a box with big letters on it saying "Zenith DTV".
Even then, you had proof and I believe if Amazon is going to act as a market place (and charge their obscene sales fees), they should have dealt with it better.
What's the deal with Slashdot's captcha entry field? I can't click on it to move the cursor there - I have to tab over! Geeze guys: that and the ridiculously slow loading to the submit screen ....
(don't mean you, SatanicPuppy, I mean Murdoch). The Rotten Bastard's right - quality journalism costs money. The "I can get anything for free, so why should I pay" ethos (in my opinion) leads to watered down crap being offered for free. People cannot make a living off "Free". Look at what we have now - 'free' news sources that don't give us much news but give us a whole lotta opinion masquerading as news (blogs, anyone?). It costs nothing to post your opinion based off of factoids gleaned from other sources, without even considering bias. But to produce honest-to-Gawd news? That's a quality product, produced by professionals who know how to separate fact from bias, and how to tell the difference between the two? That is worth money. The Genocidal Tyrant's completely within his rights to demand that Amazon give him an increased percentage of profits PLUS the names and contact info of all the WSJ subscribers through the Kindle. He should have them anyway. The WSJ has not suffered any decrease in quality - it's political bent is well known but the Rotten Bastard actually kept one of his promises and continued to support its journalistic integrity. I was worried as everyone else when he bought it, but then I was surprised to learn that the WSJ actually increased its quality. I don't read the WSJ for its opinions, I read it because I want good, factual business news that cuts through all the BS and tells it as it is. And that costs money. Furthermore (in my opinion), we need to face facts: In order to get good quality journalism, we have to PAY for it. Journalism was always supported by Print advertising. Now, it's going to be supported by pay-to-view websites. Free only lasts a while in an economic boom (anyone remember the dot-com rush where EVERYTHING was free), then reality sets in and you have to pay for what you get. And I will be happy to pay for it. I will pay for honest, high quality journalism (I already do), as long as I get my money's worth.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
A little conflicted here, are we?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-murdoch-sees-eventual-break-with-amazon-over-kindle-active-talks-with-s/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/05/murdochs-ultimatum-to-amazon-give-us-the-names-or-else/
This is very disappointing...both because of the hyped-up /. summary and the overreaction of some of the media to his statements, made as a response to a question in a telephone news conference largely about News Corps.' financial side.
A former journalism teacher of mine prohibited the use of adjectives and to the word "I" outside quotation marks in news stories. Taking the /. summary as an example, we are left with nothing but a (relatively) reasonable quotation from someone (Murdoch) who has already spoken about this.
This summary is *wrong* on so many levels. It has severely overhyped the event and set up a straw man in that Murdoch speculated about asking Amazon for his subscribers' info but has not yet done so.
And where is /.'s moderation? How in the world did this ever get published on /.? Has /. become Digg?
1) Your current system of distribution is antiquated.
2) Your overhead is way higher then that of a company that could poach your writers, pay them more, and still have a higher level of profit.
3) Your alternative sources of revenue (reselling consumers information, gathering statistics, polling info for your subscribers) shifts to another vendor that is actually innovative (Amazon)
4) You are caught in mid-stride supporting a old system and new system at the same time even lower profits.
5) You could piss off the wrong people and get your revenue share reduced or a competing paper get higher priority / advertising inside amazon
Right now Amazon is trying to get off the ground... but in a couple years the power should shift from the product source to the distribution chain.
Amazon & Apple could grow to be the next RIAA.
Basically Rupert is a publisher without control of his distribution chain.
Steve Jobs (via Itunes) has inserted Apple in the recording industry's supply chain. That gives Apple significant power over the recording industry. (Admittedly Jobs has more common sense than the whole recording industry combined - but that's irrelevant to my point).
Murdoch does not want Jim Bezos to beoome a similarly powerful intermediary in the news industry. Which means he'll either have to create his own e-reader device / software or somehow split distribution between Amazon and others (Sony?) and HOPE that Amazon doesn't end up dominating the market the way Apple dominates e-music distribution.
Personally, I think the news industry has FAR bigger problems than Amazon.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Murchdoch speaking of quality journalism... excellent joke
Maybe he meant the tiny hamburgers...
