Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: not2easy
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...
Erm, just for the record, you are describing an opt-in scenario.
Yep, I meant "opt in." Blame it on a middle-aged moment.
You're right though, people would still want in, but for huge news sites I'm starting to doubt that web ads pay the bills.
They certainly don't pay enough (I remember reading in E&P a while back that newspaper sites were averaging display-ad CPMs of less than a dollar), but unless the huge news sites can figure out how to get users to pay for the generic news that most of them are dishing up, they'll continue to be stuck with a choice between abysmal CPMs and nothing.
He just wants people to go directly to his site instead of taking the Google News route.
Sure, but blocking Google's crawlers won't accomplish that--it will merely reduce drive-by traffic that's worth less than visits by registered (and preferably paying) users but is still worth something. Which is why Mr. Murdoch has yet to "block Google."
a) Murdoch is a fascist news vendor who exploits the work of the "little people" for his own ends.
b} Google is an equally fascist organisation which regularly "rapes and plunders our unique content and, makes $500, trillion, million, dollars off our individual efforts...
"I can't stand it, Google scraping all my pages, serving up scraps largely based upon my own page [description].
Oh! Potential visitors can see if I have something relevant to their personal enquiry. Oh! Mr. Google has relevant Ads in the SERPS. Mr. Google may make a profit.
No! No! Mr. Google is sending people to my site. Oh, they like the page, they see a relevant AdSense Ad to what they are looking for, they click and follow through, I earn $1.40.
How indecent can you get? Prostituting parts of your content for money?
Is that why i'm hurting in the back?
ARGGGGHH I can't stand this Rapine by Google... They routinely rape my site, send me $$$ and I'm totally prostrate, I'm used up, Spent.
AND this is no different to a) Murdoch who is a fascist news vendor who exploits the work of the "little people" for his own ends.
Except I'd earn JS with Mr. Murdoch's model...
Gee who decides who is worse? Murdoch or Google? I could care less.
For the devoted "copyright" devotees:
Sorry Jack. It don't remotely matter, what you might think in your esoteric world. If Mr. Google sends me $$$ then "Might is Right".
Get used to it unless you have a lazy billion dollars hanging around for legal expenses to contest your POV.
For the pragmatists? I'll still back Google.
Mr. Murdoch and his model of the internet and how it should work is plain "dumb".
OTOH Mr. Google since sometime in 2003 has sent me cheques and in more latter years has filled my bank via EFT with $MONEY$
Yes, I'm a prostitute.
"NEWSPAPER publishers have given the first indication of how they plan to charge people for reading news online with one of the world's best-known newspapers, The Times of London, to offer an ''all-you-can-eat'' package to readers"
It now looks that Rupert launched the first salvo (i.e. the interview) for a reason.
Would be curious to hear your thoughts on the latest...
Not sure if you guys are watching, but just when I thought this thread had started to wind down, there's an explosion of news on the latest Bing/Newscorp initiative. Not sure which URL to quote - go to any tech news site and you'll see what I am talking about.
The FINANCIAL TIMES (a competitor of Mr. Murdoch's WSJ) reports that Microsoft is offering to pay News Corp. and other publishers to have their publications "de-indexed" by Google:
Who's the villain now? :-)
Microsoft is offering to pay News Corp. and other publishers to have their publications "de-indexed" by Google.
Who's the villain now?
Still Google, of course. :-) They wanted to get news for free, while others (Microsoft) are now seeing a real value in news and are willing to pay for access to such news. I think, this is a smart move, and -needless to say- I hope that many publishers will follow.