backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by Etsp.. on Apr 18 at 1:11 AM


Google CEO Eric Schmidt to newspaper moguls: don't "piss off" readers by charging for content
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has a harsh warning for newspapers wanting to remove content from Google

Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch recently called for news websites to start charging readers.  He blasted Google, stating, "The question is, should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyright... not steal, but take. Not just them but Yahoo."

Google News has long been one of the most popular news aggregators, gathering news from the likes of the Associated Press, The New York Times, and Reuters.  All of this content is offered to readers for free, though readers provide a steady source of advertising revenue that frequently surpasses that of print news.  But that just isn't enough, according to Mr. Murdoch.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has offered up a fiery rebuke to Rupert Murdoch's comments.  He states, "
I would encourage everybody to think in terms of what your reader wants.  These are ultimately consumer businesses and if you piss off enough of them, you will not have any more."

Mr. Schmidt says that Google's content is "fair use", stating, "
From our perspective there is always a tension around fair use and fair use is a balance of interest in favor of the consumer."

He thinks that newspapers and magazines initially pushed for open web access, but are now turning their backs on this pro-customer mentality.  He states, "
You guys did a superb job, and the act after that is a harder question."

Alexander Macgillivray, Google's intellectual property counsel also admonished Mr. Murdoch's accusations of theft, writing, "Users like me are sent from different Google sites to newspaper websites at a rate of more than a billion clicks per month.  These clicks go to news publishers large and small, domestic and international - day and night.  And once a reader is on the newspaper's site, we work hard to help them earn revenue. Our AdSense program pays out millions of dollars to newspapers that place ads on their sites, and our goal is that our interest-based advertising technology will help newspapers make more from each click we send them by serving better, more relevant ads to their readers to generate higher returns."

As to accusations that readers only peruse Google News and don't travel to the source sites, he adds, "In all cases, for news articles we've crawled and indexed but do not host, we show users just enough to make them want to read more - the headline, a "snippet" of a line or two of text and a link back to to the news publisher's website."

Ultimately the battle between Google and news moguls may heat up as the economy continues to struggle.  After years of glutting themselves on a steady diet of subscriptions and advertising, the print news business is seeing advertising move online and subscriptions disappearing.  Afraid of this change, many of the news industry's biggest offline players may lash out at the likes of Google, but ultimately they may just be biting the hand that feeds and worsening their plight.



Comments     Threshold


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

I have a dream
By SiliconJon on 4/8/2009 3:27:59 PM , Rating: 5
Where google and yahoo give Rupert his wish and remove his content from their systems entirely as they request.

Though I've always wanted the ability to filter certain sources from my google news results. That would be an acceptable second place prize for me, as I would enjoy their News section much more if I could filter out sources such as Fox.




RE: I have a dream
By sapiens74 on 4/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: I have a dream
By Spuke on 4/8/2009 3:44:29 PM , Rating: 5
He asked for the ABILITY to filter not for Google to do the filtering. Reading comprehension fails you.


RE: I have a dream
By sapiens74 on 4/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: I have a dream
By SiliconJon on 4/8/2009 4:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
You fail comprehension on multiple fronts - a big fan of Fox, yes?

Failure #1: The removal of Fox from Google and Yahoo would be at their request. Call google a thief: drop their content and see them come crawling back on their knees - it doesn't matter to which side they're a wingnut. It's not that I'm a left wing conspirator.

Failure #2: I see Fox as a tabloid. And while not the only tabloid, they're the worst on my list, so my ignoring them as a source is my way of demanding they straighten their act out since $$ is all they understand.

Failure # 3: Ann Coulter is not a conservative except only by the growing molested use of the word. She's more like a crack head.

BTW, what is your definition of "liberal"?


