Print 84 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Nov 12 at 5:38 PM

Blocking Google being eyed as a way to get people to pay for News Corp content

Rupert Murdoch's move to online users to pay for content they read is infamous at this point. The publishing impresario has some of the most popular newspapers in the world under his News Corp umbrella.

Murdoch is also running one of the few successful publications online that charges for access -- The Wall Street Journal. The catch for Murdoch is that there is a well known workaround for accessing WSJ content online without having to pay or register with the publication -- Google. You can search the title of most any WSJ story that requires a paid account with Google and find the complete article for free.

Murdoch is now saying that he will remove stories all together from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content. Encourage here is a synonym for force. Murdoch told Sky News Australia that the papers in his empire including the Sun, Times, and WSJ would consider blocking Google entirely once that fully enacted plans for charging people to read stories.

Murdoch said, "I think we will (block Google), but that's when we start charging. We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story - but if you're not a paying subscriber to all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form."

Murdoch continued saying, "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."

Murdoch had previously promised that starting in 2010 charging for the use of his websites would be enacted. He is backtracking on that a bit and now says that he won’t promise that date will be met.

Murdoch said, "The people who simply just pick up everything and run with it – steal our stories, we say they steal our stories - they just take them. That's Google, that's Microsoft, that's, a whole lot of people ... they shouldn't have had it free all the time, and I think we've been asleep."

The ill will between Murdoch and Google is building on the back of significantly reduced traffic to MySpace. MySpace has a lucrative search deal in place with Google that may be one of the reasons the paid content work around has not been addressed before. With significantly increased competition from Facebook pushing MySpace into a second place spot in the social networking scene, MySpace has missed traffic goals set by Google. The shortfall in traffic equates to the potential for the loss of more than $100 million in income from the Google search deal.

As Murdoch ramps up his schemes to make money off the internet, Google CEO Eric Schmidt continues to scoff at Murdoch's plans. Schmidt has said in the past, "In general these models (paid online content) have not worked for general public consumption because there are enough free sources that the marginal value of paying is not justified based on the incremental value of quantity. So my guess is for niche and specialist markets ... it will be possible to do it but I think it is unlikely that you will be able to do it for all news."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Encourage != Force
By Entropy42 on 11/9/2009 11:18:37 AM , Rating: 4
Murdoch is now saying that he will remove stories all together from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content. Encourage here is a synonym for force.

Encourage is not a synonym for force. People will be encouraged to pay for them, but can still choose not to pay, and to consequently not read the article. As is constantly pointed out on this site, just because something has a cost does not mean that you HAVE to pay it. News is a fine example of free markets. If you don't want to pay for WSJ news, no one is forcing you to.

RE: Encourage != Force
By mdogs444 on 11/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Encourage != Force
By heffeque on 11/9/2009 12:55:44 PM , Rating: 5
You're forced to pay for politician's salaries too... and for the roads... and for public education...
What's wrong with you? If you want to live in your own little bubble... build yourself a boat and live in the middle of the sea.

RE: Encourage != Force
By itbj2 on 11/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Encourage != Force
By ClownPuncher on 11/9/2009 1:45:24 PM , Rating: 5
People get jailed and fined all the time for not having automobile insurance.

RE: Encourage != Force
By itbj2 on 11/9/2009 1:56:09 PM , Rating: 3
That is because they are driving a car and could potentially harm somebody or property to the point that they could not pay for it. So unless you weigh 1500 lbs and can run at 60 MPH I don't see what you point is.

RE: Encourage != Force
RE: Encourage != Force
By itbj2 on 11/9/2009 2:09:23 PM , Rating: 4
With that logic you should start charging health insurance for every animal that might come in contact with humans.

Democratic Health Care Bill for Raccoons.

RE: Encourage != Force
By Silverel on 11/9/2009 2:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
Screw em. Throw the raccoons in jail.