A link to Obama's speeches is a link to Obama's speeches. It matters not where the video is hosted, because it's still Obama's words.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Which of course I just remembered is spelled with a 'K'.
Your life is a story
I've already written.
The news is that I am in control.
And I have the power
To make you surrender.
Not only your body, but your soul.
Whatever you're after
Trust me, I'll deliver.
You'll relish the world that I create.
The truth is now what I say.
I've taken care of yesterday.
Tomorrow never dies... surrender.
Tomorrow will arrive on time.
I'll tease and tantalize with every line
'Til you are mine.
Tomorrow never dies.
Tomorrow never dies.
Tomorrow never dies.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
In the US we have moved from having a 1960's type society that is local/national with very similar interests to a society that is very diverse.
What we think is newsworthy varies greatly. I read technical news information, Eve-Online news, and have completely lost interest in local and national news because it is so depressing.
Traditional news sources simply can not cover everything. So having a portal to bring the news an individual want to hear about into a central location is where things are going.
The journalistic sources that can accomplish this will be the victors of this change. I would love to sign into my news account and have detailed journalist analysis of the latest things going on in non Concord space, insights into the specific software packages I use, and what's new in the world of Maltese K9s.
Just repeating news releases and the same thing I can see on CSPAN, sans the spin, as well as bogus headlines such as "We caught Bin Laden" (AP/Reuters) is not going to cut it anymore.
My opinion.
" Murdoch said. 'Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting.'" Rupert, I have one word for you: Fox
Explain to me how Rupert Murdoch knows anything about quality journalism.
A link to a version of Obama's speeches framed and edited by a known biased news network is a link to a version of Obama's speeches framed and edited by a known biased news network. It matters not where the video is hosted, because it's still Obama's words rearranged and surrounded with baseless insinuations and implied statements.
There, fixed that for you.
No, he clearly said "fucking Crystal".
Her name is spelled with a 'y', not an 'i', and you too can enjoy her favors on your yacht for a mere $100,000 in sparkly trinkets, coke, and/or cash delivered monthly.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I hate Rupert Murdoch and his propoganda machine, but that's no excuse for Slashdot to lower it's standards below that of his tawdry newspapers.
Moreover, he said that it won't be only the newspaper sites that adopt this change; foxnews.com, he said, will also start charging for content. "It had a huge and loyal and profitable [web] audience already," he said.
FTFY
You know what I have never understood. These companies complain about Google and other indexes showing part of a sentence of one of their stories, and then you go to the Wall Street Journal's web site and find buttons to share the story with Yahoo, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Digg, Del.icio.us, NewsVine, StumbleUpon, & Mixx. Do they want all of the WSJ links on Digg to point to a dead page? Obviously someone over there understands the power of other sites linking to your own.
I've been reading eBooks on my PDA since 2000, on my current PDA since 2003. Yes, it's a 2" by 2" screen, not a 3.5" by 5" screen, but unless you're trying to read PDFs that's plenty of pixels... and more modern devices have larger screens than my Clie SJ22.
The trick is finding eBook publishers that don't lock their product up with DRM. I've been sticking primarily to Fictionwise and Webscriptions.
I don't particularly mind Murdoch demanding more money for his paper (even in electronic format) but if I wanted him to have my name and address, I'd give it to him myself. I guess I'll have to make do with just my NYT subscription...
Anyone familiar with Krystal is also a prole :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Well the fact that he wants it so badly makes me wonder what he plans on using it for? How about selling it off to third-party advertisers, for a start? Alternately, maybe he just plans on bombarding the subscribers with advertised "deals" to buy the more expensive dead-tree version so he doesn't have to give Amazon a cut.
In the dead-tree world it would in concept be to ensure that your customer gets his/her subscription and is billed accordingly. I don't really see a legitimate use for such information unless they're planning on targeting something at the customers directly, which seems to either be trying to circumvent the deals with Amazon or the privacy of the users.
sums up things nicely.
Moreover, he said that it won't be only the newspaper sites that adopt this change; foxnews.com, he said, will also start charging for content.
Adios, morons...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Based on the story, Murdock is absolutely right in demanding the subscriber names. These people are subscribing to the Wall Street Journal, not "Amazon" and WSJ is entitled to their subscriber info just as if the subscriber did so through the WSJ site. Amazon is a delivery mechanism, not a publisher in this context.