RE: I have a dream
By montgom on 4/9/2009 8:31:16 PM , Rating: 1
You asked

quote:
"BTW, what is your definition of "liberal"? " You wrote......... Failure # 3: Ann Coulter is not a conservative except only by the growing molested use of the word. She's more like a crack head.
"BTW, what is your definition of "liberal"? "

Answer: A Liberal is someone who practices personal attacks, such as you directed to Ann Coulter.
Bob


RE: I have a dream
By Etsp on 4/18/2009 1:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
You DO realize that by that definition, just about EVERYBODY on fox is a liberal? (To be fair, CNN too...)


RE: I have a dream
By Spuke on 4/8/2009 4:51:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And again the ability to filter is your job?
And again you fail to understand what the poster is asking for. Why should he ignore ALL of Google News if he simply wants a friggin button on the site that eliminates fox news content? He can still read all of the other content which is want he wants. This all or nothing stuff is retarded. He just wants a button to ignore the content he does NOT want. Comprende? Capiche?


RE: I have a dream
By sapiens74 on 4/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: I have a dream
By nixoofta on 4/8/2009 6:41:59 PM , Rating: 5
"Screw you guys,....I'm goin' home."

:P


RE: I have a dream
By Boze on 4/9/2009 3:52:59 PM , Rating: 1
You shouldn't click on this thread anymore because multiple people are making you look like the dumbass you apparently are.

It would be in your interest to admit you misunderstood and move on with your life, thereby allowing the rest of us to stop having to admonish you for being a pig-headed fool, and allowing you to retain some of your dignity and redeem yourself in the eyes of DailyTech readership.


RE: I have a dream
By BruceLeet on 4/8/2009 9:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, just like if you search in Google Videos search and you dont want any content from youtube you would type in: "-youtube.com" without quotes after your search query.

And your search results would come without any youtube links.

If you could type in: "-fox.com" or "-foxnews.com" in Google News search that would be swell! I actually haven't tried this in Google News, somebody should and post here with their findings


RE: I have a dream
By kb9fcc on 4/9/2009 12:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, this works. I tried a Google news search without, then with '-abc.com' and the ABC links disappeared. Did it with '-reuters.com' and gone! Same with just '-ap' (Associated Press) and all 176 links gone! With multiple sources, '-ap -abc -reuters', all gone.


RE: I have a dream
By phxfreddy on 4/9/2009 5:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
Fox is the only near middle of the road source out there. All else are essentially house organs of the government unhappily.


RE: I have a dream
By elmikethemike on 4/9/2009 6:58:19 AM , Rating: 1
Typical liberal - only read what you want to and ignore any opposing viewpoint. This is why you can't argue with a liberal, because their viewpoint is the only thing they consider.


RE: I have a dream
By Dark Legion on 4/9/2009 10:41:59 AM , Rating: 2
RE: I have a dream
By overlandpark4me on 4/12/2009 10:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, the Fox haters have arrived. The only cable news network to post an increase in viewership last month was Fox. Bet that taste good going down your throat. I watch Fox and CNN, and it constantly amuses me when people just can't handle someones success. Look at the ratings, and you will see that 6 or 7 of the top cable news shows are Fox. When you have a Fox morning show out drawing the entire nightly lineup of MSNBC, your bitterness is understandable. I just read a story that the 2 "braintrust" at GE/NBC Schmucker and Pattymelt are telling CNBC execs that they aren't LEFT enough. it's a business show, lol. Now you know why the problem exists.


Another...
By DigitalFreak on 4/8/2009 3:32:53 PM , Rating: 5
Yet another member of the old boy network that, along with the RIAA and MPAA, refuses to adapt their business model to the new world.




RE: Another...
By iFX on 4/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: Another...
By phxfreddy on 4/9/2009 6:09:07 AM , Rating: 5
huh? The "news" ..aka public events and information thereof is not exclusive property of the press.

Can I take your argument a step further? How about say if I do something notable and the press wants to report on it I send them a bill. Yes! of course by your argument it makes sense....since I really created the "event" ...they only write about it and thus who created more value? Me obviously since I did event X.


RE: Another...
By spread on 4/8/2009 5:45:27 PM , Rating: 5
I think we all here support Rupert Murdoch and his quest for obscurity.

This is fantastic news.