I can't imagine how many unsavory raccoons I come in direct contact with on a daily basis. Standing in line at a fast food place, sitting in cubicles where I work, taking up space in the urinal next to me in the bathroom. Gawd! Those damn raccoons are gonna kill us all!

Then there's the birds! Everywhere! Hell, by the time we get these raccoons insurance, the birds are going to be killing everyone. At least we'll be able to free up some of those silly gun control laws to take care of those things.

O wait...

RE: Encourage != Force
By VitalyTheUnknown on 11/9/2009 2:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
On animal vaccination. (Wiki)

Vaccinations of animals are used both to prevent their contracting diseases and to prevent transmission of disease to humans. Both animals kept as pets and animals raised as livestock are routinely vaccinated. In some instances, wild populations may be vaccinated. This is sometimes accomplished with vaccine-laced food spread in a disease-prone area and has been used to attempt to control rabies in raccoons.

Where rabies occurs, rabies vaccination of dogs may be required by law. Other canine vaccines include canine distemper, canine parvovirus, infectious canine hepatitis, adenovirus-2, leptospirosis, bordatella, canine parainfluenza virus, and Lyme disease among others.

RE: Encourage != Force
By itbj2 on 11/9/2009 2:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
Your point is? Nobody forces anybody to get a dog or cat. If you choose to get one you have to be responsible for your pets care and well being. But you have a choice.

The Democrats just need to stop lying and just let everyone know that they will Tax them so that everyone can have health insurance. Mandating someone to get something is a Tax. So call it what it is.

RE: Encourage != Force
By VitalyTheUnknown on 11/9/2009 3:54:28 PM , Rating: 3
The point is, you have always paid for Public Safety and
no one has any illusions that health-care will be totally free, people just hope it will be more affordable.

RE: Encourage != Force
By mdogs444 on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Encourage != Force
By VitalyTheUnknown on 11/9/2009 4:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Encourage != Force
By JohnnyCNote on 11/9/2009 8:36:16 PM , Rating: 5
as well as those ignorant blacks who all though Obama was going to pay for their mortgage, heating bills, and gasoline.

Or ignorant whites who think he wasn't born in Hawaii, is a muslim and keeps a "muslim flag" in his office . . .

RE: Encourage != Force
By MrPoletski on 11/10/2009 4:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
That's not ignorance, that's just retarded.

RE: Encourage != Force
By heffeque on 11/9/2009 3:06:03 PM , Rating: 5
It's interesting how US's current president is trying to make the US a better country by making the health system Universal... and people complain.

Precisely the crappy private health system the US has is one of the things that makes the US more similar to countries with thriving money sacks like Kuwait, China and Arabia Saudi than first world countries with better quality of life. That and the death penalty. It's quite impressive to see such a technologically advanced country still have such medieval ways.

62% of bankruptcy in US families in 2008 were health related. It makes 1 million citizens go bankrupt every single year and kills 45.000 people that have no coverage.

The Twin Tower collapse killed 3.000 .
The current crappy health system is killing 45.000 people A YEAR
And makes 1.000.000 people go bankrupt also every single year.

Those numbers seem like they correspond to an undeveloped country, not a first world country.

If the current health system doesn't seem f¡cked up enough... here are some other numbers that you probably ignore:

Countries like Spain spend 5 times LESS money per person yet has a Universal health coverage that delivers much better health outcomes such as a much lower infant mortality rate, a higher life expectancy and the highest organ donations and transplants in the world. All in a system where public and private hospitals coexist without any legal problems.

You should check "Jeff Goldsmith healthcare comparison" in YouTube to get some professional information about it and not some biased Fox News reports saying that the universal health system is crap, and then show UK statistics. Great work, Fox, put the numbers of one of the worst universal health system in planet earth to prove your point.
I don't expect Obama's plan to go as well as Spain's, Slovenia's, Finland's, etc health systems from one day to another, but with years of work I'm sure that it will be totally worth it. I doubt that it'll end up being as crappy as UK's (I hope not).

