signor_john - 3:23 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

they need people to keep on believing that, because their entire business model is built on our content. as soon as we start taking our content away their own product will begin to suffer.

Yes, and your revenue will suffer, too, if you've been receiving any traffic from Google and you know how to monetize your traffic. You may hate the idea of having your content indexed and read by the non-paying public, but you tolerate it because it's in your own interests to do so.

For that matter, Mr. Murdoch's businesses would suffer if people, governments, and businesses stopped supplying "free content" to THE NEW YORK POST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Fox News, etc. But for the most part, those people, governments, and businesses believe that it's in their interests to let news organizations profit from the information they provide without compensation.

what harm is it going to do murdoch if fox news drops in the serps? are they going to lose viewers on the TV? nope. and the same with sky. will the washington post start selling less papers on the newsstands? nope.

Mr. Murdoch doesn't own THE WASHINGTON POST, but let's not let facts intrude on the discussion. :-) As for the question of whether Mr. Murdoch would be hurt by a loss of Google traffic, that's obviously something Mr. Murdoch has taken into account. The fact that he's threatening to "block Google" only after he finds a way to make users pay for content suggests that, like many of us, he's profiting from Google's labors.