I have been a prime member of amazon.com since they introduced the program.
If murdoch starts demanding other sorts of information to boost his other businesses, I say they buy his shares back.
Murdoch is no good for business in the 21st century.
If he was, they'd all be profitable.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Why was it profitable to create news outlets in traditional media from advertising money and not on the internet?
The bane of internet advertising is direct feedback. With print media, businesses would run advertising and simply hope it is working. They would renew their ads every week. In the internet age you get instant feedback on how successful it is.. number of page views, number of clicks. Poor performing ads get pulled quickly, providing less revenue.
We are at a time of transition. Many younger people consume their news entirely from the internet. While it isn't the whole population, it is growing at a very high rate. All we have to do is wait. When enough people are using the internet for their news, and enough advertisers realize that it is page hits and not clicks that matter, there will be plenty of revenue to be had producing quality news... probably even more revenue than before since the distribution costs are so much lower.
To say that quality journalism is being tainted by all these 'damn bloggers' and damn 'forum posters' (hey, slashdot, this include you) is a very ignorant remark.
Granted, there is A LOT of crap blogs and forums out there. But, it is not hard to simply dismiss them. Most of the bad ones are so bad, no one uses them, hense never grow large enough to enter into the Popular Massively Media's mind (aka the people in general).
In fact, quite the opposite is true. In that, some of the most informative and insightful knowledge that I have learned, came from non-profit, your run of the mil, Joe Blogger and poster. ( Such as myself. )
just because you are not paying big money for journalists to write about stuff, does not make them stupid... In fact, not being tied to any one company, therefore having to be Politically Correct and Bias, is not a worry if you are indepant, running your own successful news site ( like slash dot does ) and making some money from Adverts.
This Murdok guy, is rich beyond belief. He lost to Facebook, maybe for a reason. And to critisize the internet and it's people, which is the very business he is in, make him even MORE ignorant.
Angus MacGyver
At this point, I always direct people to NPR. 10% comes from the government, 35% from corporate sponsors, the rest from listeners. It doesn't get much more directly supported than this. If you don't like their programming, tell them you won't support them anymore. If there's more like you, watch them change the programming. Amazing how that has created some kick-ass reporting.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
We see something similar with TicketMonster; charges are often around a quarter to a third of the total cost of tickets even though the preferred method of delivery is electronic; they even tack on a bit extra for the privelege of printing them on your printer, and they tack on a bunch of advertising while they do it, costing you excess ink.
Content can be delivered electronically cheaply, but its delivery is currently expensive because a handful of companies have cornered the delivery.
This is definitely a model that content providers need to break up, so Murdoch clearly does have some understanding of the way the net works and why it is bad. Unfortunately he does not seem to have worked out how to combat it. His answer that "we don't make hardware" is exactly the wrong answer - he should be leading the effort to either open up Kindle or come up with an open replacement.
Squirrel!
"'As I've said before, my concept of a business model has to treat customers like products to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their traditions of controlling everything people see and hear,' Murdoch said. 'Creating fictional news is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply making us look like greedy control freaks who want to rape the hearts and minds of Americans.'"
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously? He's complaining that they don't get a big enough cut of the profit for each subscriber? With an actual print newspaper, it costs money for each copy printed. However, with digital subscriptions the only cost is the time spent making the digital version (which probably isn't much since everything is done on computers in the first place, they just have to re-edit it) and the cost of sending it to Amazon (again, not much). As a result, profit increases MUCH faster as your customer base grows with digital subscriptions through Amazon than with print.
Not only does the WSJ make X% profit per Amazon subscription, but there was only a single one time cost to doing it! He's acting like it's still a print paper where total cost = cost per unit * units sold, when with digital distribution through Amazon (with Amazon soaking the small cost of data transfer to the users), the Amazon version of the WSJ has a cost function of total cost = cost per unit * 1.
The WSJ is a great paper, but Murdoch is a greedy little moron.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
He has a contract with Amazon. Evidently it does not require Amazon to provide him with information on Kindle users who subscribe to his paper through Amazon. Now he wants to renegotiate the contract. Maybe he will get what he wants and maybe he won't but he isn't "entitled" to it unless the contract says so.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
A hysterical synopsis of a hysterical article.
