Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Sure, Rupert Murdoch wants people to pay for his content, but now he's definitely considering upping the ante. From the Media Decoder: "News Corporation...has engaged in early stage discussions with Microsoft about a pact to get paid from Microsoft to remove its news content from Google’s search engine... The Financial Times first reported on the discussions, which involve Microsoft possibly paying News Corporation to index its content on Microsoft’s search engine, Bing. The development has the potential that the newspaper industry could finally find a way to make online news lucrative." Wired, though, thinks it could be disaster.
News Corp. Considers Removing News Content From Google
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (18) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
"NEWS"corp.
crossing fingers he does this. Who gives a shit about this old man and his old ideas.
this just means that you'll have to get your POST articles from gothamist instead of google-news.
Oh noes! Where else can we get news from now? All that's left are the big guys like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Bloomberg, the AP, BBC News, CNN, Reuters, etc. Also, multiple major newspapers from every major city in the world. And then news magazines like Time, Newsweek, and The Economist. Ooh, and thousands of blogs and smaller specialized publications that offer more in depth information into specific interests.
Murdoch, you're sending us all back to the dark ages! You've doomed us all! The rivers and seas will be boiling! Dogs and cats living together! MASS HYSTERIA!
I think the real news story here is that nobody at News Corp has either the time, intelligence, or balls to the explain to the old man how the internet works.
Rupert can do whatever he wants...as long as i can do the nasty with his wife.
Yes, I can't see any way that doing this could backfire. No way. Information wants to be caged, after all.
Welcome to last week.
It's easy to take these headlines and say he's an old man who doesn't know what he's talking about, but if you look closely at what he's saying, he might be right.
Major news organizations need to make money somehow, and the current system just isn't cutting it. Simultaneously, he's admitting that online advertisers really don't get their money's worth.
Anyone who thinks the Internet will be a free information utopia indefinitely is kidding themselves. Big business and government will strangle it just like they do everything else.
when was the last time something free was no longer free?
Shouldn't NEWS be free? Or should it be bought and sold, as Newscorp does on a daily basis, so that the money can soil the news with slanted opinion and falsehoods?
In a perfect world, it would be free. Unfortunately reporters, producers, photographers and web programmers all need to get paid.
They should find a new way to make money then charging for it. That model is gone. Rupert bought myspace like timewarner bought AOL. shows that old media have no clue.
"They should find a new way to make money then charging for it."
That's exactly what they're trying to do here. Not charge the "news consumer" for access, but find some other source of income. In this case the thinking is that search engines are using the publishers' content to sell advertising, so they should pay a portion of that income to the publisher.
It's not really so crazy, but the problem is they have no real way to make it happen without the side effect being discussed: having links to their content not appearing on the world's most-used search engine. Basically then they would need Microsoft's payment not just to outweigh declining ad revenue in general, but also to outweigh that revenue they'd lose by losing out on Google traffic.
In fact if Google wanted to they could continue to use News Corp content even if Microsoft started to pay to do so. The Wired article linked above mentions a "little piece of code" that they could use to prevent it, but that's completely inaccurate. That reference links to another article that explains what "piece of code" they're talking about: the robots.txt file.
But the robot exclusion standard is voluntary. Google suggested to News Corp that they can use it if they want to, because Google chooses as a matter of policy to honor it. But it's just a policy; they could just as easily choose to ignore it... and end up in court, most likely, arguing what constitutes fair use.
Right. They are paid from advertising dollars. Murdoch is actually getting free advertising by Google providing a link to his site. Once people get to his site, he has advertising all over it. If people click on those links, he gets paid. Some advertisers even pay depending on the amount of hits the site they have advertised on receives. Murdoch's just complaining because Google is profiting from his profits. Rich people are never happy with just being rich, they always want to be richer and richer.
He knows he makes money from Google traffic. What he is actually saying is that the advertising-only model simply does not pay enough.
Google gives Newscorp lots of traffic - claiming that telling Google not to index their site would raise revenue is baloney. Newcorp could do that right now. It's just talk.
Google will follow the robots exclusion protocol. While it is voluntary, they've no need to break that for the simple reason that any business that wants to not be in Google is killing itself. The only way Google would decide not not follow the robots exclusion protocol is if Google was in big trouble, that is if Google was not in a dominant market position.
Yeah I didn't mean to imply that I think there's any chance that Google would choose to spider the sites ignoring the RES, only that they could. As I said, it was a Google spokesman who brought it up, basically saying if News Corp wants out all they have to do is ask and that's how to do so.
I guess the idea was just on my mind because of the articles in Wired made it sound like some impenetrable force field or something, instead of something that's just a convention.
It's anything but child's play that Rupert is caught between Google and Bing.