RE: Another...
By phxfreddy on 4/9/2009 6:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
You are dreaming if you think Rupert is going away as he is a force to be reckoned with. Any one who has run any sort of business even on the level of selling girl scout cookies knows this guy has enough talent to get by. He has thrived in a highly competitive business.

You do the math.


RE: Another...
By brooke on 4/9/2009 6:40:34 AM , Rating: 2
I dont, he pays my wages lol.


Murdoch vs Google
By bildan on 4/8/2009 3:28:16 PM , Rating: 3
Murdoch likes to control what people read and, with Google involved, he can't do that. That pisses him off. He's an "in charge" guy who increasingly isn't in charge of anything important. He's just ranting.

Newspapers rarely generate unique content and just reprint the same wire stories which can be read many places on the web. If they charge, readers go elsewhere.

Murdoch and his papers are becoming irrelevant and he just figured out that the "light at the end of the tunnel" is a train named Google.

Now, if his papers actually did investigative reporting which generated interesting and unique content, that would be a game changer.




RE: Murdoch vs Google
By Spuke on 4/8/2009 3:46:16 PM , Rating: 4
Print newspapers have been circling the bowl for over a decade. Things have changed and newspapers haven't. If they can't adapt, then they need to die.


RE: Murdoch vs Google
By Clauzii on 4/8/2009 4:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'll agree. If the publishers had seen the light back then and had made real efforts to go paperless, they would have been in a position today that could have made people keep and STILL PAY for journalistic content. Well, a lot of people do subscribe to this or that but not nearly by the same number as back in the good'n'old newspaper-days).

Instead the newspapers have put themselves in a position where a lot of freelancers saw the power of getting connected to the world, and today most of the same quality information is free... Which is nice...

Hmmm,
Which again make it not so nice, since the only thing left to pay for, in the end, is the connection itself.


RE: Murdoch vs Google
By phxfreddy on 4/9/2009 6:05:26 AM , Rating: 2
I do not think Rupert really is in the business of editing what people see or read.

I do think he needs to click into google like I just did to verify that they only link out ala style of Drudge....meaning only the title of the story is on the google page.

Maybe he thinks he is losing the front page perusal but who wants to read the front page of a newspaper any more. Most internet readers want to go straight to story of interest.

Either way this is clearly fair use and there is not a damned thing he can do about it. He and all the other news agencies are acting like they "own" the news. That is to say for example the earthquake in Italy....if they did not report it google would not know and thus even the title is plagarism. However most people would not concur with the idea of them owning the byline.


RE: Murdoch vs Google
By Penti on 4/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Murdoch vs Google
By hypocrisyforever on 4/8/2009 4:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. I agree on all points.


RE: Murdoch vs Google
By BruceLeet on 4/8/2009 9:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Murdoch and his papers are becoming irrelevant and he just figured out that the "light at the end of the tunnel" is a train named Google.


Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel...was just a freight train coming your way


Foresight
By FakeGod on 4/8/2009 3:35:01 PM , Rating: 3
Newspapers 'Moguls'...

Your business model is obsolete.
A newspaper has no inherent value other than as a medium for information distribution (and guess what...other, far superior media exist.)

Either evolve past your arrogant and ignorant attitudes, or step aside and watch others do what you should have.




RE: Foresight
By fownde on 4/8/2009 6:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I can find all the news I need without ever visiting the webpage of our cities newspaper or buying said newspaper. They charge to view certain parts of their paper online which is ridiculous. Most of the stories they post that aren't available elsewhere are cheezy local stories that few care about.

I'm actually kinda surprised the newspapers have made it as long as they have without many problems (though I could be wrong). Guess there's still too many people that like the traditional huge newspaper to read over their coffee or somethin.


RE: Foresight
By Oregonian2 on 4/8/2009 10:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
If 100% of newspapers fold (as well as the services they are major customers of), then who exactly is generating/finding-out the news that the internet is distributing (and how are those entities getting money to pay for them doing it)?