Am I supposed to be better informed now?
Slashdot, you've outdone yourself.
BTW, the Wall Street Journal -- owned by Murdoch -- is finest daily in the USA. I'm thrilled that it's even available and am happy to pay for it.
The economy is shit at the moment and I think people are coming around to realising that a lot of Murdoch's "news" outlets are complete bullshit and going elsewhere for their news.
If you sell 1000 e-copies through Amazon, and 0.1% of your readers write you back, you have to spend time reading and acting on 1 piece of mail.
If you sell 1M e-copies, you'll have 1000 pieces of mail to respond to.
The "incremental cost" per 1,000 copies is very small though compared to either print, or to a lesser degree, hosting it on your own web site and doing all the account-management and bandwidth in-house.
I've heard things like a typical American big-city for-profit newspaper's subscription fee barely covers the cost of of the paper, ink, and delivery, and sometimes not even that. The costs of creating the content are borne pretty much entirely by advertisements.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And we all know that the internet demands information be free.
I think journalism is a dying trade. Soon we will have "investigators" who simply follow feeds of regular people around the world, find the good, juicy stories, and publish them as a refined (pay for) product for display.
This may come as quite a shock, but Rupert Murdoch is far from a Republican. He's a businessman who saw an underrepresented market - cable TV news that slanted right rather than slanted left. Other than that, he's friends with plenty of liberal bigwigs and actively promoted Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Gotta RTFA nowadays..Slashdot summaries slanted, news at 11.... sigh
Both good comments from parent and GP.
I'll just stay right here on the fence where i am comfy ;)
It does not seem unreasonable to give WSJ the info on WSJ subscribers. I can't really believe it would surprise anyone that the WSJ knows you subscribed to the WSJ.
However it also does not seem to be required as Amazon is indeed acting as a sort of subcontractor. It seems like a legit contract term between the two. If he wants he can stop selling subscriptions to Amazon to resell 'anonymously'. That says a lot if the subscriber info is worth more the subscription......
And now i will continue to not give a damn either way.
I was curious as to if he wanted buyer's info for HarperCollins books as well, but it doesn't look like any of them are available on the Kindle. I wonder that's some sort of sticking point in negotiations?
"Murdoch said. 'Quality journalism is not cheap, but I am. Step 1. Profit! There IS no step 2 ..."
'As I've said before, the traditional business model has to change rapidly to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their old margins of profitability,' Murdoch said
Wait, let me get this straight, Murdoch can't run his business so he's asking other people to do it for him. It's called a consultant and they sure as hell ain't cheap. Seriously, if you claim to be a capitalist then make your business work or gtfo.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Sorry Rupert old boy. I won't be paying to access your news sites. Not when I can get better news from Auntie. ABC News beats your shoddy efforts hands down. That's in Australia, I'm sure our Seppo friends up there have equally good non-commercial sources of news.
Whenever I buy something I do not want to have my name address and other private information to be spread to the whole world. I want this to be only given to the store I buy from and only for the STRICT necessary purpose of the transaction. And I have got the privacy law of my country agreeeing with me. You may live in a country where all privacy is long gone, but that is your problem. *IF* a store gives my private info to anybody against my will and it was not forseen in the contract I signed with them, then they get my lawyer on their ass, and *I* will win. And if they put originally in their contract that they will provide my user info for anything beyond simple delivery (markleting, etc...) , then they don't get my sale to begin with. And in what I agreed upon with the online storeI use it is *NOT* written they will sell or give my info.
Secondly that a privacy invasive procedure is NOW available whereas it was not available before, does not mean it should be used. Visa/MC can also "sell" the lsit of all what you buy to marketer. And it would certainly be a very very precise info. That does not mean it is desirable on any ground.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What the hell is he getting a dime in the first place? And my user info is NONE of his business, period. Its barely any of Amazons business.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think that we should warn Amazon that we slashdotters who subscribe to Kindle downloads, will take a class action law suit against them if the ever pass our details onto to Murdoch or News Corp. He and News Corp are the corporate bullies of the publishing business and he has no right to demand any information on me that I do not want him to have. Once he gets this information, we will be bombarded with advertising and perhaps, even our credit card will be debited with charges that we have not agreed to.
