homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.94.228
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Content, Writing and Copyright
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: not2easy

Content, Writing and Copyright Forum

This 97 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 97 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >     
Rupert Murdoch wants new internet regulations to protect journalism
JS_Harris




msg:3884593
 6:38 am on Apr 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

Journalism and print based companies like Rupert Murdochs News Corp and the NY Times are said to be struggling to turn a profit online and as some print publishers are going under Mr Murdoch suggests in an article today that companies like Google and Yahoo not "repeat" news stories without paying a premium.

Source:Reuters, Washington - [news.yahoo.com...]

Murdoch also addressed concerns among newspaper publishers that search engines like Google Inc and Yahoo Inc help users to find stories by aggregating links to newspapers websites and blogs -- but then wrest ad dollars from them that they think should be theirs.

"The question is, should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyright... not steal, but take," said Murdoch. "Not just them but Yahoo."

To me those are fighting words and this is my response

#1 - Nobody holds a copyright on the news, the copyright lays with the written word so Mr Murdoch is free to block the search engines and to force anyone who wants to read what his company writes to pay. That would be a business decision.

To simply say the internet is broken because it doesn't suit your business model is a farce.

#2 - Print publications are closing down because they are being replaced by the internet. To me that suggests print newspapers are going the way of milk delivery and vinyl records and forcing the internet to take serious steps backwards in order to increase news company profits is absurd.

Mr Murdoch, you're charged with needing to find a way to make print based journalism more attractive so that it's used more... you are NOT welcome to attempt to make the internet less attractive instead. Build up the value of print without trying to re-create the internet.

#3 - If big corporation news companies and major print publications can't turn a profit because a more readily available global medium exists then it may very well be time to consider the age of print journalism over.

Again, Mr Murdoch, if you choose to pay a high priced team of executives, lawyers and writers to write articles but find that those articles don't cover your expenses you are free to charge for them or not share them at all... both would be business decisions.

I find it hard to support the idea of pointing the blame finger at the internet when a product no longer competes. I am aware that lives and jobs are affected but to put it bluntly Mr Murdoch, your business is with News Corp, not with attempting to re-create the internet law books to better profit from it (at everyone elses expense).

 

hutcheson




msg:3885559
 9:16 pm on Apr 4, 2009 (gmt 0)

>all google has done is to collect together and repackage other people's content.

No, google doesn't collect. No, Google doesn't repackage.

Google indexes. It creates a new product, an index, which is completely unlike a plagiary RSS in every way.

The RSS feed substitutes for the original site by copying, and therefore suppresses views of the original site. Google does not substitute for the original site, and it promotes the original site. Google does not copy the content (ignoring cache, which, as you all know, is more likely to be used by the website owner than by anyone else).

>but google news would be nothing without the content that other people provide.

This is just silly. Would a bookstore be nothing without the book publishers, or would the bookstore owner simply be selling something else?

Lexis/Nexus would be nothing without the U.S. court system. Does that mean that Lexis/Nexus are somehow harmful to the courts? Or that L/N don't provide a very useful service to its customers?

Google's core competency is indexing. They did just fine indexing websites. They wouldn't index books if there weren't a lot of books scanned. But there are and they do. They wouldn't index patents if they didn't have access to that data. But they have and they do. They wouldn't index news websites specially if such websites didn't have special time-related behavior. But they have and Google does.

>it's no different really to all those MFA blogs that publish RSS feeds from other sites.

What Google does is distinctly different, as I've shown. But, and here the irony enters--what Murdoch does is NOT distinctly different. Much of his content is just creating MFPA (made-for-printed-ads) pages by taking the lo-tech RTT (Reuters Teletype) feed.

Murdoch may not like people seeing how little of his content was actually "created at great expense" and how much is licensed from press agencies. It bugs me, sometimes, to see how many duplicate articles appear in Google's search index.

But is that Google's fault? Or is that the fault of the Reuters-newsfeed-made-for-printed-advertisements-and-shove-it-all-online-indiscriminately attitude of luddite newspaper-advertising businesses?

I'd think the answer to THAT is obvious.

signor_john




msg:3885651
 1:06 am on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

On your theory, Murdoch could prevent damages by taking his content off Google. He hasn't, and he won't, because THAT'S NOT HOW GOOGLE IS DAMAGING HIM. Google is damaging Murdoch by opening up promotional opportunities to Non-Murdoch news.

Bravo. That's the most intelligent comment I've seen about Murdoch's grousing at Google.

zett




msg:3885706
 5:07 am on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

but google news would be nothing without the content that other people provide

Yep, exactly.

This is just silly. Would a bookstore be nothing without the book publishers?

Er, you might not notice if the products of one publisher are not available in the bookstore. However, if all of the publishers would stop the delivery to that bookstore (or all bookstores), I'd say that bookstore would be pretty empty. A hollow shell if you want. A cashier, empty promotional areas, carpet, disoriented sales people. A dead shop.

Google's core competency is indexing.

indexing = taking other peoples entire content without paying anything, for a product that increases the own profit or helps reaching strategic goals, using a symbiotic relationship where some of the content owners may see a benefit, too (in the form of increased visitor numbers).

TBH, I don't see much difference to plain old scraping.

londrum




msg:3885800
 10:25 am on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

>but google news would be nothing without the content that other people provide.

This is just silly. Would a bookstore be nothing without the book publishers, or would the bookstore owner simply be selling something else?

i think this is what it all boils down to. you're right in that a bookstore would be nothing without other people's content (books), but the bookshop makes money for the publisher by selling their books.

google news does not necessarily make any money for the news providers. sure, they say they do -- because they are giving free advertising etc. but that does not necessarily translate into money earned for the provider. they are having to give up their content for maybe no return.

i'm guessing that google news makes money for google, though. that's what upsets people, i reckon. why should someone have to pay out to gather and report all these news stories only for google to constantly swipe headlines images and snippets to benefit their own site.

as far as fair use goes... that would be the case if it was just a few headlines we were talking about, but presumably google news scrapes every single headline and every single snippet from every single issue of the paper -- every single day. how else could they produce the index that they do? they must gather all that in order to sort the headlines into popularity. when you put it like that, that doesn't sound like fair use.

if they just handed over a syndication fee or something like that, then everyone would be happy. with the squillions of pounds of profit their company makes every year, what is the argument against them paying a syndication fee?

awall19




msg:3885803
 11:15 am on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Murdock publicly admits to using his news empires to try to shape public opinion for things like bogus wars.
[youtube.com...]
In many ways his products are worth less than worthless - having a negative and caustic effect on society.

If his misinformation was to leave the web all I would say is good riddance.

HRoth




msg:3885805
 11:39 am on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

"The real question is - Can printed media compete with the Internet?"

Yes, it can, because an in-depth article that is many pages long (and I mean real pages, not two little paragraphs) just can't be comfortably read on the Internet. I still subscribe to a good newspaper just so I can sit in my armchair, NOT at my computer, and read lengthy articles that are the result of investigative journalism. There is plenty wrong with the the newspaper I read, but one of the many positive things about it is that it is NOT a Murdoch paper.

During the week I read Google News, and I wish there were a way to filter out all Murdoch sources, especially TV "reports" masquerading as real articles. The reason why I don't watch TV is because it is powered by fear-mongering and paid lies. I sure don't want to READ that stuff. So it would be great, IMO, it Mr. Murdoch just chose no follow. But that is not what this is about. It is about control, just as a number of people have said. He would like to control the Internet as he controls much of US media. Not in this life.

londrum




msg:3885806
 11:52 am on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

that noam chomsky guy would argue that all news is biased in some way. most papers have a political leaning, even the non-Murdoch ones. people just end up buying the bias they agree with.

hutcheson




msg:3885910
 4:49 pm on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

>when you put it like that, that doesn't sound like fair use.

For the U.S., at least, the issue has been settled by the Supreme Court. THEY have said it IS fair use.

Other countries may not HAVE "fair use" enshrined in law. And so the legal issue, if not the ethical one, may be unresolved, or may have been resolved against the public.

Crush




msg:3885977
 7:37 pm on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Journalists need to be paid. I.E Fly off to some African country, stay in a hotel, get transport to do interviews etc. How are you going to be able to do that on a few clicks from adsense?

I think Murdoch has a point. How are university educated journalists make a living if their stories have to be published online because no one buys newspapers anymore. It will be spidered in minutes and be in google news for all to read for free.

Speaking for myself I have not bought a newspaper in years. If I do it is because I am flying somewhere with no internet. I think in the end the main source will be TV as they can still just about do OK from advertising. Papers are done.

hutcheson




msg:3886015
 8:55 pm on Apr 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

>How are you going to be able to do that on--no, WITHOUT--a few clicks from adsense?

Whoever solves that problem would, in a just world, get rich -- while Rupert Murdoch spends his declining years wheedling beer money on street corners.

Free societies have solved bigger problems than that before. Given a chance to start out without the likes of the old-money pigopolists suppressing everything that threatens their cash flow, someone WILL solve this one.

callivert




msg:3886084
 12:48 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

old-money pigopolists

I think your terminology is unnecessarily inflamatory and politically loaded.

willybfriendly




msg:3886090
 1:13 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

i think this is what it all boils down to. you're right in that a bookstore would be nothing without other people's content (books), but the bookshop makes money for the publisher by selling their books.

More accurately, book stores purchase their inventory - something that seems to be missing in this discussion so far.

Hutcheson, this is where your analogy with book stores falls apart. Book stores don't aggregate or index content, they purchase inventory and resell it at a profit. Good old fashioned capitalism.

Publishers may insert snippets from an upcoming book, but it is done as marketing - in order to increase sales - and it is completely under their power.

Libraries don't index or aggregate. They purchase books, which they in turn lend out for no profit.

In both cases authors and publishers are compensated.

Google provides snippets of other's content, ostensibly for their user's benefit, but in reality for the benefit of the company. If they have the newspapers running G advertisements, then they have closed the loop, don't you think?

signor_john




msg:3886107
 1:49 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google provides snippets of other's content, ostensibly for their user's benefit, but in reality for the benefit of the company. If they have the newspapers running G advertisements, then they have closed the loop, don't you think?

Google News is just the 21st Century version of The Magazine Index on microfilm or The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature (remember those green-bound directories at the public library)? It isn't a substitute for newspapers; it's a source of referrals to the newspapers' own sites.

What's more, the newspapers want the traffic from Google News and Google Search. If they didn't, they'd block Google's crawlers. To borrow from hutcheson's excellent analysis, Rupert Murdoch is unhappy because Google makes it easy for readers in his local markets to get news from sources that he doesn't control. His complaint has nothing to do with copyright or even with Google per se. It's about protecting his monopoly in News Corp. newspaper markets.

On to something else:

Earlier, someone asked "Can printed media compete with the Internet?" The answer varies from market to market (printed newspapers and magazines make a lot more sense where readers rely on public transportation, for example), but the question doesn't even belong in this thread. The issue here isn't print vs. Internet, it's firewalls vs. open access. If Rupert Murdoch wants to set up firewalls against Google, he can easily do that. He doesn't even have to set up firewalls: All he has to do is send out a memo to his underlings with the order to block Google's crawlers in robots.txt.

One final thought: Google should consider making a conciliatory gesture toward Mr. Murdoch, such as removing News Corp. sites from its index. Google needn't admit guilt; it can just say that it's making the gesture out of Christian charity and a concern for Mr. Murdoch's blood pressure. Murdoch will be a happier man, his newspapers won't need to spend as much on Web servers, and we'll no longer have to see the New York Post or the Wall Street Journal's editorial page in Google News results.

graeme_p




msg:3886122
 2:08 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Good quality newspapers can compete.

Look at the ad rate the Financial Times charges (its somewhere on their site). On top of that most of the FT's content is subscription only

They do not rely on Google for traffic, because their reputation is strong enough to get users anyway.

They are far from perfect, but their quality is a lot better than Murdoch's rags. Who wants to pay for copy and paste from news wires and press releases, with even that taking second place to celebrity gossip?

willybfriendly




msg:3886147
 2:27 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature is marketed to libraries as a research tool. It contains references to recently published (not currently published) material. At $440 per subscription it is not cheap, but it probably makes H. W. Wilson far less than Adwords does Google.

Google is a scraper, particularly when it comes to news (and I say this as a regular user of Google news).

It is easy to flippantly discard complaints by media moguls, but it hardly changes the facts, anymore than rationalizing that Google is like a bookstore, a library, or The Reader's Guide to Perdiodical Literature does.

You completely ignore the dominance that Google has created as an arbiter of Internet traffic.

If anything, the press is late to the game. A couple of years ago they might have had enough juice to put the breaks on Google's growth. Probably too late now. I suspect though that there will come a time when many of us regret having an Internet so dominated by a single megolith.

signor_john




msg:3886190
 5:37 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google is a scraper, particularly when it comes to news (and I say this as a regular user of Google news).

If that's true, then why haven't newspapers banned Google's crawlers? Again, they want the traffic that Google sends them, and when he isn't posturing, even Mr. Murdoch is intelligent enough to recognize Fair Use when he sees it.

BTW, your comment reminds me of threads in the Google Search News forum where Webmasters complain about Google "scraping their content" but not giving their pages high enough rankings in its search results. :-)

willybfriendly




msg:3886202
 6:35 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

If that's true, then why haven't newspapers banned Google's crawlers?

You question completely ignores the dominance that Google has created as an arbiter of Internet traffic.

Wanting, or even needing, Google generated traffic does not negate the fact that Google is a scraper, profiting from content published by others.

On today's Internet, Google referred traffic is a virtual necessity. For example, we have a site that generated a bit over $1 million in sales last year. This site has been subject to a conscious effort to wean itself from Google (or any other SE) traffic, since it is just not a reliable model for the long term.

Current stats on referrers:

Direct Traffic - 22%
Referrals from other sites - 48%
SE's - 30%
Googles's share of SE referrals - 84%

That is better than 25% of traffic from a single source! That is also an extremely vulnerable business model, since that 25% could vanish with the flip of a switch.

Of course Murdoch wants/needs Google traffic. Everyone does, not because what Google does is right, moral, or legal, but because Google is virtually THE Internet anymore.

Banning Google would be tantamount to corporate suicide.

It is good that you are satisfied with G's virtual monopoly on commercial Internet traffic. I, and it would appear a growing number of others, find it very troubling.

<added>I can only guess what percentage of the above referenced referrals from other sites are in fact Google traffic flowing through those sites, but I suspect the number is really quite high - at least 50% and perhaps more. That would make Google responsible for roughly 50% of total visits, either directly or indirectly, and perhaps as much as 75%. Who can survive without Google?</added>

Rosalind




msg:3886309
 11:50 am on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

an in-depth article that is many pages long (and I mean real pages, not two little paragraphs) just can't be comfortably read on the Internet.

This may not last long, HRoth, if good e-book readers become bigger, cheaper and more abundant. The main advantage newsprint has over the internet is that I can't line my cat's litter tray with the internet.


Journalists need to be paid. I.E Fly off to some African country, stay in a hotel, get transport to do interviews etc. How are you going to be able to do that on a few clicks from adsense?

You're not, which is why journalists have to cut costs and a lot of local outlets tend to rely increasingly on contributions from the general public. But big outlets have a huge advantage here, in that they could set up their own systems of direct advertising rather than relying on Adsense, and by doing so they're not giving away a proportion of the advertising revenue.

The main problem is that a lot of news is a commodity. In print it's easier to get the scoop and keep it exclusive, but on the web today's scoop belongs to everyone else in a matter of hours.

People want good quality journalism just as much as ever, but it's expensive to produce. Typically the cover-price of a paper is 20% of its revenue, and ads make up the rest. So when a readership transfers to the internet you lose that 20% straight away, plus the effects of the current downturn, and compound that with the more competitive ad market that's created by the sheer amount of competition in online advertising. It's no surprise that jobs are going in traditional media outlets. But will most of these unemployed reporters be able to make a living on the internet instead? I don't think so.

signor_john




msg:3886602
 6:59 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

It is good that you are satisfied with G's virtual monopoly on commercial Internet traffic. I, and it would appear a growing number of others, find it very troubling.

IS this going to deteriorate into another generic "Google is an evil monopoly" thread? When this thread started, it wasn't even about Google per se. Read this quote from the original post (I've highlighted several key phrases in boldface for your convenience):

Journalism and print based companies like Rupert Murdochs News Corp and the NY Times are said to be struggling to turn a profit online and as some print publishers are going under Mr Murdoch suggests in an article today that companies like Google and Yahoo not "repeat" news stories without paying a premium.

Now, the fact is that Google, Yahoo, and companies like them are not "repeating" news stories. They're indexing news stories, using short snippets of text under the "Fair use" doctrine of U.S. copyright law, which newspapers such as Mr. Murdoch's often employ themselves. The main difference between the search engines and Mr. Murdoch's newspapers is that, when the SEs refer to an article from another medium, they limit themselves to a snippet and provide a mechanism for reading the original story on the site that originated it. They don't merely say "The Washington Post reported today that Yadda Yadda Yadda..." and rehash the Post's article with a 500- or 800-word rewrite in their own subscription- and advertising-supported publications.

Crush




msg:3886622
 7:34 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Remember when Mr. Tabke did a robots.txt on google on this site? Did not last long eh?

Demaestro




msg:3886645
 8:08 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Enough digital world vs real world analogies and examples.

It isn't like a book store, it isn't like anything that has existed before, which is the problem. These older business men who have thrived in a B&M world can't wrap their heads around the new age and the new way things are done. So they try to force their outdated business model onto us through changing of laws and removing freedoms.

The fact facing them is that people are changing the way they access, and digest their news. Reporters will always exist because people in that industry have a passion for bringing people the news. They need to come up with a new business model that accommodates the change in how people get their news.

If Murdoch doesn't want to be that person then that is ok with me.

If you think you need to pay for news just search a news topic on Youtube and you will find lots of free reports, some cellphone video footage. Yes you have to take in more then one source to really get a true overview of any one story, but with the amount of bias in the major orgs that is true anyway.

The info is out there and it doesn't take a major news conglomerate to get it to us anymore. They need to change with the times or die like the dinos.

willybfriendly




msg:3886680
 8:41 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

IS this going to deteriorate into another generic "Google is an evil monopoly" thread?

We can only hope not, even as we hope that the Google apologists might stay on track as well...

We have seen analogies to book stores, libraries and The Reader's Guide to Periodic Literature. None seem to fit too well, do they?

We have seen calls for media banning of Google, and Google banning of Mr. Murdoch's properties - blissfully ignoring the reality of today's Internet.

Now that the illogic of those arguments is duly highlighted we become mired in legalities and technicalities of the OP's post.

And still, those apologists fail to acknowledge the basic fact that Google's entire business model revolves around producing income from the work of others.

In the case of the press, there is enormous overhead involved (even without print). This has been the case for a long, long time, and helps to explain the existence of AP and UPI wherein the press can share some of the expense. In that vein, is it unreasonable that "aggregators" of content also share in the burden of the overhead, especially when they are generating a sizable percentage of their income from their activity?

Google need not be "evil" to be a megolith. Still, history would teach us that such megoliths (whether monopolies or not), no matter how benign, are a threat to the commonwealth. There really is a thing as being too big and too influential.

So, please don't insult our intelligence by making such offhand suggestions as "they should just block the bot." That has to be one of the most poorly thought out arguments in defense of Google that you have produced in several years - far below your usual well thought out positions on matters.

And please don't discount input made by others (myself included) with a wave of the "Google haters" wand. If only life were so simple...

londrum




msg:3886681
 8:43 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

maybe at the end of the day they just need to accept that advertising rates will be lower on the internet, and compensate by searching for more and more ways to send out extra copies of the same pages.

that's one advantage of the internet over old-style newspapers at least -- it costs money to print an extra 1000 copies of the same paper, but nothing to send them out over the net.

i suppose that means embracing sites like google news.

signor_john




msg:3886693
 9:04 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

So, please don't insult our intelligence by making such offhand suggestions as "they should just block the bot."

The U.S. newspaper industry is controlled by a small number of companies. If those publishers are really concerned about Google and other search engines, they can put a stop to Google News and its imitators overnight. But they won't--not because they can't, but because they don't want to. Instead, they want to badger Google, Yahoo, etc. into helping them redefine U.S. copyright law by extralegal means.

Indexing is "Fair Use." Deal with it.

Rosalind




msg:3886699
 9:34 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think it's worth mentioning that most current indexing is at the limits of fair use, but there are things that push it beyond and into infringement. Longer snippets, large thumbnail images, and the quotation of facts that are so essential to an article that they make a visit irrelevant, for instance. If anything, the trend of search engines is to tweak things so they skirt closer and closer to the limits.

So it's the right time to be having this discussion, even if Murdoch isn't really in a position to block the bots. Calling for new regulations may be the next best thing from his point of view, and his version of a shot across the bow.

Demaestro




msg:3886706
 9:35 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Willy... why so focused on Google? The story mentions Yahoo as well as major search engines.

I am no Google apologists, If only life were so simple. However this:

Google's entire business model revolves around producing income from the work of others.

Is completely untrue. Are you suggesting the the search results algo was completely written by someone else?

Google is a search engine yes but their business model is so complex now to say that it revolves around any single thing is very short sighted.

The answer is simple, why it insults your intelligence I don't understand but, if you don't want a search engine to index your content then tell it not to, and it won't.

Ask around, there are plenty of webmasters here to respond. But ask them....

If you have content on a webpage and you don't want it to appear in search results of major search engines what do you do?

98% of them will say disallow it in robots.txt

It isn't a defense, it is the method of doing things.

signor_john




msg:3886721
 9:52 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think it's worth mentioning that most current indexing is at the limits of fair use, but there are things that push it beyond and into infringement. Longer snippets, large thumbnail images, and the quotation of facts that are so essential to an article that they make a visit irrelevant, for instance.

From the U.S. Copyright Office:

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work."

Rosalind




msg:3886767
 11:20 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work."

Signor_john, you're right, of course. Facts is the wrong word to use. What I'm trying to get to is the whole idea that the amount of the quoted text is not as relevant as whether or not snippet quotes what amounts to the most important part. That's the "amount and substantiality" clause. It's a notoriously slippery concept that can't be boiled down to a certain percentage of the text.

willybfriendly




msg:3886863
 2:36 am on Apr 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

Whether reproducing titles and ledes from news articles for purposes of aggregation is fair use is a pressing question, one raised but not settled by the recent GateHouse Media v. New York Times lawsuit [citmedialaw.org]...

- March 3rd, 2009 by Sam Bayard, Citizen Media Law Project.

(Mods, remove the link if it is not allowed)

ning




msg:3886902
 5:33 am on Apr 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

A.P. Seeks to Rein in Sites Using Its Content:

News aggregators and search companies have long asserted that collecting snippets of articles — usually headlines and a sentence or two — is allowed under the legal doctrine of “fair use.” News organizations have been reluctant to test that idea in court, and it is still not clear whether The A.P. is willing to test the fair use doctrine.

“This is not about defining fair use,” said Sue A. Cross, a senior vice president of the group, who added several times during an interview that news organizations want to work with the aggregators, not against them. “There’s a bigger economic issue at stake here that we’re trying to tackle.”

[nytimes.com...]

zett




msg:3886907
 5:47 am on Apr 7, 2009 (gmt 0)

Indexing is "Fair Use." Deal with it.

Which Rupe does. You may not like it, when he tries to pull the political strings, but he is certainly acting for the majority of the content producing crowd. Also, publishers will act against the use of their content, whether it is "fair use" or not.

It will be interesting to see Google's reaction once the news and their sources are actually gone.

This 97 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 97 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Content, Writing and Copyright
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved