homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.145.172.149
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 280 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 280 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >     
Murdoch: I will block Google
And challenge 'Fair Use' principles, thinks headline/snippet use is illegal
Syzygy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 8:01 pm on Nov 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

From the BBC [news.bbc.co.uk]

The billionaire told Sky News Australia he will explore ways to remove stories from Google's search indexes, including Google News.
Mr Murdoch's News Corp had previously said it would start charging online customers across all its websites.

He believes that search engines cannot legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results.

"There's a doctrine called 'fair use', which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether," Mr Murdoch told the TV channel. "But we'll take that slowly."

Ok, so we all know that he could simply prevent indexing, but I'm sure he's aware of that too. Seems the wily old fox wants to go much further than just that and seeks change the entire landscape of the web by making it illegal for anyone and anything to use text from copyrighted stories as search result snippets.

The ramifications are huge. How very, very interesting...

Syzygy

 

ChanandlerBong

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 3:46 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

I worry for the future of quality news. We've been spoilt by the likes of the bbc, cnn, the guardian, the times and whatever. High class journalism costs money to produce, to send brave and talented men and women not only to war fronts but into bleak mountainous or jungle or desert areas to lay their fingers on the pulse of what's happening in the world. Who will pay that money if, in 10 years, print editions stop and nobody wants to pay for online news? Will a war correspondent become an extinct role?

be very careful what you wish for because it might come true.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 3:53 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Because the only value for news sites is for "branding". Stick your brand name in the face of a reader a hundred times and hope that it sticks. But thats not where most of the ad money is spent today.

Actually, it is. Search ads and contextual ads (a.k.a. direct-response ads) are an important sideshow, but they're still a sideshow, which is why Google acquired DoubleClick and has tried (so far without much success) to integrate display ads into AdSense.

But let's not get sidetracked by a discussion of the advertising business. The question here isn't whether online editions of newspapers lend themselves to advertising; it's whether Google is stealing Rupert Murdoch's content by indexing it and displaying headlines on Google News. The answer to that question is straightforward:

1) Indexing isn't theft.

2) The Internet and search engines existed long before Mr. Murdoch's Web sites existed. When his company chose to published on the open Web, they made a conscious decision to expose their stories to the unwashed masses AND to search-engine crawlers.

3) If Mr. Murdoch has changed his mind about having his content indexed, he can place that content behind a firewall or block Google's crawler with a couple of lines in robots.txt. There's no need for public posturing, blustering, and bluffing.

piatkow

WebmasterWorld Senior Member piatkow us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 4:10 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)


If Mr. Murdoch has changed his mind about having his content indexed

The issue is not indexing it is "snippets" on Google News that are so large that the visitor doesn't actually need to go to the target site.

Syzygy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 4:42 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Here's what the US Copyright Office [copyright.gov] has to say about 'Fair Use' and thus why it may matter rather crucially to this whole scenario:

Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Whilst, as the text says, these are but examples, I don't see anything in there that says "search engine listings".

What would be useful here is a bit of insight into what recent legislation says about indexing by search engines and the reproduction of text in what we are referring to as 'snippets'. Anyone?

I believe that the position, as far as images results are concerned, is that copyright is not infringed as files are retrieved and stored temporarily. Further, I believe that in this regard the use of 'thumbnail' size images is acceptable, but nothing larger.

So, what about unique content. For news publishers headlines have a crucial part to play in attracting readers. They are, in effect, a unique selling point. So, what does that matter?

The US Copyright law offers four clear considerations for determining whether something is 'Fair Use'. These are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

I don't know about you, but in reading through that list I start to think that Murdock has something going for him!

1. Do search engines make money from their use of snippets? - Yes, it's their entire raison d'etre.

2. No idea how this applies. Anyone?

3. The headline is very important as is the standfirst - the introductory paragraph. Search engine snippets may show key facts or aspects from the story. Individually and combined, I'd say Murdock may have reason for being upset.

4. Well, you've read the snippet, what more do you need to know? What value then the story?

Put that into the hands of a top notch IP law firm, cite endless examples of the infringements, ensure you have deep pockets, and away you go. Of course, the usual disclaimer applies - I'm just a layman and haven't really got a clue about such matters.

Still, it looks kind of, well... head scratchingly interesting...

Syzygy

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 4:46 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm just a layman and haven't really got a clue about such matters.

