homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.174.90
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Bing Search Engine News
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: mack

Bing Search Engine News Forum

This 108 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 108 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >     
Microsoft and News Corp To Consider Web Pact?
engine

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 12:47 pm on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Microsoft and News Corp To Consider Web Pact? [ft.com]
Microsoft has had discussions with News Corp over a plan that would involve the media company being paid to “de-index” its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.

The impetus for the discussions came from News Corp, owner of newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, said a person familiar with the situation, who warned that talks were at an early stage.

However, the Financial Times has learnt that Microsoft has also approached other big online publishers to persuade them to remove their sites from Google’s search engine.

News Corp and Microsoft, which owns the rival Bing search engine, declined to comment.


 

steve40

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 3:51 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

It looks like this thing could spread few other news organizations seem to jumping on the bandwagon i.e. be de-indexed by Google and moving to pay per read, not sure if they will offer exclusive to Bing , but one thing this announcement has done is put the cat among the pigeons, not sure how it will pan out , all the while the BBC etc. continues to be indexed suspect just more traffic to them and other media will be forced back into the fold or collapse altogether.

PS I do understand how they must feel though and wonder what will be left of current news reporting when this plays out will we be left with BBC and few other large organizations and Twitter

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 4:25 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Newspapers need advertisers.
Microsoft chooses to advertise only in newspapers that sign up to Bing exclusively.
As part of the deal, newspapers advertise Bing and their share of searches rises significantly.

Don't forget that advertisers need readers, too.

- Is Microsoft likely to boycott a site like NYTimes.com or Washingtonpost.com, or a top-tier IT publication, just because that publication doesn't choose to join its attack on Google?

- For that matter, can Microsoft even afford to bribe every worthwhile publication into joining its collusion scheme?

- If word gets around that Microsoft is paying news organizations to block Google's bot, how long will it be until every news organization that isn't part of the collusion scheme wants to get on board (and is willing to demand money from Microsoft in return for not blocking Microsoft's search engine--a search engine that's much less important to the publisher than Google's is)?

kaled

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



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 4:32 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

If Microsoft and News Corp go ahead with this they will be shooting themselves in the foot. They will be portrayed as the nasty big bullies (and they are) trying to crush the small guy.

Nonsense - Google is hardly the "small guy".

Also, there are no restraint-of-trade issues here. All content providers, be they news media or others, are free monetize their sites by whatever means they choose (without breaking criminal laws) and if that means entering into exclusivity deals with search engines then that's fine from a legal point of view unless specific legislation is enacted in the future that says otherwise.

In terms of monopolistic activity, deals such as these would barely even rate 1 point out of 10. It's like a free-to-air TV channel buying exclusive access to a TV show (which happens all the time). All the viewer has to do is change channel - big deal.

<added>
signor_john,
Provided Microsoft offers enough money to the website owners to compensate them for loss of earnings due to loss of traffic there is no downside, so if Microsoft offers enough money, I would expect all the news media to jump aboard. If the money is right, it's a no-brainer.</added>

Kaled.

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 5:03 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

...attack on Google

...bribe every worthwhile publication into joining its collusion scheme?

...collusion scheme wants to get on board

So, hyperbole has completely replaced logic and inflammatory language reasonable discourse?

On the one hand you challenge Murdoch et. al. to simply block Gooogle, but when he begins negotiating a means to make this happen it turns into collusion, scheming, bribery, etc.

Your logic escapes me totally...

sem4u

WebmasterWorld Senior Member sem4u us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 5:09 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google is the 'mixer' of web content IMO...that has become their role.

Soon it will be Bing's turn to grab some market share from the big G...and if Murdoch wants to do a deal just with them, then that is OK.

If I owned an independent newsagent and only wanted to stock certain magazines, then I would do just that.

No-one knows how this will all pan out. Maybe Murdoch and Bing will rake in the money, or maybe they will lose too much traffic from Google.

Whatever happens it will be interesting! :)

NoLimits

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 7:24 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

I hope they move forward with this.

I would be willing to licence my content exclusively to Microsoft.

Google slap that.

ken_b

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



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 7:43 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

News Corp may be getting company...

