JS_Harris - 10:12 am on Apr 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

Angonasec - Mr Murdoch gives his content to Google knowingly and freely because of the vast audience Google is able to help it reach, surely you see that his statement wouldn't be a move to protect property rights but instead be a ploy to change the internet so that it better lines his pockets? (again, at the expense of everyone else)

You mention "enforcement of copyright", Mr Murdoch is neither stopping the outflow of articles nor pursuing legal means to hold anyone responsible for talking about it online. He could protect copyright by turning off the news feeds right now if he choose. He's a smart businessman, he knows all too well the world would simply march on without him and NewsCorp - 10 other news sources would spring up willing to provide the news.

The issue of free speech has yet to be traversed as well and he knows it. If I write about a news article in a forum like this and someone clicks on an ad after reading it, is Mr Murdoch owed money? Am I for writing this? Is the website owner... because he's owner?

Bluntly - Mr. Murdoch, if you do not want Google and Yahoo to share your news stories why do you not turn off your news feeds? If you want to be paid for the content of those feeds why do you not charge a fee? Why don't you look at those two options before assuming your audience is too naive to understand exactly what your statement implies?