4 ms·

Rupert Murdoch ready to sue Google?

10 points by inmygarage 17y ago

dasil003 17y ago
I think we'll have to wait for the rabies to subside and the dementia to set in before Murdoch actually tries that one.
- brianobush 17y ago
  I would love to see google just remove them from the index for a few weeks. He would be back begging them to be re-included in their search results.
  - dasil003 17y ago
    I'm sure he's grasping at a legal way to make it illegal for Google to index without paying and at the same time make it illegal to drop them from their index. Even if his lawyers find some crazy way to finagle that, I doubt it could stand up to appeal due to the amount of pain it will cause to everyone who's not a major newspaper.
mthreat 17y ago
Has Rupert heard of /robots.txt?
- jister 17y ago
  This is exactly the first thing that comes to my mind when I read about "indexing" in the article.
- philk 17y ago
  The point is not that he wants to cut Google off, it's that he wants leverage. Simply updating robots.txt won't effect Google at all and will blow what little leverage he has left.
- alain94040 17y ago
  Are you saying that if your content doesn't have a robots.txt, then everyone is allowed to copy the content of the site with no restrictions whatsoever, and that copyright law doesn't apply? I'm not a big fan of Murdoch, but it's an interesting discussion that should go beyond the obvious technical arguments.
  - corruption 17y ago
    Imagine the world with strict copyright. Search engines would be illegal!
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - alain94040 17y ago
      I guess I'll ask again, differently. What do you mean by strict? Are you saying that today, there is an implicit understanding among a class of people (judges, CEOs of web 2.0 companies...?) to not apply the law strictly? That doesn't sound very likely. If Google started copying a full news site verbatim and offer its content when people search for news, that would definitely be wrong, robots.txt or not. Strict copyright includes fair use exceptions and so on. Where fair use stops and infringment starts is an interesting discussion for me.
  - romland 17y ago
    You get moderated downwards for that comment? What is this, Slashdot?
    - dasil003 17y ago
      Uh, Google doesn't do just "anything" with the content, they index, summarize, and link back to the original article. There's no obvious copyright violation there. The GP was hyberbole that doesn't add anything to the debate. Ironically that's exactly what happens all the time on Slashdot.
    - alain94040 17y ago
netcan 17y ago
Murdoch is lately making himself into the human caricature of capitalism collapsing in on itself. A growling legal-business-political-PR hydra. I don't understand his case at all. You don't want to be indexed? Don't be. The only thing I could think of charging Google with is being a monopoly. He doesn't claim that, just that they're thieves. BTW, the meat, such as it is, is here: http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+Raging+Septuagenarian&expire=&urlID=421700822&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fnews%2Fmedia%2F64305%2F&partnerID=73272 http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&...
philk 17y ago
quotes a source high up in the media industry echelon who says Murdoch is "pretty tightly wound up over Google and has been ready to sue them...He doesn't trust them at all." More than anything else this is a sign of how worried Rupert is by the internet. The Wall Street Journal, which the company acquired in 2007, is already behind a pay wall and has fared much better than some of its print-media brethren in the aftermath of the global advertising recession That's because it's the Wall Street Journal. Lets see his other properties do so well. I know I'll be queuing up for online access to The Geelong Advertiser.
MikeCapone 17y ago
I still don't get it. Can someone explain to me Murdoch's argument (without being cynical about it -- what's the straight version)? How is Google pointing people to his site "stealing"?
- Herring 17y ago
  There's no argument, it's just propaganda. He wants google to pay to link to news corp. Tarnishing google's reputation is his only leverage.
  - inmygarage 17y ago
    It has to do with the titles and snippets that Google provides in its search results. Murdoch is saying that their using the titles + blurbs without permission. More here: http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/2009/11/news-corp-wants-to-block-google/ http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/2009/11/news-corp-wants-to...
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
- philk 17y ago
  Essentially, Rupert has made a large amount of money throughout his business lifetime from newspapers. Newspapers, particularly Rupert's have worked because they gain a monopoly (or oligopoly) position in a given town as a daily distributor of content and advertising. [1] Unfortunately, the internet has made distributing content on a daily basis to every household a much, much cheaper prospect and hence Rupert is looking at a business with much less value present. As a result, he doesn't like the Internet much and is a) looking for a scapegoat and b) trying to employ what little leverage he has left, in the form of legal threats. [1] It's worth noting that in most cases newspapers do not have a competitive advantage based on the quality of content they distribute, as short of things like the Wall Street Journal the quality is uniformly lackluster. [2] [2] Interestingly one of the strategies that newspapers have used to boost profitability have been to decrease the quality of their original content (investigative reporting and the like) and use cheap, easily sourced content (ie wire service stories, reprints of PR distributions and gossip). This has worked but has had the effect of eroding any competitive advantage the paper has held over other providers of content, like blogs. Essentially they've made rational short term decisions which have royally screwed them in the long term.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