[bloomberg.com...]
Publishers of the Denver Post and the Dallas Morning News may pull some of their stories from Google Inc.’s news site...

physics

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 8:53 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)


Is this ethical? Is it even legal? To me, it sounds like Budweiser going into a bar and telling the owner, "We'll pay you not to serve Miller." (As opposed to "We'll pay you to serve Bud in addition to Miller.")

This sort of thing is done all the time I think. Haven't you ever been to a restaurant that only serves Coke products or only serves Pepsi products?
Plus, in this case it's more like you walk into a bar and say "Hi, I'm from Budweiser. I know that you've been having to give away your beer from Miller for free. I'm willing to let you make money on selling Budweiser, so long as you make an exclusive agreement with me. Deal?"
Not the best analogy because the provider/distributor is backwards in relation to the OP but I digress.

loudspeaker

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 9:29 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Not directly related, but potentially very relevant to the increasingly prevalent "we're all in the same boat" mood among publishers: magazine publishers are also considering banding together before they all die out separately:

[observer.com...]

Some of the magazine industry’s biggest names are on the verge of forming a new company that would allow them to take the digital future into their own hands.

Guess whose hands they want to take their future from.

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 9:58 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

One of the neat things in this field is how quickly things can change - mind boggling, really. With so many divergent interests suddenly coming out ready to challenge the status quo, I would not be a bit surprised to see a very different landscape by this time next year.

I wish my crystal ball were a bit clearer. These are times when risks often result in great gains...

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 10:04 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

On the one hand you challenge Murdoch et. al. to simply block Gooogle, but when he begins negotiating a means to make this happen it turns into collusion, scheming, bribery, etc.

What do you mean by "a means to make this happen"? The means has existed all along: Google News will "de-list" any site that asks to be excluded.

Or are you suggesting that News Corp. can't give up traffic from Google News without a subsidy from Microsoft? Maybe that's true, but if it is, it's likely to be a short-term tactic at best for both News Corp. and Microsoft.

Still, in the unlikely event that this deal does happen, it might actually be in Google's best interests. If Microsoft can get Google blocked from all of a multinational media conglomerate's Web properties with a few scribbles in its corporate checkbook, the notion that Google has a "monopoly on search" (or even a monopoly on news search) looks awfully farfetched.

wheel

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



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 10:08 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Smooth move by MS. They've come up with a way to let the old news media actually make money on their web content AND compete with their search engine.

I think there's an easy fix to the monopoly concerns - just have the news agree that they have a 'block ALL bots' policy...except MS. Anyone else wants to index the content, you gotta pay to play. That's fair enough. And I expect that's what MS will do. Good for the newsmedia too.

This has some interesting possibilities, but if the actually proceed with this, I've got $5 says Google decides it can ignore robots.txt.

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 10:17 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

What do you mean by "a means to make this happen"? The means has existed all along: Google News will "de-list" any site that asks to be excluded.

Or are you suggesting that News Corp. can't give up traffic from Google News without a subsidy from Microsoft? Maybe that's true, but if it is, it's likely to be a short-term tactic at best for both News Corp. and Microsoft.

Argumentative, or obtuse? As a business owner you are well aware that you do not give up one source of income (no matter how meager) without lining up a replacement.

Subsidy? Is that what selling intellectual property rights is? That would make for some interesting discussions with the IRS agent for many authors I suppose.

Or, are you denying the right of publishers to sell their material, just as you defend Google's right to free access/use of copyrighted material?

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 10:38 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Or, are you denying the right of publishers to sell their material, just as you defend Google's right to free access/use of copyrighted material?

If we're to believe the news reports, the discussion isn't about selling material, it's about preventing search access. (It's also about the Web as we've known it for the last 20 years vs. a Web that operates like cable TV.)

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 11:49 pm on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

If we're to believe the news reports, the discussion isn't about selling material, it's about preventing search access.

We have already had this discussion in the other thread you started. I gave you several sources that describe it in terms of exclusive use, not some anti-Google conspiracy.

As you have eloquently pointed out, it is both easy and the webmaster's right to block Google. It is also the publisher's right to negotiate use of and compensation for their intellectual property.