RE: Encourage != Force
By christojojo on 11/9/2009 3:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
You must not live in New York State. We have lots of programs. Actually hostage programs every time the politicians need more money they hold them hostage. WE have a budget deficit crisis so right away we will be forced to cut education funding or roads or something tangible. They never ever cut appointed jobs like staffing for the politicians themselves.

Don't get me wrong I think health care regulation is a good idea, I just don't want it held to my head every time they need a fund raiser like they do with schools and roads.

Social security is always broke when money needs to be found and the same with medicare.

Social security was sold as a solution to poor people and the middle class to retire now it is just a supplement. DO you really think that this will be any different in health care?

Even if you trust Obama, do you trust his successors and politicians in charge of this? Seriously?

RE: Encourage != Force
By heffeque on 11/9/2009 4:17:51 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah... first lets cut on education... then on health... then on retirements... then on scientific research...
But let's not cut on war machinery!!!

I have a better idea... LET'S LIBERATE ANOTHER COUNTRY! Which one is it going to be this time? China... Russia... North Korea? We've got enough money to spend... on WAR! HURRAH!

RE: Encourage != Force
By ClownPuncher on 11/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Encourage != Force
By mdogs444 on 11/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Encourage != Force
By aj28 on 11/9/2009 8:10:36 PM , Rating: 4
But the point is that you have a choice on whether you want to be a driver or not.

You have a choice on whether you want to live in this country.

RE: Encourage != Force
By mdogs444 on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Encourage != Force
By aj28 on 11/9/2009 8:13:50 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, the left wing way - penalize success, reward failure. Rinse & reuse.

Unless you plan to just roll over and die next time you become ill or are injured, your failure to cover your own health expenses is going to turn into a burden on others.

Or do you only see things within your bubble, the right wing way?

RE: Encourage != Force
By JohnnyCNote on 11/10/2009 9:52:06 AM , Rating: 4
It's to keep lazy ass people who have no intention of getting a good job alive.

Do you also hate disabled veterans who are unable to work? What about someone who worked for all his life, then comes down with kidney disease and needs dialysis? Is he "lazy ass" because he can no longer work and needs help paying the thousands of dollars (well over $100k annually in this case) for treatment he needs to keep alive long enough to get a transplant?

Or are you just full of anger and looking for anything to label "liberal" and thus feel justified in using it as an outlet for your hostilities? Have you ever been out in the real world and seen what's going on?

Do you realize it costs more now for you to pay for "lazy ass people" who can't afford health insurance than if it were provided for them before they got sick? Or do you want to ignore the facts because they get in the way of your obvious hatred for those less fortunate than you?

RE: Encourage != Force
By MrPoletski on 11/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Encourage != Force
By MrPoletski on 11/10/2009 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 2

you could do us all a favour and opt to not live!

Then you wont need health insurance!

RE: Encourage != Force
By callmeroy on 11/9/2009 2:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
you over simplify....

First -- If the HC bill becomes law like or not the money is coming out of your pay before you even GET your pay, by way of taxes. So how are you going to stop them from taking the money out of your pay if its a federal tax?

Second -- Pretending you could some how dodge the tax being taking out that pays for the HC plan, you would be thrown in jail under the premise of being a tax dodger -- not really that you didn't "buy" health insurance.

RE: Encourage != Force
By borowki2 on 11/9/2009 2:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, what's wrong with people. As a subscriber to, I'm sick of all the freeloaders out there. It's time for compulsory licensing. News is not a product, it's a human right. We have to ensure that everyone have access to it.

RE: Encourage != Force
By itbj2 on 11/9/2009 2:58:17 PM , Rating: 1
It probably buried some where in the 2000 page HC bill the house just passed. Probably under the heading of Mental Health Initiative. After all 40,000 people die every day because they could not get enough free news.

RE: Encourage != Force
By lagitup on 11/9/2009 4:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
But soon, you will be forced to pay for healthcare, or be penalized by jail.

You will not be forced. You have the choice: pay for healthcare OR go to jail. That's an important distinction.

RE: Encourage != Force
By drycrust on 11/9/2009 4:45:05 PM , Rating: 3
you will be forced to pay for healthcare

In many countries this is standard practice. I live in New Zealand and the health system is largely tax payer funded, but there is a private health system as well.
For people who are never unhealthy or take risks, e.g. running across the road in heavy traffic, then this is an unnecessary expense. Conversely, if one has family or friends who need to be hospitalised, and especially if it is of a repetitive nature, as happens with some of those mental illnesses, then a publicly funded system is a big relief.
When I was in China I saw many people begging (to my knowledge there isn't even health insurance) and for someone with a mental illness it would be much more difficult than for someone with an obvious physical problem because they would appear as fit and able to work when in fact they may not be able to.

RE: Encourage != Force
By christojojo on 11/9/2009 8:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Once again in New York State we had one of the most extensive and supposedly best mental health care systems in the world. The politicians one day decided we couldn't afford it and needed money for some boon dongle so they cured all the mental health patients and set the free.

There have been crimes and increased begging and homelessness due to this not that that would be officially recognized but some well known cases have happened.

One was a male "cured" patient pushed a female tourist from Buffalo into a NY City subway path because the train "called for her".

The NY Sta corrections has taken the load. It is legislated for criminal mindset and not in handling phobias and such of a mentally challenged patient. This is not humane yet this type of stuff awaits us as we get older and say that we need a health care system the politicians really have no interest in running and fellow voters think will be free.

Do you really think you can trust politicians with your money and life. I trust then for as long as my money holds out and my vote is worth something to them. (I'm broke and they ignore my phone calls.)

RE: Encourage != Force
By sprockkets on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Encourage != Force
By TechZeal on 11/9/2009 2:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
What's Jason Mick? He didn't write this article... am I missing something here.

I understand the writers point here though... If the goal is to read the WSJ article you have a choice at this time. You can invest some time and effort and find it at no cost or you can pay for it. If this goes through, you will have no choice other then paying, therefor forced to pay to read WSJ article.

RE: Encourage != Force
By tmouse on 11/9/2009 3:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a Jason Mick article it's from Shane McGlaun. It's also not a blog. Again for those to handicapped to understand or too timid to click a hyperlink, the word (blog), in blue, next to a name does NOT mean the story is a blog. It's a link to the blogs FROM the writer. Blogs have the word blog : section in orange on the title.

Who's bringing the popcorn?
By Motoman on 11/9/2009 11:19:31 AM , Rating: 5 we all watch Rupert Murdock and News Corp quickly slip down the drain of irrelevance?

RE: Who's bringing the popcorn?
By mdogs444 on 11/9/2009 11:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
As they build a cable news powerhouse?

RE: Who's bringing the popcorn?
By SiliconJon on 11/9/2009 11:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'll be the one in the theater to get loud if Murdoch wins! And since that popcorn is refillable, I'll be throwing it around, too. Heavy "butter" and all!

RE: Who's bringing the popcorn?
By Motoman on 11/9/2009 12:33:00 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but popcorn is no longer free, but you can buy a subscription to it for $20 a month. If we catch you linking to your neighbor's popcorn, though, we'll execute you.

RE: Who's bringing the popcorn?
By DarkElfa on 11/9/2009 3:10:58 PM , Rating: 3
If this means I won't have Faux news show up in my Google news in the morning, awesome.

RE: Who's bringing the popcorn?
By mdogs444 on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
By ClownPuncher on 11/9/2009 3:51:32 PM , Rating: 5
Not liking Fox news makes you a sheep? Can I borrow some wool, you seem to be wearing it as sunglasses.

RE: Who's bringing the popcorn?
By MrPoletski on 11/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Who's bringing the popcorn?
By MrPoletski on 11/11/2009 5:12:51 AM , Rating: 1
rating me down doesn't change the fact that Fox News has legally fought that it has the right to report lies as news.

RE: Who's bringing the popcorn?
By kattanna on 11/9/2009 3:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
aye. please make fox news website your first new pay only website


Google is helping news companies
By HotFoot on 11/9/2009 10:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
Google's news aggregation is one of the best things, IMO, that's come to the web in recent memory. It's basically advertising for news companies publishing on the internet. I don't read the news on Google - I use Google to find stories and read them on the publisher's website. So... Google is boosting traffic through the news publisher's websites. What's the problem, exactly?

RE: Google is helping news companies
By amanojaku on 11/9/2009 11:16:57 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is a newspaper has a price tag from as little as $0.25USD (e.g. The New York Post) to $2.50 (e.g. The New York Times a few years ago), and that helps recoup some of its costs.

Online news is free for access, which, when coupled with bandwidth costs, means a larger debt that needs to be made up. If the ads aren't doing it then the company needs to find another way to recoup its costs. I'm not against online news companies charging for access; everything costs money and no one wants to work for free. The problem is the Internet has largely been free for years and this is a HUGE change in culture. Sort of like everyone in the States learning to eat with chopsticks when we grew up on forks.

I say let Murdoch do this. The best thing we would loose is arguably the WSJ, and I don't read it, anyway. I could give a damn about Fox News and the New York Post.

By HotFoot on 11/9/2009 11:32:26 AM , Rating: 3
For sure. If a news site wants me to pay a subscription, I might just decide it's worth it if I think their content is worth it over the freely-available alternatives. It wouldn't take too high of a subscription fee to be very profitable given the kind of readership a company like Reuters can reach.

Another note - I think bandwidth costs have got to be orders of magnitude cheaper than printing costs.

By MrBlastman on 11/9/2009 12:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is (:P), if they DO charge for it, they darned well better up the bar as far as their writing quality is concerned. This means NOT recycling AP articles all day long. The content has improved over the years, but it still has quite a ways to go--for both CNN and Fox's websites. I don't get a migraine quite as often now as I did, but, some of the content still seems to be written by someone in middle school.

I really hate to say this but The New York Times (I'm trying to remain politically neutral here) writers have both CNN and Fox's beat by several astral units worth of distance. They have also been charging for some of their online content for quite some time (or at least they were at one point, I do not go there often).

I'll gladly chip in a little coin if they were make the words that slide off the page a wonderful melody of occular pleasure. If they don't, I'll just read recycled AP articles somewhere else.

RE: Google is helping news companies
By artemicion on 11/9/2009 1:10:03 PM , Rating: 3
News aggregation is killing the news industry. It's turned into a situation where the parasites are killing the host. Ground level news companies and reporters are eating the cost of gathering the news while news aggregation sites (like DailyTech) are getting an (almost) free lunch. Even if the news site doesn't charge a subscription, their main revenue comes from advertising. If DailyTech and other sites can link and summarize their articles by finding them with Google, they reduce the number of visitors to the host site because a lot of people (including me) only read the blurb from DailyTech and never go to the actual news site, thus reducing their number of visitors, thus reducing their ad revenue.

No doubt that news aggregators are a great tool for consumers like us, but eventually the business model for news sites that do the ground level reporting are going to have to either adapt or die. Murdoch is trying to prevent Google from indexing their site so it's harder for news aggregators to get to them. I think another possibility is that news sites will start to display their content in formats that Google can't read easily, like displaying their articles with images instead of text, or utilizing Flash, or something like that. A worse possibility is that news sites will try to drastically cut costs to adapt by either converting to news aggregation themselves, or start getting sloppy with their reporting by hiring less investigative reporters and hiring cheaper, less talented reporters.

RE: Google is helping news companies
By MozeeToby on 11/9/2009 2:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
The industry is dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet. And it doesn't have anything to do with news aggregation services. The costs of hard-copy distribution are massive compared to digital which has lead to poorer and poorer quality and an over-reliance on wirefeed services, making every newspaper in the country 90% identical to each other. No major newspaper has attempted to adapt to the new market, a market with near 0 distribution costs and a million competitors offering similar services for the price of free. This has made it easy for alternatives to move in; TV news, blogs, and mailing lists to name a few.

Volounteer journalism is a scary thought, but it is what we are undeniably heading towards. Eventually, someone will figure out how to track reputations, measure bias, and (of course) monetize it and we'll be right back to the way things were. The only long term consequence being that anyone can, at any time, write a newsbreaking story and have it reach a national audience. And don't say that will lead to lies and misinformation; that's like saying that linux must be full of bugs, viruses, and backdoors because anyone can submit a patch.

Don't underestimate the power of the people when it comes to this kind of thing. In the tech world, companies are just learning that opening an API leads to massive innovation from the community. The same will be true of media. Open up the submission process, come up with a good way to rank and rate the submissions, and you'll have more and higher quality journalism available overnight.

By celticbrewer on 11/9/2009 3:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
Cheers. Great post!

All reporting now is essentially biased whether the reporter does it intentionally or not. That won't change. There are already lies and misinformation. The difference is that paid journalists can be fired. They have some sort of incentive to report facts without bias.

I have written articles since my high school newspaper. I always covered topics of my own interest (mainly computers) and I have always spun a positive light on who, back then, were considered geeks, nerds, and social outcasts. Someone could do the same story with the same facts and make those people live up to the negative stereotypes.

One only has to look so far as Religion, Politics, and Operating Systems to see how easily people are led by the media and opinions without stopping to consider the facts.

But if news is free, who is going to pay for fact checkers or building a content review system?

By Bruneauinfo on 11/9/2009 3:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
if not for Dailytech-like sites on the web I would not read any of this stuff. Its not like we all used to have subscriptions to science journals.

By Norseman4 on 11/9/2009 1:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
The question that I have is, re-posting complete articles without the publisher's permission is a violation of US and international copyright laws (even with a link to the original source), isn't it? (US, Yes, Int'l, probably)

If it's not legal to do, shouldn't the infringed party take steps to stop it? If Google only posted a snippet, a teaser, if-you-will, with a link to the source, everything would have been fine.

RE: Copyright?
By HotFoot on 11/9/2009 1:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
Does copyright apply to reports of real-world events? Am I going to be charged for talking about the weather with a friend because some news caster spoke about it first?

RE: Copyright?
By Norseman4 on 11/9/2009 5:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
Types of Works Protected by Copyright
Copyright law protects "works of authorship." The Copyright Act states that works of authorship include the following types of works:

* Literary works. Novels, nonfiction prose, poetry, newspaper articles and newspapers, magazine articles and magazines, computer software, software documentation and manuals, training manuals, manuals, catalogs, brochures, ads (text), and compilations such as business directories

To receive copyright protection, a work must be "original" and must be "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression. Certain types of works are not copyrightable.

A weather report may not be covered, but news article's, even in electronic form does.

RE: Copyright?
By Fracture on 11/10/2009 9:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
Does copyright apply to reports of real-world events?

While many news organizations seem to think this is debatable, the truth is you CANNOT COPYRIGHT FACTS . They merely exist. Recent issues concerning this have popped up in major league sports, who ban any account of their "material":

see it here

Beyond that, there's Fox's ignorance of the Fair Use doctrine that balances on 4 main points:

1)The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2)The nature of the copyrighted work;
3)The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4)The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Not only does Murdoch overstate point 3, he completely ignore's Google's beneficial effects on point 4. Google drives countless more clicks to the originating sites by using a snipet of the title an byline. Moreover, concerning point 2 - any 'reporter' that merely reports on the news without investigation or adding some value such as insight or analysis is guilty of plagiarizing the news creators , mainly the people on whom they report.

News Corp is going to find the next decade extremely uncomfortable - the monopoly of information by the press has ended in the age of the internet. Bloggers can be just as or more insightful than reporters and even do a better job of fact finding and checking. Newspapers are on a downhill slope since news can be found freely and more quickly, leaving companies such as the New York Times selling bird cage liner. Cable companies are up next - advancements in technology mean that good content don't take millions to produce and necessitate tens of millions of viewers.

Remember decades ago that content used to be free to the viewer - paid for completely by advertising. Why has it come to a point that when there are more ads than ever, Murdoch among others wants to charge directly for the content itself? I'll be amazed if News Corp isn't a shell of its former self in another 10-20 years.

RE: Copyright?
By Norseman4 on 11/10/2009 10:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
In this case, the article makes it pretty clear that Google is presenting entire articles. What I've is that this is clearly not the case.

I haven't found anything but a quick blurb and a link to the WSJ hosted piece. (Admittedly, I haven't looked to hard.)

It looks like Google is clear in this.

Days of Google are numbered.
By itbj2 on 11/9/2009 1:36:19 PM , Rating: 1
With the coming financial turmoil many companies will give up anything that does not make them money. So if news sites don't make money from their online division they will shut them down. This will be true for most blog sites that are offering their services for free.

But by far the biggest thing that will under cut Google is the new type of AI based search engines that are being developed. These search engines don't care about links or rankings they actually get you the answers you are looking for and won't just give you million links. These engines are much closer then most people realize and explains why Google is in a mad rush to get other products out. Once these engines are up and running they will eliminate the ad revenue for Google. After all Google is one search engine away from going out of business.

RE: Days of Google are numbered.
By Taft12 on 11/9/2009 1:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to call you out on this one. What you're describing is vaporware that will always be "just around the corner". I would love to see some evidence that goes beyond marketing.

Google itself could certainly be described as AI, and with much more R&D behind it than any supposed up and coming technology (that may or may not exist)

RE: Days of Google are numbered.
By itbj2 on 11/9/2009 2:04:46 PM , Rating: 1
That is what they said about Google before it got started and for matter of fact they said that about every technological break through.

Google is far from AI. All the new AI work is done with evolutionary coding and not some algorithm a person came up with.

RE: Days of Google are numbered.
By aj28 on 11/9/2009 8:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's still vapor, has never, and will never exist in the near future. If anyone comes out with one, it will be a Google.

By messyunkempt on 11/9/2009 2:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
...cos over here in England the papers are anything BUT news. The sun and the news of the world are utter trashy celeb obsessed trash rags, certainly not worth paying a subscription to read. I have to read the news international sites as part of my job and I really wouldn't consider the majority of the articles even close to being news.

P.s. Don't tell rupert. He pays my wages.

By itbj2 on 11/9/2009 3:02:24 PM , Rating: 3
I bet that the stuff you refer to as trash is what people would pay to see. After all people are paying a lot for cable and Satellite and that is 97 percent of programing is trash.

Talk about not understanding the technology
By Fallen Kell on 11/9/2009 5:03:54 PM , Rating: 3
There is this file, called robots.txt

If he wants to keep google from looking at his pages, just add the following:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

Simple as that. No more google bots scanning the pages and updating the index files. Also, as a result, no more updated page ranking or search terms, which probably includes a good 40-80% of the website's traffic hits, but who cares anyway, since they are "stealing" anyway by linking to them...

By aj28 on 11/9/2009 8:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
He doesn't want that, which is why the solution will have to be more complicated. I'm sure he's totally fine with the free advertising on his blurbs, although if he finds a way of partially disabling indexing, he will indeed have to deal with the prospect of lower page ranks due to less and lower quality content.

