Slashdot Mirror
Murdoch To Explore Blocking Google Searches
In another move sure to continue the certain doom looming over classic publications, Rupert Murdoch has elaborated on the direction he would take in an effort to monetize the content that his websites deliver by attempting to block much of Google's ability to scan and index his news sites. "Murdoch believes that search engines cannot legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results. 'There's a doctrine called "fair use," which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,' Mr Murdoch told the TV channel. 'But we'll take that slowly.'"
Am I genius?
The faster Rupert puts himself out of business, the better off everyone will be.
No sig for you!!
He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine?
If I were Google, I'd just cut all his sites off for a month and let them see how far their click-revenue falls off.
No google news, No search results, nothing.
The guy asked for it, so give it to him.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
No more Fox News on Google search results. More space on the front page for 'better' sources.
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
Yes, I am sure that barring searching engines from listing your headlines will do wonders for your revenue. It's not like your competitors are allowing those results or anything like that! Everyone knows that your customers will go to your websites without any help from search engines!
As for fair use? Yeah, it's not like news websites ever make use of that doctrine.
Palm trees and 8
From the Summary: "'There's a doctrine called "fair use," which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,' Mr Murdoch told the TV channel. 'But we'll take that slowly.'" Fair use is the target here. They don't want anyone to ever be able to use any current culture without payment and approval.
This is awesome! Now I don't have to sort through all the FoxNews crap in search results.
Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
It has to be political.. there has to be something going on behind the scenes here. He's not that stupid a person.. and there's no way that someone hasn't explained to him what a robots.txt file is by now..
Of course. Merdoch (or his minons) know this. There are probably two things going on: A lame attempt to convince the public that he is being ripped off, and also he is almost certainly in discussions with Google about having Google pay for the content that Google clearly profits from. Neither will work out. And until web content of these "publications" provide a lot more value to the consumer, pay-for-access is a dead idea as well.
Of course there are certain publications, like the WSJ that can pull it off, but most can not, and certainly not local newspapers.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
They don't have to move in lockstep if he does have a coalition going. He can block WSJ.com, claim some victory, show it as a case model, and hope others buy his idea (WSJ does not need Google, but the example would probably not work for many other not-as-self-sustaining sites).
It's not politics, it's purely (an attempt to save a failed) business (model). If Rupert doesn't have a coalition going, there's only so much posturing he can do before actually cutting off his nose to spite his face.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Ummm, while it maybe fun to bash the "Slashtards" it was Murdoch himself who invoked the concept of Fair Use.
He knows about robots.txt.
See this story (On one of his own sites): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573329,00.html where it is mentioned.
Paid subscriptions is his plan.
He has to eliminate search engines because he wants to move news to a subscription basis. But he knows he can never be successful at that as long as anyone else provides advertiser supported free access.
So its all talk. He knows it would be suicidal to make this move alone, and is trying to drum up support among all the big news providers.
But even THAT would not work when local newspapers and TV stations put news on line, because Google would simply index those remaining free providers, which often provide a more complete story anyway.
The world has changed, and Rupert still thinks he's selling newspapers on the corner.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
"Murdoch believes that search engines cannot legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results.
Indeed, they can't, without Murdoch's permission. Lucky for Google that Murdoch grants them permission in their robots.txt.
'There's a doctrine called "fair use," which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether,'
"We"? As in the "royal we"? Challenged by who? On what grounds?
The only thing that seems to be "challenged" here is Murdoch's intellect and ethics. Well, actually, it's beyond "challenged", it's just rotten.
He wants the money that google is getting, that is what this is about. I suspect he heard about "robots.txt" before slashdot existed but quietly blocking things doesn't help him - he wants to make a lot of noise and then get governments to pass laws to restrict the internet so he can make more money from it.
It's not a lack of action. The action in progress is to make a lot of noise and blow this thing out of proportion. I suspect it will get to the major headline stage for a while before this goes away.
Who wants to read Murdoch's bilge anyway.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
It looks like News Corporation is already starting to "freeze" Google out. I have a newsfeed for the New York Post, a Murdoch property on my iGoogle page and the article summaries are replaced by text that reads "Information is temporarily unavailable." It's too bad, because the summaries make me more likely to click the link to the full article. As for the talk of providing News Corp. content via a subscription model - forget it. The average Joe figures he pays for his Internet access, so he expects to be able to access any content he wants. If one content provider charges a fee, dozens of other ones will line up to provide the same (or better) content for free.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
Those are easy solutions to what problem? Google doesn't have a problem they need solving. Fox hasn't done anything except state they want out of the internet business. That doesn't mean Google needs to help them. In fact, Google probably benefits by not helping them.
When someone points a gun at their foot, you don't need to help them point the trigger. You can try to talk them out of it, or ignore it, but if they're someone who makes you money, at worst, you refrain from egging them on with "shoot it! shoot it!" Don't get involved.
1. Block any and all direct links to Newscorp owned sites in the search results.
And Fox would sue because they are being singled out because they are "conservative" or similar (I have already commented on this last time this topic was brought up on /.) In order for Google to be fair and unbiased, they have to consider all news sources. They point out on the news page that a machine picks the stories, not a human. Until they have a better reason to block News Corp., they would be inviting scrutiny and a potential lawsuit, no matter how baseless (and unwinable) the lawsuit would be. Google is doing the best thing they can do, which is to ignore News Corp.'s words in public and treat them according to their robots.txt requests.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The problem is, nobody is paying anyone for the news today. So there will be no "good journalists" in the future because nobody is going to waste their time doing that job for nothing.
If your current career paid you zero dollars, would you keep doing it out of loyalty? I know some teachers might. Except they need to pay the rent, buy food, etc. So no matter how dedicated they are, they are going to spend their hours doing something that pays for rent, food. etc.
The "new media" consists of reading stuff written by people that are driven to write it by their own ego. So you get terrific articles that are written by dedicated people... except they are utterly the product of one person's delusions about the world. This isn't news or journalism, it is like finding someone making a speech in a public park.
As some other folks have said, nobody is every going to pay again. Or at least not in our lifetimes. It is expected to just all be free because it is on the Internet. So instead of news we are going to have blogs and ranting.
But I'd hazard that he knows just how many eyes google directs to his sites.
Instead, I'd suggest he doesn't like how efficient google's algorithm is. I generally get what I'm after with google. I'm guessing he wants to be able to directly control what a search on his sites turn up, relevant or not.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I believe hoarding is hardwired into the system. Highly irrational in today's times of plenty, but controlling genetic impulses seems to be beyond his abilities. Great! Let's take the law to its next level of absurdity. SNAFU
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I wish him ill, *because* he's still acting like this at age 78. It ties in to those other articles about CEOs and sociopaths.
Even as a bitter old man, Murdoch still feels he has to 'win' any everything, whether it's true or not, no matter who gets destroyed in the process... and his medium for doing this is the news? Despicable.
should join Google and DROP ALL OF MURDOCH'S COMPANIES. Let him know what a day without Search Engines would be like.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I work for someone who is wealthy enough to just plain stop, right now, and live happily ever after. He easily works 60 hours a week at the office, and probably more if he takes anything home with him. We've talked about the quandary you just presented.
His answer as to why he continues to build and expand: "Because I really enjoy it." And I don't think there's much more to be said about it, except that some folks like playing football, or billiards. Some folks paint pictures for fun. And some folks build empires. It's like playing Risk, but with real assets.
Is this person generally a good or at least decent man? Or is he a despotic, ruthless, Machiavellian type like (in my opinion) Murdoch is? I believe that makes a significant difference. I don't imagine Murdoch truly rejoicing in much of anything to tell you the truth. He probably views his personal enjoyment as something he had to sacrifice to a) get where he is today and b) demonstrate his single-minded dedication. If you have ever encountered the type before, then you know what I mean.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Fair use is a defense to use when you are accused of copyright infringement.
Sorry, but wrong. I know you were trying to do a good job here but you're a little confused as to how the law plays out. Fair use is something you do, an exercise of those rights of yours which haven't been taken away from you under copyright law with the idea that taking those rights away from you will provide an incentive to creators. Fair use can be used as a defense, but it is not accurate to consider it to only be a defense.
Fair Use is an exception to copyright.
Sorry, wrong again. It is the reverse. Copyright is an exception to Fair Use.
In the US system, we are considered to be born with every single right of any kind we have the ability to exercise. But our government and its laws were instituted at our consent to place a few restrictions on our rights, in order to bring about some more universal benefits.
Start with the premise you can do ANYTHING. And then pare away from that. That's how our country works.
Fair use is what we do with creative works. Copy restrictions pare away at what otherwise we can do. The default is complete freedom.
I work for someone who is wealthy enough to just plain stop, right now, and live happily ever after. He easily works 60 hours a week at the office, and probably more if he takes anything home with him. We've talked about the quandary you just presented.
His answer as to why he continues to build and expand: "Because I really enjoy it." And I don't think there's much more to be said about it, except that some folks like playing football, or billiards. Some folks paint pictures for fun. And some folks build empires. It's like playing Risk, but with real assets.
I know I'm replying to you a second time, but I wanted to add something.
I guess I am one of those "oddballs" (at least in this society it would seem so) because I value quality time with people I love and care about much more than any game of Risk that I don't actually need to play. What follows is a rhetorical question. If your boss has a family, how often does he say "I just don't have the time" to his wife and children in order to put in those 60+ hours a week, or if he doesn't have his own family, how many people hear that from him who still care about him very much?
To me this is not about whether working a job that you enjoy has merit. Certainly it does. It's about priorities and whether you have any that mean more to you. It's about the fact that there are only so many hours in one day and only so many days in one lifetime.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
"There's a doctrine called 'fair use', which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... But we'll take that slowly."
That's pretty much the definition of FUD. "We can and will destroy you, but we choose not to for now." A.k.a. "bullshit".
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Murdoch would sue. More likely, Fox would sue, whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.
Is that illegal now?
There is a war going on for your mind.
One word: sociopath.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Who but a bunch of racist old assholes is going to miss it in their news results?
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Did anyone pay for tv news ten years ago?
Just because the consumer doesn't pay at the point of purchase doesn't mean it's impossible to make money from it.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Maybe if Google would simply remove all references to anything Murdoch from the search engine, then all of the Murdoch sites would simply dry up and blow away.