10 points by inmygarage 17y ago

dasil003 17y ago

I think we'll have to wait for the rabies to subside and the dementia to set in before Murdoch actually tries that one.

brianobush 17y ago
I would love to see google just remove them from the index for a few weeks. He would be back begging them to be re-included in their search results.
- dasil003 17y ago
  I'm sure he's grasping at a legal way to make it illegal for Google to index without paying and at the same time make it illegal to drop them from their index. Even if his lawyers find some crazy way to finagle that, I doubt it could stand up to appeal due to the amount of pain it will cause to everyone who's not a major newspaper.

mthreat 17y ago

Has Rupert heard of /robots.txt?

jister 17y ago
This is exactly the first thing that comes to my mind when I read about "indexing" in the article.
philk 17y ago
The point is not that he wants to cut Google off, it's that he wants leverage. Simply updating robots.txt won't effect Google at all and will blow what little leverage he has left.
alain94040 17y ago
Are you saying that if your content doesn't have a robots.txt, then everyone is allowed to copy the content of the site with no restrictions whatsoever, and that copyright law doesn't apply? I'm not a big fan of Murdoch, but it's an interesting discussion that should go beyond the obvious technical arguments.
- corruption 17y ago
  Imagine the world with strict copyright. Search engines would be illegal!
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - alain94040 17y ago
    I guess I'll ask again, differently. What do you mean by strict? Are you saying that today, there is an implicit understanding among a class of people (judges, CEOs of web 2.0 companies...?) to not apply the law strictly? That doesn't sound very likely. If Google started copying a full news site verbatim and offer its content when people search for news, that would definitely be wrong, robots.txt or not. Strict copyright includes fair use exceptions and so on. Where fair use stops and infringment starts is an interesting discussion for me.
- romland 17y ago
  You get moderated downwards for that comment? What is this, Slashdot?
  - dasil003 17y ago
    Uh, Google doesn't do just "anything" with the content, they index, summarize, and link back to the original article. There's no obvious copyright violation there. The GP was hyberbole that doesn't add anything to the debate. Ironically that's exactly what happens all the time on Slashdot.
  - alain94040 17y ago

netcan 17y ago

Murdoch is lately making himself into the human caricature of capitalism collapsing in on itself. A growling legal-business-political-PR hydra. I don't understand his case at all. You don't want to be indexed? Don't be. The only thing I could think of charging Google with is being a monopoly. He doesn't claim that, just that they're thieves. BTW, the meat, such as it is, is here: http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+Raging+Septuagenarian&expire=&urlID=421700822&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fnews%2Fmedia%2F64305%2F&partnerID=73272 http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&...

philk 17y ago

quotes a source high up in the media industry echelon who says Murdoch is "pretty tightly wound up over Google and has been ready to sue them...He doesn't trust them at all." More than anything else this is a sign of how worried Rupert is by the internet. The Wall Street Journal, which the company acquired in 2007, is already behind a pay wall and has fared much better than some of its print-media brethren in the aftermath of the global advertising recession That's because it's the Wall Street Journal. Lets see his other properties do so well. I know I'll be queuing up for online access to The Geelong Advertiser.

MikeCapone 17y ago

I still don't get it. Can someone explain to me Murdoch's argument (without being cynical about it -- what's the straight version)? How is Google pointing people to his site "stealing"?

Herring 17y ago
There's no argument, it's just propaganda. He wants google to pay to link to news corp. Tarnishing google's reputation is his only leverage.
- inmygarage 17y ago
  It has to do with the titles and snippets that Google provides in its search results. Murdoch is saying that their using the titles + blurbs without permission. More here: http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/2009/11/news-corp-wants-to-block-google/ http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/2009/11/news-corp-wants-to...
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
philk 17y ago
Essentially, Rupert has made a large amount of money throughout his business lifetime from newspapers. Newspapers, particularly Rupert's have worked because they gain a monopoly (or oligopoly) position in a given town as a daily distributor of content and advertising. [1] Unfortunately, the internet has made distributing content on a daily basis to every household a much, much cheaper prospect and hence Rupert is looking at a business with much less value present. As a result, he doesn't like the Internet much and is a) looking for a scapegoat and b) trying to employ what little leverage he has left, in the form of legal threats. [1] It's worth noting that in most cases newspapers do not have a competitive advantage based on the quality of content they distribute, as short of things like the Wall Street Journal the quality is uniformly lackluster. [2] [2] Interestingly one of the strategies that newspapers have used to boost profitability have been to decrease the quality of their original content (investigative reporting and the like) and use cheap, easily sourced content (ie wire service stories, reprints of PR distributions and gossip). This has worked but has had the effect of eroding any competitive advantage the paper has held over other providers of content, like blogs. Essentially they've made rational short term decisions which have royally screwed them in the long term.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]