WSJ is not an iphone
By crystal clear on 11/9/2009 11:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
Rupert Murdoch thinks he can be the next "JOBS" (Apple),where idiots line up to pay bloated prices for some sleek stuff.

No way ! people have glue in their wallets..the money just does come out.

RE: WSJ is not an iphone
By crystal clear on 11/9/2009 11:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
should read- the money just does NOT come out

RE: WSJ is not an iphone
By mdogs444 on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: WSJ is not an iphone
By aj28 on 11/9/2009 8:31:41 PM , Rating: 1
Not only was that inappropriate for his comment, but the fact of the matter is that you live in a country where people pay taxes. Do you realize how much of your existence, daily and in the long-term, is and always has been financed by federal (tax) dollars?

Get real, or get out.

By ussfletcher on 11/9/2009 12:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why is there a seemingly unconnected paragraph about Google and myspace in here? Does Murdock own myspace? Is he punishing Google for having a deal with them? There is absolutely no context given for it.

RE: Myspace?
By aj28 on 11/9/2009 8:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, he ownes MySpace.

Fox Sucks
By gorehound on 11/9/2009 6:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
I do not care for their news nor will i care about not seeing their it is a great idea for them to sink...just make us all pay and then watch em lose their shirts.

there will always be good free news out there to read,watch,or just listen to as in radio.

RE: Fox Sucks
By aj28 on 11/9/2009 8:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with for-pay Fox is that only people who want to hear it will hear it. The whole basis of the messages (lies) they espouse is to boost the ego of their audience and create enough of a ruckus to cause some sort of disruption within those who really don't much care for their ideologies.

While I would love to have them in their own little noise box, I don't see that happening in the near future.

Since Mudock / FixNews isn't really news
By Belard on 11/10/2009 8:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
Since Mudock / FixNews isn't really news...

People with an IQ above 100 won't really care. Shesh, fox/posts admits that their goal is to destroy Obama, so what part is the "Fair and balanced" part?

They lie.
They lie to each others... commenting on stories that they made up as if they are fact.
And plain nutz.

Fox news: official Entertainment channel for NeoCons, NeoNazis and KKK.

By Belard on 11/12/2009 5:38:05 PM , Rating: 2

FOX busted showing same video and saying its from two different events.

That is BAD BAD BAD!

Who pays for news?
By callmeroy on 11/9/2009 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 3
Who would pay for news? Seriously -- that's not a trick question, I'm being honest. Mind you I said "news" -- not industry specific or any special kind of inside track "niche" news , but just regular old "this is what is going on in the world/region/your town" kind of news.

It just seems stupid to me, but then I'm a cheap bastard.

Also, isn't it the right of the people to be informed of the news -- I thought that's the whole idea behind basic TV broadcasts and if I can always rely on that why would I pay for it elsewhere?

You have to give me something no one else does if you want my money.

Do it!
By Devenish on 11/10/2009 1:51:01 AM , Rating: 3
After taking a good long look at all the holdings News Corp has to offer, there is nothing I would miss if it just disappeared (advertisers should take note of this). We must remember that people always share the best news, not corporations.

So take the broken obsolete business model some where else, competition is only a mouse click away.

By MrPoletski on 11/10/2009 4:10:34 AM , Rating: 2

Then nobody will bother to read your propaganda you fuckhead.

Mark Cuban was right. The Internet is dead.
By reader1 on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
By TMV192 on 11/9/2009 11:04:17 AM , Rating: 5
I for one like my free, trashy, and disorganized internetz, thank you very much

RE: Mark Cuban was right. The Internet is dead.
By yangyoning on 11/10/2009 7:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
I hope there's a -6 rating system where a crap post like this goes to oblivion, and doesn't open when I choose expand all, expect to someone who desperate to really want to see the crap by manually click them open.

By yangyoning on 11/10/2009 7:26:23 AM , Rating: 4
I mean except, damn edit button

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki