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.'"
There's a department store. It probably carries a lot of merchandise. But the store owner wants everybody to pay him a fee to walk through the front door. And he wants the local papers to not say what he carries, or what he's got on sale this week. He feels that he should be the only one getting paid for anything that mentions his merchandise.
Would you bother going to his store? Or would you go to the Target or Wal-Mart that's happy to have a flyer in the paper listing everything they've got on sale this week.
Yeah, thought so.
It's your right to be stupid and wrong-headed, Mr. Murdoch. Everyone has that gods-given right. But don't come whining to us when your plan fails to go the way you want it to go. We, after all, never signed any agreement saying we'd only behave the way you want.
Easy solution for Google.
1. Block any and all direct links to Newscorp owned sites in the search results.
2. Downrank any sites that link to Newscorp owned sites as irrelevant linking. (They have this for counteracting googlebombing.)
3. Systematically provide alternative sources for any search results that would have linked to Newscorp owned sites.
.
So eventually even a search for "Newscorp" brings up every one of their competitors websites bashing them for being stupid, old, ignorant and irrelevant.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
If my local paper offered a good online subscription I would sign up. What I want to see is:
In fact, pretty much what I can get from /. right now. All of that should be easy to implement. They just need to open their eyes and look around.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_index.xml
Murdoch is so intent on blocking Google News that his site automatically generates the feed necessary for the import.
Wait.. I think I missed something.
If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
And murdoch's news.com.au's robots.txt file even directs bots to the sitemap!
/*comments/* /*print/* /*email/* /*SIT* /*.swf /printpage/
User-agent: *
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow: */404*
Sitemap: http://www.news.com.au/sitemap.xml
Sitemap: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow-sitemap.xml
Sitemap: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail-sitemap.xml
Sitemap: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph-sitemap.xml
Sitemap: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun-sitemap.xml
Sitemap: http://www.news.com.au/perthnow-sitemap.xml
This is all a ploy to negotiate with Google some more beneficial (to Murdoch) terms. I can only see it working if he also manages to get a critical mass of other publications' owners to do the same thing. 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.
Here's what I don't understand about people like Murdoch. He's 78 years old. I don't like him one bit, but I don't wish him ill either (for that would reflect badly on me while saying nothing about him). I hope he lives well into old age (and uses that time to reconsider his priorities -- more on that later). But realistically, he is a mortal being just like me and everyone else.
I'll speak only for myself here. If I were 78 years old, how much time would I have left on the planet? Two or three years? Five? Ten? Wouldn't I be lucky to have that much, since all of those figures exceed the average life expectancy of a male in the USA? If I am that old and already have enough money to guarantee not only my financial security but also that of any children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, what would be the point of continuing to try to build and maintain a media empire with increasingly aggressive tactics? Every minute I spent doing that would be time I wouldn't get to spend with my family, my friends, appreciating nature and the world around me, and maybe even trying to use my vast resources to make the world a slightly better place. It would be time that I would never get back once it has come and gone.
I really wonder what drives people like this. I want to know what they think they are accomplishing that's so important to them. It's not even a religious cause or a humanitarian effort or anything like that where this kind of devotion is not so unusual. It's just business and he has already acquired a vast personal fortune that is the dream of businessmen everywhere. He has already succeeded many times over yet he continues to play the game. Something here just doesn't add up. How do you explain this kind of dedication? Because as far as I can tell, it's quite pathological though even that doesn't really explain it.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
> I wonder if Google could argue that by not using robots.txt, Murdoch had
> essentially given permission to have his sites searched and indexed.
I believe that in the US case law has established that Murdoch has given permission to have his sites searched and indexed by making them public. Obeying robots.txt is just a courtesy, but the fact that he has not used it to block Google totally destroys any feeble case he might have had.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I had the pleasure of cycling for about 4 hours with on of the editors from a large Murdoch owned newspaper back in 2000.
He asked me where the internet was heading, and how they could leverage it to provide content, and get the readers involved. I also highlighted problems like the sourcing of press releases as articles and the conflicting information they will find in other sources. Opportunities also would present themselves like geolocated and profiled advertising. To their credit, they have persued much of this. The problem is that Google is their competition. I can find anything I want, for free, quicker, crowdsourced, discussed in forums and critiqued. The only service newspapers now offer is a stream of aggregation - and that puts them in direct competition with search engines.
This has been a perfect storm for Murdoch. He has concernrated media, driving variety out of the the market, and opening doors for players of new technology to enter into a niche and then expand to take his business.
His papers will evaporate. Unfortunately, with it will go the newsagencies, delivery routes and old paper advertising industry that went with it. The biggest danger Rupert faces is Apple Tablet - if you can read on that, and it works well - newpapers are in for a world of pain.
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
Murdoch would sue. More likely, Fox would sue, whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.
No, what would make more sense is, with each of these articles, publicly respond -- in particular, contact whatever organization published the Murdoch rant. Make two offers:
First, offer to that news organization that a representative will be available for comment every time Murdoch does this. This isn't a big deal, as it'll pretty much be cut and paste.
Second, in this response and in all further comments, make the public offer to do exactly what he is asking for -- stop indexing his stuff. If he says "no", end of story. If he doesn't respond, he's going to look very stupid in future articles like this.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Really. Of course he knows. He just wants a cut of Google's pie.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
Access to all archives
Good searching (like with a google appliance)
Revision history
Access to raw source material
Access to comment pages on all stories
In fact, pretty much what I can get from /. right now.
The thing is _they dont have it_, even internally if a reporter wants something old he usually has to go to the archive (read basement) and digg for hours. Obviously its better at big newspapers, but not by a mile (they got dedicated people that do the digging, archives are in photo form, there might even be and index). What they find is usually just a copy of old newspaper, no revision history, no raw sources. Its not like in those cop shows where someone jumps out with big fat file full of pictures and hand written notes for 30 year old case.
Newspapers are SCARED of google, not because google knows how to archive this stuff, but because google is able to monetize it.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Well obviously Murdoch wants his web pages crawled, otherwise nobody will visit them.
Frankly, what he is demanding is non-sensical; he wants Google to index his news sites, but does NOT want Google to display headlines or partial text when returning results. How the hell is a searcher supposed to know that the link in question has any relevance at all to what they are looking for?
He also seems to have a pretty screwed up view of what fair use is. Fair use is not the exception to copyright, copyright is the exception to fair use. That's why copyright had to be enumerated in the first place. The fair use statutes are there to help clarify what copyright does -not- extend to, but it is intentionally left somewhat vague to make it difficult for copyright to over-step its bounds.
All of this comes from the stated goal of copyright in the copyright goal, which is to enhance the proliferation of creative arts for the betterment of society at large. It's goal is NOT to make content owners rich, that is simply the vehicle to increase the amount of creative art produced for public consumption.
So, when he says he believes fair use doctrine is on its way out, it shows that he has absolutely no understanding of what copyright is for, and that he is also one greedy som'bitch. If he is right in any way, it means our law has really been turned on its head.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Just for grins, I took a look at http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt, and guess what? It specifically allows google.
I just looked at the Fox News site main page and visited all their top news stories accessable from the front page.
So out of their top ten stories, nine are either pure AP stories or edited from AP stories, and one comes from the Discovery News website.
Total identifiable original Murdoch content: one hurricane graphic from a Fox organisation hurricane-tracking site (which Fox News forgot to link to).
No identifiable "Murdoch press" journalistic content.
Completing the list:
#11 was AP, #12 was credited to FoxBusiness.com (a Murdoch journalism hit! Wahey!), #13 was AP, #14 was AP, #15, finally, was a Fox News piece on the Mclaren buggy recall, with a bold FOXNEWS logo and a photo provided by Mclaren. #16 was AP.
So from their "most read" list, Fox News only have one story out of the sixteen that they actually wrote themselves.
Associated Press are a news syndication company (like Reuters), who supply news content to media outlets. This lets news companies supplement the content produced by their own journalists with ready-made stories that they can just slot into place as padding.
Given that the clear majority of FoxNews' top stories on this page (nearly 90%) were actually bought in from AP, and that Google News also subscribe to AP as a content provider to buy stories, it's not surprising that when both sites rank their content by popularity, if Murdoch looks at the Sky News page and compares it to the Google News page, he's going to see a lot of the same top-ranking stories on both sites.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that Google News are stealing stories from Fox News Journalists, or stealing the selection. Both sites are buying content from AP, and the site viewers are dictating the popularities, not the editors.
I don't know whether this means that FoxNews.com don't actually do much journalism themselves, and mainly act as aggregators (like Google News) ... or whether it means that they /do/ do a fair bit of journalism, but that their readership simply prefers the AP material that can be gotten from Google News anyway.
Either way, I can see why RM is concerned. Shouting that Google is stealing their stories kinda stops people noticing that, for Fox News, their own site statistics say that most of their most popular stories aren't actually theirs anyway. One out of sixteen?
Eric Baird
Not if he's asking them NOT to carry his news. Fox wasn't going around telling the cable cos "Don't carry our news channel!" You can't go around asking someone to do (or stop doing) something, and then complain when they comply with your wishes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
If Murdoch sues to prevent google from indexing any of his content because such indexing is injurious to him, he is estoppeled from making a contrary claim that he is somehow injured when google does stop indexing.
Why do you think Murdoch hasn't sent a Cease & Desist? The moment he does, he can no longer claim any damages if google blocks him off.
Over time, information will tend towards dissemination