6 ms·

Rupert Murdoch: for whom the net tolls

34 points by rms 17y ago

inpoiun 17y ago
It's nothing to do with Google and search. Murdoch sells a lot of cable TV, with Cable TV i have to buy packages - if i want the expensive movie package I have to buy the basic service, then the advanced service then the crappy movie package before I can buy the premium movie package. On the net I pay my ISP for basic service and can get anything from the BBC and Guardian to HN. If Murdoch has his way and abolishes the communist cancer of net neutrality I will pay for basic network that includes Fox.com then the advanced package to get HN, then premium package to get Youtube. I suspect that however much I pay I won't the BBC or Guardian !
- netcan 17y ago
  What is nothing to do with Google & Search?
  - inpoiun 17y ago
    Blocking Google from their sites isn't the end point - this is just a step in a campaign against net neutrality by somebody that owns a lot of cable companies/ ISPs and content providers.
mynameishere 17y ago
Whole lotta snark there. Murdoch, of course, has properties in a dying industry and he's got to do what he can. Not sure why that requires so much sarcasm. If he succeeds, the Guardian will be right there in line to do the same.
- tarkin2 17y ago
  Or the Guardian et al will happily let non-Murdoch-approved search engines search their archives, hoping to fill a Newscorp-shaped hole. I guess that scenario is why Murdoch is trying to attack fair-use.
redcap 17y ago
I'm just surprised at how similar the Guardian article is to the Boing Boing article (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/08/rupert-murdoch-vows.html http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/08/rupert-murdoch-vows.htm...). Admittedly the Guardian article does link to the boing boing one, but both make reference to the US's $1 trillion activity out of fair use, the US's proclivity to ignore the UN/WTO, all the money that China makes out of sending plastic junk to the US, and the supposition that Rupert Murdoch will soon be Howard Hughes.
- rms 17y ago
  That's because they were both written by Cory Doctorow.
  - redcap 17y ago
    Oh well, you win some you lose some. In that case I'm impressed that Cory took the time to rewrite his boing boing piece rather than take from it outright.
qeorge 17y ago
From the article: "Rupert has got dealmaker's flu, a bug he acquired when he bought MySpace and sold the exclusive right to index it to Google." Is this a joke? If not, the author seems to grossly misunderstand search engines.
chrischen 17y ago
It's much harder to grab a share of attention on the internet than with traditional media. The barrier to entry is none: competition is many. Murdoch's too traditional, he's going to be owned by the progressive technologists while he pretends he can use his traditional methods in a new medium. The internet shifted the game more towards merit. No merit, good luck getting people to your site.

34 points by rms 17y ago

It's nothing to do with Google and search. Murdoch sells a lot of cable TV, with Cable TV i have to buy packages - if i want the expensive movie package I have to buy the basic service, then the advanced service then the crappy movie package before I can buy the premium movie package. On the net I pay my ISP for basic service and can get anything from the BBC and Guardian to HN. If Murdoch has his way and abolishes the communist cancer of net neutrality I will pay for basic network that includes Fox.com then the advanced package to get HN, then premium package to get Youtube. I suspect that however much I pay I won't the BBC or Guardian !

netcan 17y ago
What is nothing to do with Google & Search?
- inpoiun 17y ago
  Blocking Google from their sites isn't the end point - this is just a step in a campaign against net neutrality by somebody that owns a lot of cable companies/ ISPs and content providers.

mynameishere 17y ago

Whole lotta snark there. Murdoch, of course, has properties in a dying industry and he's got to do what he can. Not sure why that requires so much sarcasm. If he succeeds, the Guardian will be right there in line to do the same.

tarkin2 17y ago
Or the Guardian et al will happily let non-Murdoch-approved search engines search their archives, hoping to fill a Newscorp-shaped hole. I guess that scenario is why Murdoch is trying to attack fair-use.

redcap 17y ago

I'm just surprised at how similar the Guardian article is to the Boing Boing article (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/08/rupert-murdoch-vows.html http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/08/rupert-murdoch-vows.htm...). Admittedly the Guardian article does link to the boing boing one, but both make reference to the US's $1 trillion activity out of fair use, the US's proclivity to ignore the UN/WTO, all the money that China makes out of sending plastic junk to the US, and the supposition that Rupert Murdoch will soon be Howard Hughes.

rms 17y ago
That's because they were both written by Cory Doctorow.
- redcap 17y ago
  Oh well, you win some you lose some. In that case I'm impressed that Cory took the time to rewrite his boing boing piece rather than take from it outright.

qeorge 17y ago

From the article: "Rupert has got dealmaker's flu, a bug he acquired when he bought MySpace and sold the exclusive right to index it to Google." Is this a joke? If not, the author seems to grossly misunderstand search engines.

chrischen 17y ago

It's much harder to grab a share of attention on the internet than with traditional media. The barrier to entry is none: competition is many. Murdoch's too traditional, he's going to be owned by the progressive technologists while he pretends he can use his traditional methods in a new medium. The internet shifted the game more towards merit. No merit, good luck getting people to your site.