JS_Harris - 10:23 am on Apr 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

Calivert wrote: But that doesn't change the fact that Google is getting content for free, even though that content cost a lot of money to produce.

Yes, but remember that the content is being given away in newsfeeds for free to anyone who wants it so long as they don't claim it to be theirs. Jumping straight to calling the search engines thieves and suggesting they owe money... not a smart move (I noticed he changed the wording of his statement instantly however his meaning did not change)

edit: It should go without saying but to ensure there is no mistake I DO respect Mr Murdoch both as a person and businessman and I DO NOT want to see newspapers shut down. Mr Murdochs suggestion that ALL news agencies switch to paid subscription service models may also be a potential answer if they can all unite in doing so... my exception to his statement is that he implies that using freely given content, even when used in accordance with the newsfeeds terms, is somehow akin to theft or should cause arbitrary fees to be incurred.

example - I posted a link to a reuters article and gave a snippet of the article in this very thread to better discuss it, should Brett have to pay Reuters a premium if someone happens to subscribe to WW after reading this thread? It's not a sound idea imo.

[edited by: JS_Harris at 10:52 am (utc) on April 3, 2009]