Google news itself gathers no news whatsoever itself (which is why the general thread seems silly to me unless one finds the tiny one paragraph news titles to be sufficient -- I find them only to be teasers for visits to the newspaper sites pointed to).

It seems that most websites die and breathe to get google to list them high on google searches -- except for newspapers who don't want to be listed at all. Very strange.


RE: Foresight
By Cerin218 on 4/9/2009 11:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
So if the physical media of newspaper goes away there will be no need or desire for anyone to report or investigate any event or issue? The question here is not the function of newspaper, but the format. PC World magazine decided that they were not selling very many physical magazines and went entirely digital. They are still in business. The concept here is that people don't buy the physical newspaper, not that there won't be anyone to report stories. I haven't picked up the newspaper in years, but I sit at a computer every day. That is how I get my stories. If you lose the newspapers, you create a vacuum of need that will be filled by someone else. Just like the folks that think that world will crash if an automaker goes out of business. There is still a need for a product, and someone else will find a way to fulfill that need. if they can't then the need must not have been that great. What does the news really teach you that isn't biased in some way anyway? You don't need a newspaper to be an educated person and I would argue that reading one actually lowers your education.


RE: Foresight
By Oregonian2 on 4/9/2009 1:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, but I got the idea from postings that the concept of the newspaper, including online versions, was passe and not needed. At least as thought by many. You and I seem to actually agree that the newspaper still is needed, even if it's not a printed one.


Google = slavemaster?
By Howard on 4/8/2009 6:23:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Alexander Macgillivray, Google's intellectual property also admonished Mr. Murdoch's accusations of theft, writing, "U




RE: Google = slavemaster?
By ggordonliddy on 4/8/2009 9:05:22 PM , Rating: 1
You expect content on this site to make sense?


By walk2k on 4/8/2009 6:34:50 PM , Rating: 5
Oh right that stuff you spread around on the garage floor to change your oil.




This is where I stopped reading...
By cubby1223 on 4/8/2009 8:25:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All of this content is offered to readers for free, though readers provide a steady source of advertising revenue that frequently surpasses that of print news.


Internet advertising revenue is about as dead as it gets.




By phxfreddy on 4/9/2009 6:16:51 AM , Rating: 2
Google gives you your 1/4 cut or so....LOL...I'm not really sure what divvy Google gives....

I do know I get 40ish clicks a day and only manage a buck total. That would put me at 2.5 cents per click. When I tried using adwords the clicks cost me minimum of 10 cents and went up from there.

My ISP and Google pretty much benefit but me? mmm


By Penti on 4/9/2009 8:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
Many people still subscribe to printed news papers, in Sweden they have never had a larger readership. And of course you can read papers just about everywhere without having a subscription. Although our biggest daily just got 62% of their revenue from ads. It's mostly trash ads on the websites too. However it would help if those subscribers moved over to electronic reading. Of course you can support a business on online ad revenue. But it might have to look differently. It's not too surprising though as subscription is like 1.2 bucks a day.

I'm sure they can solved that with custom electronic readers that you subscribe too though. But they are expensive compared to print. A kindle costs as much as a yearly subscription. So it's pointless. Not doing print would drive the good ads to the web though. As they would still have the name and readership.


Murdoch is just jealous.
By HVAC on 4/8/2009 4:52:49 PM , Rating: 1
There is nothing more going on here than jealousy and fear. Rupy can't stand that someone figured out how to "out-Murdoch" him.




RE: Murdoch is just jealous.
By phxfreddy on 4/9/2009 6:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
LOL.... with time we'll see.

I would suggest that Rupert will be beaten by old age and pretty much nothing else.

He's a likable guy but is having a little trouble with objectivity on this one!


By Casual Observer on 4/8/2009 11:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
issued by my site to me. Unless Google would rather oblige me. I have just the graphics to photoshop, (lady justice weighing a camera) and a picture of me too. I'll look spiffy at my local meetings.
Shake in your boots NYT.
"All the news as I see fit to report it or like the LA Times ignore."