No harm, no foul. It is business as it has been done for a couple of hundred years now.

My web already operates like cable TV. I pay my ISP (who also happens to provide cable TV) for general access. There are large areas of the web that I can only access by paying additional fees - should I so desire - although not to the ISP (so I guess, once again, your analogy begins to break down).

I remain baffled as to why you see this as anti-competitive collusion by a bunch of Luddite conspirators. A week ago you were saying that Murdoch would never block Google because of the loss of traffic. It appears that he is serious, and has been for long enough that he has developed alternate sources of income.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 1:44 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

A week ago you were saying that Murdoch would never block Google because of the loss of traffic. It appears that he is serious, and has been for long enough that he has developed alternate sources of income.

He has? I must have missed the story about the talks with Microsoft turning into a deal. :-)

In any case, what we're talking about here are two different philosophies of how the Web and search should work: The Google "equal opportunity" or "level playing field" philosophy and the Microsoft/Murdoch "let's make a deal" philosophy. If you favor the latter, consider the law of unintended consequences, and the law of supply and demand:

Let's say that, as one SILICON ALLEY INSIDER columnist has suggested, Microsoft should make a deal with Murdoch for exclusive search rights to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, paying News Corp. enough to compensate for the estimated $10 to $15 million that News Corp. would lose if the WSJ gave up search traffic from Google. For Microsoft, the payoff would come from being able to say "Bing--the search engine with THE WALLSTREET JOURNAL."

Wouldn't it make equal sense for Microsoft to tell publishers who weren't as important or well-known as THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, "We'll continue to list your stories, but only if you pay us?" Why not make PFI search indexes the norm, with a few big brands (such as THE WALL STREET JOURNAL) being the exceptions to the rule when a search engine wants to claim bragging rights?

Obviously, some people are less bothered by the pay-to-play model than others are. Link sellers and brokers, or Webmasters who earn a living from paid directories, are likely to have a different vision of the Web than many of us do. As a professional-writer-turned-publisher who has seen the leveling effect that true organic search can have on the Web (and the stimulus that it can give Web entrepreneurship), I personally feel a lot more comfortable with the Google "equal opportunity" search model than I do with the Microsoft/Murdoch "let's make a deal" approach.

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 2:52 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

In any case, what we're talking about here are two different philosophies of how the Web and search should work: The Google "equal opportunity" or "level playing field" philosophy and the Microsoft/Murdoch "let's make a deal" philosophy. If you favor the latter, consider the law of unintended consequences, and the law of supply and demand:

We'll ignore your more speculative thoughts about the failed PFI model (you do remember Inktomi, right?)

The Google "equal opportunity" is hardly equal, and is showing far less opportunity as organic results are pushed below the fold on many searches, AdWords accounts are being shut down, and AdSense earnings show signs of caps, or in some cases decline regardless of traffic. In fact, there is a growing chorus of concern about Google on many fronts, IP rights just being one area.

Unintended consequences of the Google model are rife. At the least we should consider the impact on linking (once a source of traffic, now a source of rankings), the now ubiquitous "nofollow" tag (with which Google tries to force publishers to de-monetize their sites), ads, ads, everywhere ads, etc. etc. We might also consider any number of once viable businesses that have gone under through Google's acquisition and provide it "free" program, or the seemingly now frowned upon affiliate marketer. Of course, nothing is free. Users pay by a not always positive transformation of the Internet and the sacrifice of a great deal of very valuable personal and behavioral data , and publishers pay through the erosion of their IP rights.

You are correct that this is a fundamental difference of philosophy. I look forward to a return of competition to the Internet, and I look forward to some clarification as to exactly who is who in the continuum of client, customer, content provider, user, servant and master. (Frankly, I don't think Google is even clear on who is who in their model, as exemplified by their near total lack of "customer service" to their paying customers.) Mostly, I look forward to netizens being able to function without fear of displeasing the Gorg. I am not yet ready to be assimilated.