This would violate PIPEDA, and Amazon would legally be in hot water if they ever did what Murdoch demands. ( I also wonder what European privacy laws this would violate)
Murdoch said. 'Quality journalism is not cheap
This from the owner of "FOX NEWS"? Hahahahahahahaha, he's old, and should die already.
Said contact information does not directly lead to increased revenue. (not for an omnipresent institution as the WSJ) Either they just want to feel more important that they really are*, or they have something more nefarious in mind. (ex:junk mail, directly or from "business associates")
Can you give a rational explanation for why they might legitimately want that information? (knowing anything more than how many subscribers they have from a given county?)
*(WSJ is fairly important, but, like anyone with power, they are subject to visions of grandeur and self-delusion.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Surprising number of comments from the general public that Rupert Murdoch the billionaire does not understand business, real world, online world, etc. Slashdotters think we know more about running businesses than billionaires! I find that funnier than Murdoch's comments.
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
Fox News is Murdoch's main "news" outlet. Given time he can probably bring the Wall Street Journal down to their level. Why on earth would anyone want to even read such outright lies and propaganda much less pay for it.
"Murdoch said. 'Quality journalism is not cheap.'"
That explains Fox News. Murdoch can't afford any better.
It was tried in holland with sports. Specific, soccer matches. They used to be televised by state tv (explaining the dutch tv system would take years, even to a dutch person, but extremely roughly, the NOS is a tiny bit like the serious section of the BBC, they have a duty to supply tv/radio to society for their benefits and don't have to entertain at all, which is why they used to air the best comedy...)
Anyway, there was some money exchanged but soccer is a national sport so all was good.
Then someone got greedy, surely if people were already willing to pay for the license fee (don't recall if it was still seperate or part of regular taxes at the time) AND a cable fee AND watch the commercials before and after a soccer match (no, not during) then surely they would will to pay for it?
So a new commercial station was born, sport 7. It was first to be "free" but would ask all cable supplier (who in holland are controlled by the towns) to pay them two guilders (roughly 1 dollar I guess) per connection. The cable suppliers said no. They listened to their customers who said no. Then it went behind the decoder. Nobody bought it. They lasted less then 3 months.
That was the dream of John de Mol, a dutch Murdoch wannabe. He tried later again with another tv station. Another disaster.
The audience is FAR less willing to pay then content supplier think and the reason is simple. Cost.
It wasn't juse the 2 guilders per month but that it all ads up. If Sport 7 can demand money, then why not MTV? Why not RTL4? Why not discovery channel etc etc?
Pretty soon every station would require an extra fee and then the fee would go up and up and ...
Do you know why game magazines are dying? Not because a single magazine is HUGELY expensive but because all the costs togethr for a gamer get higher and higher. Consoles games go from 40 to 60 euro? Something has to give.
No, charging for something that people have to come to think of as freely available is extremely hard.
It is easier to grant freedoms then restrain them. Once blacks had to go in the back of the bus and on the whole for decades this didn't seem to cause any problems. Go ahead, tell a black guy he needs to sit in the back today. Bring a baggie for your teeth.
The customer doesn't want to pay for news station. Either do it with ads or don't do it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'll start paying for the news when Rupert Murdoch starts delivering the news!
Do us all a favor and go enlist...then I will care about your politics
It's his content why doesn't he post an ad asking for end-users to send him their names and addresses voluntarily? Murdoch could even offer incentives to sign up. I doubt readers would be interested but at least everyone would know where they stood.
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
I am tired of paying subscription fees for, mostly, shitty service and shitty products. Kindle is no different. Its either pay as I go or go shove the subscription up your ass.
Bart will save him again.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
I just canceled my WSJ subscription on my Kindle
Did he just use the words Quality and Journalism in the same sentence? I needed a good laugh today.
Why apologize for calling comeone who is stupid, stupid?
Think of the Slashdot model: You purchase so many page views. These would be able to be used on any News Ltd. or affiliated site (with possible multipliers for premium sites). Newly registered users who enter a credit card number get $10 free credit. Max 3 accounts per CC.