Your argument is compelling enough for me Syzygy. Well done.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 5:14 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Syzygy, unless you're a laywer, practicing law is a bad idea. :-)

As for Mr. Murdoch, his real problem isn't that Google is indexing his sites' content; his problem is that Google is indexing other sites' content, and most of those other sites are happy to be indexed. Competition may not be welcomed by Mr. Murdoch, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing--or that it will go away if News Corp. is foolish enough to "block Google."

I'd also like to question the notion that a headline and a snippet are a substitute for reading an article. Do people subscribe to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL or buy THE NEW YORK POST on the newsstand just for the headlines? Of course not. The headlines are used to entice readers into reading the stories (and, in the case of newsstand or newspaper-box sales, to entice readers into buying the paper). Mr. Murdoch's own NEW YORK POST is a case in point: It has huge headlines that scream at passersby in the hope that they'll want to read more. Google News headlines and snippets are like article abstracts in The Magazine Index or newspapers' own headlines and cover blurbs: They're teasers, not a replacement for the product that's being indexed or promoted.

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 5:24 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

This is all a matter of opinion. I have my homepage set up with BBC news and sport headlines. Normally I just look at the headlines and that's enough to keep me in touch with the real world. Only when I am really quiet and on Saturdays do I click through.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 5:26 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

>...it is "snippets" on Google News that are so large that the visitor doesn't actually need to go to the target site.

Here's Mr. Murdoch's real problem. For any given user, over 99% of his articles are useless. In the old days, consumers had to flip through pages of ads to find the nuggets of less-uselessness. And they didn't have a choice of looking at some OTHER paper's nuggets. (See, newspapers were so expensive and so time-consuming that the poor people couldn't afford two papers, and the rich people didn't have that much time to waste reviewing two of them.)

Google gave consumers a choice: skip the uselessness quickly, and go on to something that matters.

The Newspaper's dirty little secret here is that the information conveyed by Google's snippet is not "the informative essence of my carefully-crafted article is bla bla bla"; the information conveyed by Google's snippet is "you really don't want to waste your time reading this article."

Google is effectively acting as a personalized critic, giving people enough information to figure out that they don't want to read. That saves consumers' time, and it is an extremely valuable service.

Mr. Murdoch (and other media lords, many of them more vicious and more biased) are hurt. Their captive customers are freed. They're going to have to start giving service worth paying for, competing on a much more level playing field. I know they won't like it. And that's all good.

StoutFiles

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 5:44 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

1) Indexing isn't theft.

2) The Internet and search engines existed long before Mr. Murdoch's Web sites existed. When his company chose to published on the open Web, they made a conscious decision to expose their stories to the unwashed masses AND to search-engine crawlers.

3) If Mr. Murdoch has changed his mind about having his content indexed, he can place that content behind a firewall or block Google's crawler with a couple of lines in robots.txt. There's no need for public posturing, blustering, and bluffing.

1) Indexing a link isn't. Indexing words from the article is being debated currently on what is fair (I think the AP says more than 11 words is theft?). Caching is definitely theft.

2) We can't all get things for free forever...and just because things have been in place doesn't mean we should all have to agree. I don't think Murdoch ever made a decision to have Google take all the info and show enough that the link doesn't need to be followed.

Search engines have evolved and Google News is not a search engine, it's a content scraper. I would be sued if I created my own Google News, so why should Google get to get away with it?

3) The robots.txt has been changed. However, naturally he wants Google to change some of their practices and everyone to notice that Google has become the supreme overlord of the internet, which it has.

The Newspaper's dirty little secret here is that the information conveyed by Google's snippet is not "the informative essence of my carefully-crafted article is bla bla bla"; the information conveyed by Google's snippet is "you really don't want to waste your time reading this article."

Which is all fine and dandy, except that it's not "Google's snippet", it's Murdoch's snippet. Google is showing enough of the article that people don't click the link and that's the problem...how much of an article can you show before it's theft? Useful for us but horrible for the scrapped site. If Google wants to be a "critic", they need to do it in their own words.

[edited by: StoutFiles at 5:53 pm (utc) on Nov. 11, 2009]

londrum

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 5:52 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

i wonder what would happen if someone copied the content of google news and put it up in a repackaged format (maybe with different colours and logos).

presumably google would cry foul and claim that the content is theirs... at the same time as arguing that the content does not belong to the papers.

surely they can't argue both sides at once.

StoutFiles

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 6:03 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

presumably google would cry foul and claim that the content is theirs... at the same time as arguing that the content does not belong to the papers.

surely they can't argue both sides at once.

Surely they can, it's Google. They can do whatever they want. A clipping from Google News Terms of Use on what you cannot do below.

...use the Service to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales; take the results from the Service and reformat and display them, or use any robot, spider, other device or manual process to monitor or copy any content from the Service.

CrustyAdmin

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 6:08 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Here's Mr. Murdoch's real problem. For any given user, over 99% of his articles are useless. In the old days, consumers had to flip through pages of ads to find the nuggets of less-uselessness. And they didn't have a choice of looking at some OTHER paper's nuggets. (See, newspapers were so expensive and so time-consuming that the poor people couldn't afford two papers, and the rich people didn't have that much time to waste reviewing two of them.)

I prefer news papers because they are much quicker to scan for the the things that interest me. I hate reading news on the web. I don't care how much bandwidth and monitor size I have, reading the actual newspaper if far more time efficient for, not to mention much easier on the eyes. I agree newspapers are dying but I think it's due mostly to the fact that we are becoming a soundbite and tweet society. "If it takes more than 10 seconds or can't be said in 140 characters it's not important to me", seems to be the general thinking. I think what made all the great societies great was that they had a longer attention span than a gnat. If I'm right, we are in trouble.

BeeDeeDubbleU

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 6:12 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

I wonder if Rupert is reading this?

londrum

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 6:24 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Surely they can, it's Google. They can do whatever they want. A clipping from Google News Terms of Use on what you cannot do below.

...take the results from the Service and reformat and display them, or use any robot, spider, other device or manual process to monitor or copy any content from the Service.

if google regard the snippets as their own property, then that tells you all you need to know.

the bit about "using any robot, spider, or other device to monitor or copy content" perfectly describes what they do to the newspapers every day of the week. they are trying to ban us from doing what they themselves do. they want to protect the snippets that they have taken.

people are arguing that murdoch should simply block google in robots.txt if he doesn't like it. but the terms and conditions that he prints at the bottom of his papers are practically identical to the terms that have just been quoted from google -- i've just had a look.

google aren't obliged to block us in robots.txt to prevent us from reformating their content, are they. they've blocked us in their terms instead. robots.txt has got nothing to do with it.

RichTC

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 6:36 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hi,

Look, I’m no betting man but pound to a penny say’s the moment Murdoch takes the news sites behind a pay wall he will want Google to continue to send him traffic (albeit to the headlines snip it) but the user won’t be able to read any further, without subscription. Just like with WSJ. This is the move I believe Murdoch will want.

If all online papers made this move, googles news results would be as useful as a chocolate tea pot - let’s face it, if you click through to a story on WSJ and get that subscription pay wall message, nine times out of ten you will go back to Google and select another publisher of the same news item to read it in full – that’s what I do anyway. If the majority of articles took you to pay walls, you would soon get hacked off of using Google news!

Murdoch might be spaffing off here and he’s obviously upset about his declining revenues and the continuing migration to the internet but he’s no idiot, he could block Google full stop immediately with the no index attribute on his site, but he doesn’t want to do that does he?

The fact is that users will not migrate to his news online websites whilst they can get the same information elsewhere for free and he is not going to cut off a major supply of traffic to his news sites in the meantime.

BUT, he does have three issues to contend with as I see it:-

1. His news has to offer something compelling to make visitors want to subscribe rather than go elsewhere for free – sorry but I see nothing special with a report in the Times that I can’t read in the Guardian.

2. He needs all the major publishers to do the same and follow – the ones that don’t will pick up all the news traffic and ultimately Google will drop from its index text leading to pay wall messages.

3. He needs to be able to drive visitors to his online news sites without using Google - no mean feat considering in the UK Google have close to 80% of search engine traffic and its one of the most visited sites.

Online news sites not following Murdoch’s lead will get increased reach and be able to offer advertisers greater brand awareness – The fact that a user pays to read a newspaper doesn’t make the adverts in it any more attractive than the same adverts in a free publication but what the free publication offers, is the advertiser having a greater number of eyeballs on their brand in the first place.

Murdoch can no longer have his cake and eat it! Meanwhile, one other thing that Mr. Murdoch should consider:-

The smart move from here for Google imo would be to say to Murdoch in public, we are sorry that you are not happy with the free indexing of your papers and free visitor traffic we send you as a result and on your instruction will ensure that all of your internet properties are de-indexed forthwith.

Fact is that, if Google did that, every other online paper in Googles index would get an instant boost in visitors and Murdoch’s online viewing reach would drop like a stone – hence making his online properties less attractive to advertisers who want brand and large reach exposure.

It would be interesting to see if Murdoch agreed to being de-indexed – I suspect he wouldn’t, he wants Googles traffic but on his terms! Not at any point has he said Google please de-index our news sites, no - he is saying we are looking into ways to stop content being displayed, the two are not the same.

Like it or not, Google must be sending a fair few visitors to his websites and to cut Google off would have a serious impact on his user reach

It will be interesting to see how events unfold

Rich

zett

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 7:58 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Ah, what an interesting thread!

First, I think that Murdoch knows A LOT about all this. He wouldn't go on the record if he wouldn't see a chance to reach his goals.

What are his goals, then?

1) Make the public (and more importantly: other news companies) aware of the issues with Google News and other content scrapers. He focuses on Google as the Google brand is well known to the general public.

2) Convince the biggest news companies to erect paywalls and block Google. This is the hard part. Everyone follows the same thinking ("Let the others block Google, I won't because I will be happy about the few percent additional traffic."). What everyone is missing (probably) is that the entire online news business is NOT sustainable. It only generates a fraction of the print business, so ultimately it does not really matter whether you get a few percent additional traffic from Google - Murdoch's goal is much more generic: To change the way the news industry looks at the Internet, and to save it from the doom that is lurking around the corner.

3) He wants to re-instate the "old" (i.e. pre-Internet) interpretation of the copyright laws, i.e. the way it works in the physical world. And there it is clearly "opt-in". Only Google has turned the whole thing around and made the web copyright "opt-out". If you don't want to be scraped, please change your robots.txt file. That's not how Rupert understands the world.

All three goals are very valid, and I think that Murdoch is one of the few players who could actually take up the fight with Google. His pockets are deep enough to do whatever he wants. And though I do not like him or his publications very much, I still wish him luck with this enterprise.

I think that Google's way of interpreting the copyright is wrong and in fact bad for anyone who works in the content/news business.

lgn1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 8:29 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

What is it that drives Newspaper Magnates insane?

First we had Lord Black, who is spending time in a Florida Jail, for total disregard to his shareholders.

Then we have the Barclay Brothers, who with their billions, built a castle on a rock in the English Channel, and are now trying to take over the Feudal kingdom of Sark.

Finally we have Murdock, and the Google Fiasco.

Having all this money is no fun, if you are crazy !

londrum

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 9:02 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

why is he crazy? this is about us too, not just the billionaire newspaper magnates. google is taking content from everyone, all over the place. look at all those new place pages that they've just introduced. those pages could end up affecting travel sites just as badly as google news affects the newspapers. and it's all repackaged content that has come straight from us.
anyone who's got a content-based website should be cheering murdoch on.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 9:46 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Let's cut to the chase:

Mr. Murdoch wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants free traffic from Google, and he wants Google to pay for supplying that traffic.

Is that likely to happen? I'm guessing not. Still, if Mr. Murdoch would like to fly me to his son's $23 million mansion in Australia to discuss the topic, I'd be happy to go along for the ride. :-)

loudspeaker

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 9:49 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

those pages could end up affecting travel sites just as badly as google news affects the newspapers.

@londrum - thanks for pointing that out! I was laughing very hard when I read several ostensibly "critical" headlines like "Google Starts Promoting Own Content in SERPs" in reference to Google Places - apparently, nobody in the tech press even distinguishes between "own" content and "mashed-up" content.

Mr. Murdoch wants to have his cake and eat it too.

@signor_john - not to accuse of you anything, but this metaphor has been used so persistently (and, in my opinion, inappropriately) in discussions like this that I am starting to wonder - is this some sort of a prepackaged rebuttal provided by Google's PR department?

In my opinion, there's a big difference between what Google is doing as a search engine and what it's doing as an aggregator of content (News/Places/you-name-it). The former is generally accepted and welcomed. The latter is much more questionable since it directly competes with content providers.

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 10:03 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

Mr. Murdoch wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants free traffic from Google, and he wants Google to pay for supplying that traffic.

You conveniently ignore the fact that Google has skin in the game. Transpose the players in your sentence and it still makes sense

"Google wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want free traffic from Murdcoch and they want Murdoch to pay for supplying that traffic."

Hmmmm....

Now, if Google were not quietly creating a portal designed to keep visitors on-site while producing maximum profit for the company then you argument might make a tad more sense.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 11:18 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

"Google wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want free traffic from Murdcoch and they want Murdoch to pay for supplying that traffic."

Murdoch is supplying Google with free traffic? That's a new one on me.

As for the notion that Google is "quietly creating a portal designed to keep visitors on-site," I can't help wondering if you've actually used Google News. Or maybe you're the sort of person who walks past a newsstand, glances at the headlines, and thinks he's read the day's news? :-)

Anyway, we'll see what happens, but is there anyone here who seriously thinks Google will pay Murdoch for the questionable privilege of displaying NEW YORK POST headlines, or that Murdoch's Web sites will block Google's crawlers for any longer than it takes to get a flood of press coverage?

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 12:04 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

Anyway, we'll see what happens, but is there anyone here who seriously thinks Google will pay Murdoch for the questionable privilege of displaying NEW YORK POST headlines...

Isn't Google licensing AP content now?

Murdoch is supplying Google with free traffic?

No content = no traffic.

Pretty basic equation there. Google doesn't create content. Were the net to block Google across the board their business would disappear. You really need to keep that in perspective.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 12:15 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

Were the net to block Google across the board their business would disappear. You really need to keep that in perspective.

Thanks, but I prefer reality to red herrings.

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 1:05 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

Thanks, but I prefer reality to red herrings.

No red herring. Didn't say it was likely to happen, but used it to illustrate the point that Google's business model is built squarely on the back of publishers.

Even the Google apologists must concede this fact, don't you think? Google is doing Murdoch no more favor than any publisher is doing Google a favor. As Tedster has pointed out several times, it is a symbiotic relationship.

It only makes sense when you ralize that both sides have skin in the game. Google seems to be losing sight of this fact, with the result being that an increasing number of people are taking note of the sometimes boorish and bullying tactics they have used more and more.

The cries about customer service, for instance (in the adwords threads of late) are pretty reminiscent of what we once heard about other onetime leaders of the pack, e.g. Yahoo, Inktomi, et. al.

I suspect there a whole lot of people that would pull their business from Google in a hot second IF there were a decent replacement, and frankly, I look forward to a time when there is. In my opinion, Google has transformed the web in as many negative ways as positive - perhaps more (links are a great example) yet the size of their shadow virtually compels one to play by their rules.

Not good.

I'm rootin' for Murdoch in this one.

ChanandlerBong

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 1:10 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

same here. The day that the collective webmaster community finds its spine and puts G back in its place is the day I celebrate. They're turning from a search engine into a content aggregator. Not their content.

OURS.

tangor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tangor us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 1:40 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

You guys are not seeing the forest for the trees....

Google has done this once before (get somebody big enough to sue them so they can make a deal that applies to all in that group)...

Remember scanning all the books in the library?

Mark my words...

Edge

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 2:05 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

Mr. Murdoch wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants free traffic from Google, and he wants Google to pay for supplying that traffic.

When Google opened "Google News" google became a news source competitor.

Google is Mr. Murdocks competitor whom can change or cutoff his web businesses traffic (without cause or reason) and scrapes his content to compete.

Scary...

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 2:29 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google is Mr. Murdocks competitor whom can change or cutoff his web businesses traffic (without cause or reason) and scrapes his content to compete.


I'll say one thing for Murdoch: At least he has copyeditors. :-)

moTi

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 3:08 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

murdochs news business is doomed. he needed to find a scapegoat. one that is gracefully accepted by the concerned public and you guys fall for the trick.

bottom line, he would face the same problems on an internet without google. the old press mentality "produce a bunch of articles and regain what they just cost" doesn't work here any more. the internet is a market with no entry barriers for digital publishing and distribution, almost infinite competition for news products and in most cases way too much redundant information in order to be able to charge for. users have choice now and there will always be a never ending supply of publishers who are capable and willing to give away their content for free for whatever reasons.
yes, most traditional news businesses will be destroyed as a matter of fact. most journalists will lose their job. live with it.

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4021856 posted 3:41 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

Murdoch is supplying Google with free traffic?

I wanted to return to this one, because I think it highlights a major misconception.

There is no such thing as "free". Google traffic always comes at a price. Billions of dollars have been poured into attaining "free" Google traffic. Entire industries have come and gone around the idea of "free" Google traffic.

Even you, signor_john, have committed significant resources into obtaining "free" Google traffic.

Even the content that Google offers to its visitors for "free" comes at a cost, but that cost is largely born by publishers - to the profit of Google.

As much as I depend on Google I also recognize that it has largely become a parasite. Everytime I read the all too common admonitions that people NOT let their online presence become too dependent on Google I say to myself, "yeah, right." Only of the sites I am responsible for has a majority of traffic from non-Google referrals.

If you are making money of the Internet, Google is finding a way to get their share.

This 280 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 280 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >
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