If Google is bruised in the coming months, it won't be because there were not warning signs. Google has, in my opnion, developed a severe case of hubris over the past couple of years - I think it was about the time they changed the use of nofollow that my attitudes began changing. Perhaps they need a "slap" (as in Google slap) to wake up to that fact.

fargo1999



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 4:32 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I can see commercials in the making:

Bing = News

zett

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 6:30 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

It's also about the Web as we've known it for the last 20 years

...where Google can just take whatever it wants without paying for it (or paying just with worthless traffic)? Is that what you want?

As I mentioned in that copyright thread, I think this is a very smart move from Microsoft and Murdoch. By putting a price tag to news they have the chance to change the market model IN FAVOR OF PUBLISHERS. As a (micro-) publisher I love to see that, and I would licence my content to Microsoft as well in exchange for substantial and reliable income.

And of course this has nothing to do with bribery at all. Both parties negotiate access to intellectual property protected by copyright laws. Nothing wrong or illegal with that.

I love how Google can only watch and react while Microsoft and Murdoch gather the rest of the news industry on their side. Google can only enter the game when they start to pay money for news access, basically accepting the price point Microsoft and Murdoch have set. They will want to avoid this under all circumstances, because they know that this will be the beginning of the end of their free access to everything on the web.

Go, Microsoft, go!

loudspeaker

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 6:52 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

In any case, what we're talking about here are two different philosophies of how the Web and search should work: The Google "equal opportunity" or "level playing field" philosophy and the Microsoft/Murdoch "let's make a deal" philosophy. If you favor the latter, consider the law of unintended consequences, and the law of supply and demand:

People have different opinions about Google, Microsoft, Newscorp, and so on but it seems like almost everybody is in favor of "leveling the playing field", or at least claims to be.

It occurs to some people, however, that "leveling" in which only one party gets all the benefits while others compete "at level" for the crumbs that are left over defeats the original purpose.

James_WV

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 9:37 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

>>I think there's an easy fix to the monopoly concerns - just have the news agree that they have a 'block ALL bots' policy...except MS. Anyone else wants to index the content, you gotta pay to play. That's fair enough. And I expect that's what MS will do. Good for the newsmedia too.

I think that's probably the key. I don't think MS could legally say to a publisher that they'll pay them not to publish on google, but they can pay them for exclusivity - but that would mean they give up every other search engine / online medium they haven't reached an agreement with

kaled

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



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 11:28 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

signor_john said
Wouldn't it make equal sense for Microsoft to tell publishers who weren't as important or well-known as THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, "We'll continue to list your stories, but only if you pay us?"

To be blunt, NO, it would not make sense.

The deal being discussed by Microsoft and Murdoch is all about giving Microsoft an edge in their marketing. It seems that Murdoch initiated the discussion but now that the idea has been formulated, most people here agree that is has the potential to be good for Microsoft and good for the news publishers.

Google understood the importance of news many years ago. I think I'm right in saying that in the days before rolling updates (i.e. when their results changed monthly or thereabouts) Google designed a bolt-on hack to their system to deliver uptodate news results. They would not have bothered if they did not feel news was important. It therefor follows that if Bing gets exclusive rights to deliver news results, then they will have an advantage over Google.

If Microsoft proceed with this deal then I predict...

1) The news media will form one or more alliances and will negotiate deals in blocks.
2) They will play Google and Microsoft off against each other for as long as possible.

Microsoft has been taking a beating from Google for years but Murdoch has now offered to sell MS a big stick - and MS is likely to buy it and go looking for more of the same. Eventually, Google and Microsoft may call a truce, but that could be a long way off.

Kaled.

Hugene

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 2:52 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

This is a terrible idea, and M$ won't get anything in return. I never search for news, and I am 100% that news doesnt generate ad revenue (look at "week"s post, he looks like he knows what he's talking about).

Now, it's also a golden opportunity for webmasters. The vacuum left by the departure of large news sources will be a gold mine for those who can exploit it on the cheap, that is smaller news agencies or sites from countries that have no care about copyrights.

Basically, I could set up a half decent looking website that rips stories from big sources, host that out of an island somewhere and BOOM, all of a sudden I am the free source of all great news.

Murdoch is becoming an imbecile and after years of great moves of using debt and tons of cash to buy monolithic media empires, it seems that the web might be his undoing. A few mistakes and there he goes the same way as record companies.

londrum

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 3:23 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I could set up a half decent looking website that rips stories from big sources... and BOOM, all of a sudden I am the free source of all great news.

sounds like google news

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 4:28 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think there's an easy fix to the monopoly concerns - just have the news agree that they have a 'block ALL bots' policy...except MS.

Sure, just like having the auto companies, brewers, or soda-pop companies get together to allocate distribution or fix prices. Why not, except for those pesky antitrust laws?

steve40

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 4:47 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Auto Companies, Brewers and Soda Pop are not good examples because all have agreements in place where a distribution channel can only sell their product and exclude all others

If you like it or not News Content producers own the content they create and if the Internet news SE's are making more from the content than the news content producers they will attempt to regain control of distribution rights and that includes From News Search Engines, I think everybody has seen something coming and even Google have been talking to News Creators on how to ensure everybody wins not just Google or the other News Search Engines, not sure if the MS / Murdoch is the way forward but something had to give and maybe this will force all SE's to rethink the use of externally produced news content to make money from without finding some form of revenue sharing agreement

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 5:24 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

If you like it or not News Content producers own the content they create and if the Internet news SE's are making more from the content than the news content producers they will attempt to regain control of distribution rights and that includes From News Search Engines

1) If the search engines are making more from their news SERPs than the media companies are from their news pages (and that's something you haven't demonstrated), the media companies are obviously doing something wrong.

2) There's nothing (except greed) to stop media companies from opting out of news search engines if they don't want the traffic, but it's a big leap from opting out of Google News to colluding with other media companies in an effort to restrain competition by making collective deals with Microsoft. Like it or not, antitrust laws do exist, and the scheme suggested by Hugene wouldn't sit well with regulators.

londrum

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 5:43 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

this is why google endeavoured to make the web opt-in -- because they need easy access to all our content so they can create their own. their entire business feeds and grows on it.

as soon as people start taking that content away their product starts to suffer.
google can say they don't need murdoch, but if this agreement gets off the ground then there's only going to be one news engine that can lay claim to containing all the papers -- and that's bing.

unless google starts to offer some kind of concrete payment to the content creators (and traffic is not payment, however much they'd like to think it is), then they are unlikely to attract any exclusive deals like this. because what can they offer in return? a guaranteed place on the front page? that flies in the face of what their engine is all about.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 5:57 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

this is why google endeavoured to make the web opt-in -- because they need easy access to all our content so they can create their own. their entire business feeds and grows on it.

I think you meant "opt-out," but in any case, that's how search engines have always worked, and anyone who publishes on the Web is responsible for understanding the nature of the medium.

Come to think of it, maybe news media should be "opt-out," just like Google News. If I'm a wounded in a robbery or fired from a hedge-fund manager's job for defrauding old ladies, why should THE NEW YORK POST or THE WALL STREET JOURNAL be able to profit from my injuries or my sins unless I'm getting a cut? :-)

zett

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 6:09 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

anyone who publishes on the Web is responsible for understanding the nature of the medium

Whoa. There are other models as well that do not take for granted the unrestricted access to free content, e.g. Yahoo! Directory, or Open Directory.

Just because it is convenient for Google to get their hands on everything they can get, it is not the "nature of the medium" that you have to accept certain actions.

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4030311 posted 6:30 pm on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think you meant "opt-out," but in any case, that's how search engines have always worked, and anyone who publishes on the Web is responsible for understanding the nature of the medium.

I suspect he meant exactly what he wrote. Google wants the web to be opt-in by default, forcing you to take action to prevent access to content.

Your other arguments are becoming increasingly tenuous with each post. Are their hidden agendas at play here?

The issue here is very much IP rights, not conspiracy theories, price fixing cartels or the destruction of the Internet as we know it. That Google has consistently pushed the limits of IP rights for corporate profit is widely acknowledged. That publishers with deep enough pockets to take a stand are finally doing so should come as no shock to anyone.

This 108 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 108 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Bing Search Engine News
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