Google CEO Is Right Actually...
By callmeroy on 4/9/2009 8:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with the CEO in don't piss the readers off by charging for regular news content. If for only one base reason -- the "standard news" that is available, albeit with whatever political slant left or right that station leans toward, in free basic TV and standard free AM / FM radio broadcasts --- yeah how can you have the nards to know all that news is available for free but then say "but to read it online you must pay for it." That line of logic makes no sense to me at all.

Now on the other hand if the online news sites had unique content that was only able to be had from that site -- THEN (and ONLY then) could I see logic in charging a fee just for that 'special' content.

As for the news filtering, all I have to say is if you can't just block all lib or con news w/o because its not fair to the other side ---- but I see no issue whatsoever with giving folks tools/abilities to block all lib sources or all con sources as an individual.

Personally as with my prior rants on folks who only diss Fox have suggested in the past, I think if you don't want biased news -- you best not read ANY news source. :)




Really? Don't piss off readers?
By MrPeabody on 4/9/2009 9:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
No Schmidt.




WHAT!?
By DiscipleOfJobs on 4/9/2009 11:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
JESUS CHRIST! Ok when is the last time any of us and when that hint. It's like rolling on the barnside or clickin'.




Rupert has a point
By segerstein on 4/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: Rupert has a point
By nafhan on 4/8/2009 4:15:49 PM , Rating: 5
An alternative point of view is that many people would not go to those news sites at all if they were not linked from Google news. Thus they are receiving more page views than they would otherwise.

If the news "moguls" want people to stay and browse their sites instead of using news aggregators, they need to create compelling, exclusive content.

In other words, people want compelling content, not lawsuits and legislation to prop up a failing business model.


RE: Rupert has a point
By segerstein on 4/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: Rupert has a point
By Spuke on 4/8/2009 5:12:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This "intellectual piracy" will ultimately cause a loss of relevant news production.
It's only "intellectual piracy" when you're not making any money, if you're making money hand over fist then it's "all white". I say stop the posturing and take action. If you really think that Google is taking your property, ask them to remove your content. I'm sure they would do so either of their own free will or with a court order.


RE: Rupert has a point
By GaryJohnson on 4/8/2009 5:26:39 PM , Rating: 4
or just use robots.txt


RE: Rupert has a point
By bhieb on 4/8/2009 5:29:06 PM , Rating: 5
So opt-out of google crawling your site. It is quite simple to do I don't see why a court should be involved. It is not like google will crawl your site anyway, just plop the code in and be happy all those clicks will never get to you.

(by you I mean the print moguls of course)


RE: Rupert has a point
By Spuke on 4/8/2009 6:10:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So opt-out of google crawling your site. It is quite simple to do I don't see why a court should be involved.
This is even easier. I'm sure he knows this can be done which makes his posturing all the more ridiculous.


RE: Rupert has a point
By nafhan on 4/8/2009 6:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, local newspapers are an excellent example of "compelling, exclusive content". For the most part, they write their own stories (exclusive), and it's compelling to the target audience, because it involves their community.

Also, what's the point of a news aggregator if the news is only coming from one place?

When I'm trying to find out info about a local event, the local newspaper's website is usually the first place I check.


RE: Rupert has a point
By phxfreddy on 4/9/2009 6:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah bow compelling! Aunt Francies cat had kittens!

Journalists = People good with words....terrible with ideas.

They are some of the biggest adherents in the cult of global warming. We'll be better off without this lame brained crowd.


RE: Rupert has a point
By borowki2 on 4/8/2009 7:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
People who wouldn't go to news sites unless they're directed there by someone else probably aren't particularly demanding. That's a major problem, I think. We end up with the lowest-denominator news. What get reported is sensational stuff or feel-good fluff that draws the attention of the ignorant and ill-informed majority of our population.


RE: Rupert has a point
By murphyslabrat on 4/8/2009 11:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't go to most websites unless directed by Google, but I am extremely demanding. As opposed to a "lowest-denominator" effect, I get multiple coverages of everything, including the best coverage indexed by Google.


RE: Rupert has a point
By iFX on 4/8/2009 4:16:01 PM , Rating: 1
However much the folks in media might think and wish they are the fourth branch of government the simple fact is, they are not and never will be.

I do agree though, Google is raking in the cash promoting other people's content which they had no part in creating. They also don't feel they need to pay anything to the content creators either and then they get pissed when the creator says "enough is enough."


RE: Rupert has a point
By bhieb on 4/8/2009 4:56:20 PM , Rating: 4
Google pays them by sending them "free" readers that would not look at thier site otherwise. And if they don't like it put the code in to stop them from crawling it. Most big search engines have an OPT-OUT method.


RE: Rupert has a point
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/8/2009 4:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely disagree with your assessment of online journalism as "fake reporting".

For just a few examples -- look at DailyTech's Kris Kubicki's scoop on payola in hardware journalism, Anandtech's constant first hand testing and reviews, or MMA site Sherdog's recent investigative piece on the UFC trying to cut out managers (which prompted Dana White to make a raving blog post).

Online journalism unquestionably has the potential to be just as great as offline journalism.

Your analysis entirely takes for granted that for every Tribune, etc., there's countless local newspapers that print stories that are trash, or recycled from other papers/magazines.

And in my opinion online journalism has the potential to be even greater as more people can reach and find it -- for free -- than print journalism.


RE: Rupert has a point
By iFX on 4/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: Rupert has a point
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/8/2009 4:27:10 PM , Rating: 4
No, it is free.
You choose if you want to click on an ad. Or even if you want them in the first place (adblocker, noscript).

Obviously I'm not inferring that online news is nonprofit. But its free of charge to the reader. Its just a mutually beneficial arrangement when it comes to advertising.

True a lot of print publications, are available at your local Borders, or book shop, but typically you'll have to buy a coffee to loiter around.


RE: Rupert has a point
By Jimbo1234 on 4/8/2009 5:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
And you have to pay your ISP to loiter the net as well.


RE: Rupert has a point
By phxfreddy on 4/9/2009 6:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
Ironic point made well. News is best done in a distributed fashion. Currently we have people who are "too important" in the news industry. They use this to lever excessive influence and thereby profits.

Fact is the whole system of democracy works better if we all do our part. Sounds like web 2.o to me!


RE: Rupert has a point
By bhieb on 4/8/2009 4:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
The money Google makes is beside the point it is optional there are methods to have Google NOT crawl your site.

Put the greed where it belongs squrely on the shoulder of the print moguls. They want the free readers, but don't want to pay anything for it. Their payment is the sharing of their IP, by choice BTW there is no one forcing you to let any search engine crawl your page (they could, but most of the big ones have an opt out method including google).


RE: Rupert has a point
By MrBowmore on 4/8/2009 5:15:04 PM , Rating: 1
Just do the goddamn sites in flash and voílla! not a word can be indexed.


RE: Rupert has a point
By mindless1 on 4/9/2009 12:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
Flash will drive off even more people, and it's only a matter of time till someone puts together an app that does character recognition in flash if they tried it.


RE: Rupert has a point
By stromgald30 on 4/8/2009 5:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
Why is visiting the front page critical? Can't Fox or other sites simply put ads on the sides of their articles? If Google was reproducing whole articles on their own site with their own ads, that would be a problem, but just linking to them isn't.

If Fox or any other newspaper feels the monetary crunch of losing hard paper sales, then they should increase the cost of putting ads on their site. Of course, if there are too many news websites, ad space becomes more of a commodity and news websites can't increase ad space costs. All that really means is that there's too many news websites and some need to go out of business.

This all makes a lot of sense if you think about how the internet is making things more accessible. With news sources more readily available, there doesn't need to be as many news sources.

It's just like how 100 years ago, each town had its own water wheel to generate electricity. But now, there are fewer electricity generating stations per capita because of more efficient power transmission. Rupert Murdoch just needs to suck it up and compete.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki