Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rupert Murdoch Says Google Is Stealing His Content

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the what-part-of-come-in-don't-you-understand? dept.

The Media 504

Hugh Pickens writes Weston Kosova writes in Newsweek that Rupert Murdoch gave an impassioned speech to media executives in Beijing decrying that search engines — in particular Google — are stealing from him, because Google links to his stories but doesn't pay News Corp. to do so. 'The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content,' Murdoch says. 'But if we do not take advantage of the current movement toward paid content, it will be the content creators — the people in this hall — who will pay the ultimate price and the content kleptomaniacs who triumph.' But if Murdoch really thinks Google is stealing from him, and if he really wants Google to stop driving all those readers to his Web sites at no charge, he can simply stop Google from linking to their news stories by going to his Web site's robot.txt file and adding 'Disallow.'"

cancel ×

504 comments

Dear Mr Murdoch (5, Insightful)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707345)

If you don't want to be hyperlinked to, you might consider

not putting your content on the worldwide web.

Dolt.

Re:Dear Mr Murdoch (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707511)

He wants the hyperlinks. AND a fee paid to him for the privilege.

Re:Dear Mr Murdoch (5, Informative)

SEAL (88488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707545)

Or make your site subscription-based. Of course you might want to talk with the guys over at Slate first to see how well that works out...

Re:Dear Mr Murdoch (4, Insightful)

Odinlake (1057938) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707563)

Additionally, if you want to be on the web but not listed by google there is a "bots" file. Dunno if that works with news aggregation but there's probably some way for little guys like Rupy to opt-out.

Oh my but the he wouldn't be paid would he?

Re:Dear Mr Murdoch (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707799)

Mr Murdoch may be simply quite too stupid to understand the plumbing of the internet and that he indeed does have control of some of the values, ie Robots files. His father (or grandfather) was probably indoor plumbing-challenged too, with all those levers and values on toilets, etc.

At some point, old age, impacts the ability of some people to understand new things.

Mr. Murdoch may be an example of the old dogs and new tricks syndrome.

Given his personaility, it is probably unlikey that given his nepotistic and dictatorial tendencies, that he is likely to hear that his business model may be someout out of step with the 21th century.

It is sad in a certain way.

Re:Dear Mr Murdoch (5, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707685)

You have to look at it from his perspective.

Basically his perspective is "Someone else has money. I want it." ...

Not the best perspective by my standards, but he has many times more money than I do, so who am I to say he's a F*#@#ing idiot.

Re:Dear Mr Murdoch (2, Insightful)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707705)

"Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups" obviously it is not funny which will probably earn me some more bad karma which I have been issued. A very noteable friend also said "Never under estimate the power of stupid people in small groups too". I had to concur. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Murdoch is not a technophobe (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707827)

Remeber that Murdoch is the guy who in the 80's busted the UK's entrenched print unions by modernising the Fleet street presses.

He doesn't want Google or anyone else to stop linking or he would have already stopped them by technical means, what he wants is a slice of Google pie, the bigger the slice the better. If he thinks ordinary people can't see through his feigned "push for paid content" then his sense of entilment must be at least an order of magnitute larger than his media empire.

Re:Dear Mr Murdoch (2, Informative)

stumblingblock (409645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707847)

Quite simply, Mr Murdoch wants some of
Google's money. His business admirers agree (applause).

I feel so sorry for poor little Ruppy (3, Funny)

onionman (975962) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707349)

Must be absolutely horrible having all those evil search engines actually index his pages! I guess his robots files aren't working or something.

Right ... (5, Insightful)

gslavik (1015381) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707351)

Media companies want Google to pay, not us (consumers). Because you can charge Google $X (where X has 7 digits) whereas to get consumer money, you have to produce a useful product.

Re:Right ... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707613)

7 digits. hah. You are thinking WAY too small. Try 9 or 10 digits.

Re:Right ... (0)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707627)

X has seven digits. $0.000001 has seven significant figures. Does that count?

Re:Right ... (4, Informative)

BKX (5066) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707737)

Dude, go back school. 0.000001 only has one sigfig. 1.000000 has 7. 0.000001000000 has seven also.

Re:Right ... (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707745)

$0.000001 has seven significant figures.

Actually, it only has one.

Re:Right ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707791)

No, that has 1 significant figure.

Leading zeros are not significant. For example, 0.00052 has two significant figures: 5 and 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

Maybe he doesn't know? (3, Insightful)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707353)

Someone should send an email explaining robot.txt to the poor guy. Maybe he's just ignorant about how to keep the big bad Google from "stealing" his content.

Re:Maybe he doesn't know? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707419)

Oh; but the poor baby wants it both ways: He wants google to index his stuff, and pay him for the privilege of indexing his stuff.

If this involved google ignoring robot.txt or something, and crawling him without his permission, I'd be rather more sympathetic. As it is, though, these guys haven't asked for that, because they know that it is valuable to them; but are still whining about how oppressed they are. Fuck 'em.

Re:Maybe he doesn't know? (1)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707741)

Oh; but the poor baby wants it both ways: He wants google to index his stuff, and pay him for the privilege of indexing his stuff. If this involved google ignoring robot.txt or something, and crawling him without his permission, I'd be rather more sympathetic. As it is, though, these guys haven't asked for that, because they know that it is valuable to them; but are still whining about how oppressed they are. Fuck 'em.

james.murdoch@bskyb.com Your wish is my command and that is his direct email account.

Re:Maybe he doesn't know? (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707583)

Murdoch needs Google a lot more than Google needs Murdoch. All Google has to do is ignore Murdoch's content entirely until Murdoch learns his lesson or until his media empire collapses like the newspapers did. As for myself, I'm rooting for the latter to occur.

Re:Maybe he doesn't know? (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707597)

It would be a very healthy thing for the freedom of press in America, and do a lot to fight bias. Note to libertarians: I'm not advocating government intervention, just saying I want this to happen. No need to flame me.

Re:Maybe he doesn't know? (1)

fafaforza (248976) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707661)

It isn't just Murdoch, but also Associated Press, and probably others.. Most content that you see on aggregator sites are from the AP (MSNBC.com would have 3 headlines otherwise).

Re:Maybe he doesn't know? (1, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707835)

But Murdoch's brand of news is quickly becoming more discordant with the American political environment than the others. The Wall Street Journal, for example, has always been a decent read* until Rupe got his hands on it. Now its editorial section isn't even worthy of wiping asses. I hope that more and more Americans are quickly falling out of favor with Australian-style right-wing bullshit**.

* I am leftist scum.
** To their credit, FoxNews posted this [foxnews.com] article and its follow-up when no other mainstream media did. Kudos Rupe, now let's hear a little more truth and noone will get hurt ;)

Re:Maybe he doesn't know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707859)

Murdoch pulling his content from news pullers will not enable him to reach his goal. If only HE pulls out and prevents indexing, other news outlets will still be probed by news agregators and Murdoch will be left out in the cold. This is why Murdoch's real plan is to convince a critical mass of news agencies to join in with him and confront the news pullers with a united front. Every news industry event is a part of, he preaches the same thing. Poor me, look what Google is doing to my company, what he really means is.. Hey guys, in order for me to take advantage of this opportunity, you all have to join in.

The downside is if money is involved from a collective effort of different news agencies and companies, what is the effect on their industry? Will they only cover cheap and easy stories? Will they all cover different stories to prevent redundancy?

The third wheel in this whole thing is AP. They are providing a major source of the content to the news agencies anyway. Most non local stories are just slightly remapped AP stories possibly with some local commentary tacked on the end. AP and Murdoch don't exactly see eye to eye either and Murdoch is only a middle man that adds advertising and some middleware and pretty faces to extract some money from the process. Can't we just get the non local news from AP?

A simple solution (5, Insightful)

ivoras (455934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707359)

There's a very simple, mutually beneficial solution to this - Google should do Mr. Murdoch a favor and stop indexing his content. It's really a win-win scenario for everyone (including readers).

Re:A simple solution (5, Insightful)

TRS80NT (695421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707463)

"...everyone (especially readers)."
There. Fixed that for you.

Re:A simple solution (5, Insightful)

Strange Attractor (18957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707575)

We subscribe to four weekly paper magazines and use Google News to see what's happening on shorter time scales. For me as a consumer, News Corp's stuff is distracting and annoying clutter when Google indexes it.

I for one, second ivoras' solution.

Re:A simple solution (0, Flamebait)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707767)

There's a very simple, mutually beneficial solution to this - Google should do Mr. Murdoch a favor and stop indexing his content.

That would hurt fox news fans! How are they supposed to get their fox news when their TV isn't plugged in? Are you suggesting that they bookmark the page or remember to type in "www.foxnews.com" in the other blank space at the top of their screen?

Think of all the poor IT guys who would have to deal with a class of irate users who are even more irate and armed than your usual users.

Think of how Glenn Beck would blame this on Obama and God knows who else.

Think of how Sarah Palin would start including google in her "liberal media" category.

Think of the angry protesters outside of google headquarters. I'm imaginging signs like "KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY INTERNETS" and "DOWN WITH SOCIALIST GOOGLE!"

Think of all the right wing organizations that would suddenly start giving ad money to Bing.

Actually, all that would be pretty funny.

Wow... (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707361)

I think we're all going to drown in Rupert's crocodile tears.

Re:Wow... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707515)

No, he really is worried, and has reason to be. He is obsolete and knows it. However, none of the rest of us have any reason to care. NewsCorp is too small for its bankruptcy to have significant financial impact on anyone other than its shareholders and creditors and no one else would miss it.

Maybe Google will buy it from the bankruptcy court. Might be some bits and pieces they could use.

dear Rupert, (5, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707371)

Fuck off you pinhead. As noted: go to robot.txt file and add Disallow. Then they won't be able to steal from you. And no one will come to your fascist propaganda machine. don't like it? tough. Welcome to the 21st century.

Re:dear Rupert, (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707565)

As noted: go to robot.txt file and add Disallow. Then they won't be able to steal from you.

Technically, robots.txt won't stop anyone. Organizations only respect it out of courtesy.

Re:dear Rupert, (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707607)

True, but more to the point, Google is one of the organizations that respects it. And Murdoch knows this quite well, I'm sure.

How can someone be so rich and stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707379)

This is Dogbert's key market segmentation group. Someone so rich and so stupid should be easy to fleece. Why is this guy still around feeding us fake news and claiming that Google driving hits to his web sites is "stealing". If his bandwidth bills are too high from all the visitors he can just shut down his sites, or as mentioned disallow search engines.

Re:How can someone be so rich and stupid (1)

Pyrion (525584) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707401)

Simple. There are enough dumber people out there financing his operations.

Sadly he's not that stupid (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707415)

He knows that by whining and dining,

he will convince the 1-candlepower legislators to pass laws to protect his virtual monopoly.

Re:Sadly he's not that stupid (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707713)

a whole candle? i think you're giving him them too much credit. look at the lawbooks: there's plenty of really good and fair laws in there, but they also have great examples of laws probably made by people who would fall for this. i'd link some, but i'm sure you've seen them before.

it's the idiots that he's trying to convince. and there's plenty of those.

Re:How can someone be so rich and stupid (2, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707471)

Yeah, Murdoch's really stupid... like a Fox.

just die already (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707389)

seriously, do the world a favor and die

Please Google... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707405)

Please Google, teach this old bag a lesson and kill all links to his website so we can no longer find any of his companies online. Do it!!! It would be a glorious day when we would be allowed to go to other news sources and let Murdoch die a slow death holding on to a fading newspaper.

murdoc plans are failures (1)

markringen (1501853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707421)

Murdoch plans are failures. 1: he doesn't understand how the Internet works. 2: he doesn't even know what a server is. 3: he doesn't even know how to stop a search engine 4: he doesn't know how to make a profit on the internet 5: refer back to 4 and say he's a genius (with a straight face). how can u not make a profit on the Internet as one of the biggest news company's in the world? is he fucking morose or what? i think he's got Alzheimer or something, because i can't wrap my head around his stupidity.

Re:murdoc plans are failures (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707761)

  1. Obviously
  2. What makes you say that?
    I don't doubt you're right, It's just that I don't see any statements highlighting it.
  3. Why should he? He's not in IT. The real failure is that either he hasn't asked the webadmins about it, or the admins are incompetent.
  4. Do you?
  5. Amazon and Newegg sell physical objects, webcomics draw in people so the author can sell printed books and mousepada/mugs/t-shirts, etc.
    If your company's only product is information, it is difficult to make money on the Internet. Wikipedia is funded by a non-profit organization. Youtube is hemorrhaging money. [slashdot.org] Facebook, MySpace, and Slashdot are ad-supported.

Re:murdoc plans are failures (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707777)

You're an idiot. Please don't post here anymore.

Read between the lines ... (4, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707427)

if he really wants Google to stop driving all those readers to his Web sites at no charge, he can simply stop Google from linking to their news stories by going to his Web site's robot.txt file and adding 'Disallow.

Murdoch may be a complete asshole but he's hardly stupid: I'm sure his tech people explained to him that Google respects the Robot Exclusion Protocol. All the big boys do ... not to do so would be a. sleazy and b. stupid, since there are plenty of litigious fucks like Murdoch out there. The fact that he's making such misinformed claims in apparent ignorance indicates that he has another agenda, one of which we currently know nothing. Ultimately though, I think it comes down to an outfit like Google, with the stated goal of indexing all the world's knowledge, coming into direct conflict with those who wish to restrict access to knowledge for profit. What makes matters worse for the likes of Murdoch is that Google makes its money from other sources, and is not responsive to the same motivations and perceived threats as the incumbent news organizations. If Newscorp and every other such "service" were to disappear tomorrow, it would make little difference to Google's bottom line.

Re:Read between the lines ... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707553)

He would prefer if Google keeps indexing his news, but he just wants to wriggle a little extra money out of it.

Re:Read between the lines ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707867)

He would prefer if Google keeps indexing his news, but he just wants to wriggle a little extra money out of it.

Ha ... it would take an act of Congress to make that happen. Not that I'd put that past him.

Re:Read between the lines ... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707557)

http://www.newscorp.com/robots.txt:
User-Agent: *
Disallow:

Hmm, so they have heard of robots.txt and already made the decision not to restrict any search engines...

Re:Read between the lines ... (4, Informative)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707683)

Not only that, but the one on foxnews.com provides Google sitemaps.

Re:Read between the lines ... (5, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707839)

Not only that, but the one on foxnews.com provides Google sitemaps.

That's too bad. Google's spider really has better things to do than index Fox News ... for example, my great aunt Betty's second cousin's daughter's wedding photos.

Murdoch not so smart, really (4, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707739)

Murdoch may be a complete asshole but he's hardly stupid:

You're falling into the trap of thinking that success in high places must mean competence. The world isn't nearly that sane. So long as the guy hires smart people and is smart enough not to put too many obstacles in their way, that's smart enough.

Being an asshole however does seem to be a pre-requisit to great wealth. If you're fair to everyone and share your wealth, you simply never get rich enough for people to know your name. (You may make enough to live comfortably and have a good life, but you won't get rich and people will try to take advantage of you).

There's also the illusion that if you're bad tempered and mean you're getting ahead because you "don't put up with crap" and "don't suffer fools" and "don't get emotional when it comes to the tough decisions". In reality you're just a lucky arsehole whose only talent is in exploiting people.

Re:Murdoch not so smart, really (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707801)

You're falling into the trap of thinking that success in high places must mean competence. The world isn't nearly that sane.

I agree, but I only meant "hardly stupid" to indicate that he's capable of understanding what "Disallow" means. Still, the term "competent" has many meanings. Murdoch has proven himself highly competent at acquiring wealth, power and influence, regardless of his intellectual attainments, if any.

Re:Murdoch not so smart, really (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707879)

Oh where, oh where are my mod points when I need them.

Re:Read between the lines ... (1)

Black Sabbath (118110) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707755)

Bingo! Very succinctly put.

Google should follow his wishes (2, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707453)

And stop linking to his sites- he deserves it. And the resulting reduction in traffic to foxnews would make the world a better place.

Re:Google should follow his wishes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707473)

His content needs more protection - maybe his ISP can shut him off as well. THAT would definitely improve the world...

Angry Old Man (-1, Troll)

zonker (1158) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707459)

He thinks the internet is a series of tubes like his other angry old man buddy to the north...

Rupert Murdoch is something else. (4, Funny)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707465)

I bet he thinks the dewey decimal system "steals" content from libraries by classifying and categorizing books.

The Irony... (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707467)

'The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content,

Considering that Murdoch owns MySpace and markets it to artists as a place where independents, and even established artists, can show their wares - in effect aggregating boatloads of content that is not his in the first place - the irony of his whining is almost too much to bear.

Re:The Irony... (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707679)

your analogy is flawed, though...

If I upload something to MySpace.. that's -me- sending data -to- them; typically after setting up an account, agreeing to a bunch of legalese, etc.

Rupert Murdoch's websites aren't submitting articles to Google News. Google News simply takes them (as part of the generic GoogleBot*), and republishes snippets.
I think courts have already ruled that to be perfectly legal, so he's really not got much to whine about*, but the two scenarios are distinctly different.

* Although it is a little odd - okay, not really, google have it planned this way; as the comments here show, it's great leverage to continue to let Google put their stuff on google news automatically as the alternative is not to get indexed by Google for the main search facility at all - that there is no separate googlebot-news bot for which you can specify additional rules. googlebot-mobile and googlebot-images(?) for example follow the rules for googlebot, but you can override the behaviorby specifying rules for these specifically.

Re:The Irony... (1)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707803)

But the thing is, he put this stuff on the internet. As soon as you put something on the internet, you should fully expect it to be linked and copied perpetually.

There were no "content creators" in that hall... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707477)

Except perhaps for some of the reporters there to cover the event. Publishers create nothing. They merely manufacture and distribute. There used to be a need for the manufacture and distribution of those ink-stained pieces of paper known as newspapers. That technology is obsolete. So is Mr. Murdoch.

Wrong filename (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707485)

The file he'd have to change is robots.txt, not robot.txt

The online media world without Newscorp (2)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707489)

Gosh, what tragedy. Guess we'll just have to suck it up and get by without their relentlessly negative hate spew.

Don't let the search engine door hit you on the way out bunghole.

movement toward paid content? (5, Insightful)

boguslinks (1117203) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707497)

But if we do not take advantage of the current movement toward paid content

The only evidence of a "movement toward paid content" that I have seen is Rupert Murdoch telling people that there is a movement toward paid content.

Re:movement toward paid content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707771)

Maybe he's barking about a movement toward paid content to create said movement?

Misinterpretation (4, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707519)

I'm not sure why some of you think he doesn't want Google to link to him - that's not what he says at all. What Rupert Murdoch wants is for Google to link to him and pay him money for the privilege. He's smart enough to know that his media empire, from which he's made billions, is dying - but he isn't smart enough to figure out how to transform his dying business into a new type that can survive and thrive in the new electronic world (but then neither has anyone else as of yet). So he's doing the only thing he can think of, which is attempt to shift the blame over to the innovators that are responsible for his industry dying.

Now, as the old media continues to die off, I wouldn't be all that surprised to see a company like Google make an effort to build a new media company with paid reporters and the like - but there's absolutely no reason that would involve someone like Rupert Murdoch, since he'd basically be relegated to the role of unnecessary middle-man.

Misrepresentation (1, Redundant)

eddy (18759) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707691)

He's saying that Google is stealing from him. If there's a 16 byte method to stop this, and he's not doing it, this suggests he doesn't actually believe what he is saying, so he's a bald-faced liar.

My suggestion to people and organisations who don't want to be linked to or indexed is to a) use the technical tools available to guide said activities and if that's not enough, b) get off the fucking internet .

No doubt if google dropped EVERYTHING of his into their black hole (thereby "stop stealing"), he'd sue them for that!

Bookmark that speech, it'll come useful in the future.

Re:Misinterpretation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707751)

What he should do:
Step 1: Disallow Googlebot in robots.txt.
Step 2: Offer to Google to unblock them for $x.

Instead he's giving speeches about it. WTF.

Re:Misinterpretation (1, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707845)

Why would Google do that? Google right now has all the stories, all the content without paying anyone for it. I can look at the content (either a snippit or the whole story) without ever bothering a News Corp. web site through the use of Google.

So Google has the best of all worlds - nothing to pay for and all the content. Why would they ever do anything different?

Now the question is, since they have the content and are using it, should they be paying for it? Obviously, they cannot as it would destroy their business model.

Another CEO shows his ass. (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707523)

This story is a good example why people like Mr. Murdock running huge companies should really, really keep their mouth shut about things they are clueless. Unfortunately for Mr. Murdock, he has more than a pocket full of quarters to buy a clue how search engines work; but instead of buying a clue, he would rather stick them up his nose.

I've got an idea. (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707539)

Can I pay somebody to make sure I never have to listen to anything he or any of his media outlets says? There's a business model for you.

Re:I've got an idea. (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707609)

simple, turn the channel... that will be $5.00

Murdoch has bigger plans... (1)

robotandrew (1167027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707543)

Riddle me this: What happens if EVERY news company/website starts to charge for access? People will be FORCED to pay for online access because there is no other option. This is what Murdoch wants; every content producer to start charging, so they can ALL charge. It is basically a charge for convenience, and it only works if everyone does it. Hence his hysterical invective trying to get everyone on his train. Hopefully no one buys in (no pun) to his scheme or we'll all be the worse for it.

Re:Murdoch has bigger plans... (2, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707615)

They'll be be money to be made for those who defect.

Re:Murdoch has bigger plans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707671)

We'll still have the Drudge Report!

level playing field (1)

firewood (41230) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707551)

But if Murdoch really thinks Google is stealing from him, and if he really wants Google to stop driving all those readers to his Web sites at no charge, he can simply stop Google from linking to their news stories by going to his Web site's robot.txt file and adding 'Disallow.'"

He would also have to find a way to prevent Google from linking to his competitor's news stories, else the playing field would become uneven, giving a competitive advantage to the first publisher who folds. It's the prisoners dilemma game. They all fold and die slowly instead of being the patsy and being hung at dawn.

google: another banker owned entity (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707555)

Technically he is right. And Google really do take without providing anything back. Does anyone think that their attempted (legal) theft of so-called abandoned works from a court order (a single judge deciding the fate of millions of works) was a good thing? Only those who are in bed with them would think that.

I do not see Google as heroic. What they do is coopt everyone else and provide tools that remove our privacy and allow for spambots.

If they are so good then let them release it all into the public domain. Oh, no. They want control. Open source? Hardly.

And PS we don't have a choice but to deal with them. Everything you hate about oversized corporations and more. Viacom will win their suit

Re:google: another banker owned entity (4, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707633)

Technically he is right.

No, he isn't.

And Google really do take without providing anything back.

Bullshit. As the summary stated: if Newscorp really was the victim here, they'd implement a robots.txt file telling Google to go away.

The problem is that if Google went away, Newscorp would lose business.

The rest of your post is even more idiotic than your first two sentences. (Come on, legal theft? If it was theft, it wouldn't be legal, asshat.)

You have every choice not to deal with them. It's perfectly possible to do without - there are other search engines, other webmail providers, other banner networks. If you have a website, you can even exclude them in your robots.txt if you want.

Fine (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707559)

Google and other self-interested indexers should blacklist News Corp. They need to make an example out of someone like Murdoch by not only delisting them from their indexes, but making it a permanent ban as in they cannot apologize, plead, etc. Their. Content. Will. Not. Ever. Be. Indexed. Again.

Re:Fine (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707571)

wow! you're a tough guy. probably some dick sucking homo he got slammed in the ass by his boyfriend all night. fuckface.

Re:Fine (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707689)

> Google and other self-interested indexers should blacklist News Corp.

Why? They are doing fine just ignoring his rants. It isn't as though he actually matters.

Fix his wagon. (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707573)

Google should stop indexing his content. When his traffic falls 50% overnight he'll be offering to pay them.

LK

Re:Fix his wagon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707675)

Yes, this is exactly what we all want.
Search engines to start charging to index websites.
We will all be so much better off if there is another tax on an inherently free service.

Linking does not involve copying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707577)

Linking does not involve copying, therefore his claim about copyright is void. He'd be laughed out of court.

http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707579)

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
User-agent: gsa-crawler
Allow: /printer_friendly_story
Allow: /google_search_index.xml
Allow: /google_news_index.xml
Allow: /*.xml.gz
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_index.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_index.xml

Re:http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt (-1, Flamebait)

celle (906675) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707727)

Why hasn't any member of the slashdot populace fixed this already. Oh yea, they're just a bunch of whiny geeks with no balls. If there's any actual hackers left, take care of this problem already. Seems you already know what to do. Damn bunch of whiny brats.

Redirect all search results for Fox News et al (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707605)

Google, please stop linking to Murdock and his precious content. As an added bonus, can you modify all existing indexes to redirect Fox News Links to NPR. Thanks

Index it every other day... (1)

Robin47 (1379745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707659)

And see if he gets the message. If that doesn't work, try once every three days, etc

Drowning in irony (1)

theGhostPony (1631407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707673)

Anyone else notice the irony of Murdoch giving this speech from a communist country that does its damnedest to stifle free speech, restricts access to the internet and controls the press?!?

Re:Drowning in irony (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707703)

There is no irony. Men like Murdoch have no ideology.

Reality (1)

Sleen (73855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707715)

I think what irks me is that this guy wants to make money off content that is essentially news and at one time considered a responsible representation of reality. Its not artistic what his organizations create, but a rendering in text and images of something that really happened, that is not anyones' property.

Inverse advertizing suggests like others note above that what he says is not what he means and that another agenda is in play.

How much of what he peddles is not a repeat from AP? Well, the spin namely. The only thing unique about Newscorps and others just like it is precisely the distortion. And the only way this distortion may be balanced or canceled out is in a universal index.

Go Go Go

Google! And slashdot...nice responses folks!

Ronald Reagan put it best (2, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707719)

"There you go again".

Put Theory Into Practice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707729)

Please, please, please make this happen. There must be some hacker reading Slashdot who can get into say, Fox (Not) News and keep it from being indexed. You would be doing the world two big favors: showing that Murdoc is a cynical evil self serving blowhard and removing the source of mental toxic waste that is FOX NEWS! The morons who are addicted to that style of political porn can still get as much as they want, and people with function brains can be saved the trouble of skipping their irrational content. I'm tired of looking at Google News and having to check to see if the link is to Fox before I read the article.

Kick the fox out of the henhouse (2, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707773)

It is a difficult problem of our times how traditional news media can survive with the expectations we have of the internet. It is another difficult problem how one can combat news institutes that have contempt for real journalism and become institutes for advocacy.

While we figure out how to solve the first problem, we can use the first problem to help against the second. In the end, we're best off both with FoxNews/SkyNews gone and traditional journalism revived and (somehow) funded.

Real problem (4, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707815)

The real problem is simply answered. Can I, through the use of Google obtain Rupert Murdoch's content without ever visiting his site or seeing ads on his site?

If the answer is no, then someone doesn't understand.

If the answer is yes, then there is a real problem. I tend to think that the answer is yes on a couple of levels. First off, can I use a "Murdoch" headline and then read the content somewhere else? Yup, I am sure I can do that. Secondly, can I use Google to grab "Murdoch" content without visiting any of his sites? Yup, I can use the Google cache and never touch the original site.

Finally, doesn't Google show enough of the text to let me know if I really want to look at the whole article on the site?

No, this isn't anywhere near as simple as just using robots.txt to deter Google from indexing. This is using a service from Google to preempt other sites.

http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707837)

I think what Rupert wants is not to prevent Google from indexing their content, but instead getting them to pay to more or less syndicate it. Rupert knows that cutting off Google is basically suicide, because Google almost is synonymous with the web as we know it.

Anyway, I notice that Foxnews has explicit instructions for Google's crawler. Whatever.

http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
User-agent: gsa-crawler
Allow: /printer_friendly_story
Allow: /google_search_index.xml
Allow: /google_news_index.xml
Allow: /*.xml.gz
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_index.xml
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_index.xml

Free advertisement (1)

oqaqiq (1636635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707841)

It is very clear that Murdoch would put Google on trial if Google removed his web sites from the results of its search engine (that would be a kind of intolerable discrimination and would cause a loss of profit). Murdoch doesn't really want his web sites to be removed from Google, he wants Google to continue to advertise his web sites for free. Wait, maybe he wants Google to pay for keeping the right to publish these links.

Wall Street Journal rewards Google News traffic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29707853)

Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal. Some WSJ online content is available in full to all; some online content is marked "Subscriber Content," and is shown in abbreviated form (e.g. the leading paragraphs of the story) to non-subscribers.

Take, for example, this story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125503764592374389.html
Unless you are a WSJ subscriber, you will be shown a preview of the story once you click the link. For comparison, search for the title of the above story ("Glaxo's Big Bet on Battling Pandemics") on Google News. You will see the full article once you click the link.

The URL of the story is identical in both cases. I suspect that WSJ displays the full version of the story when the referrer is determined to be news.google.com. If slashdot.org were to link to the same story, I suspect that only a preview would be shown. If that is the case, then WSJ rewards traffic from Google News.

Please make your own conclusions as to how this colors Rupert Murdoch's speech.

Also, please enjoy subscriber-exclusive WSJ content for free through Google News.

Robots.txt (0, Flamebait)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707883)

Google Bot respects the robots.txt file... Rupert, use it or shut the fuck up.

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

http://www.foxnews.com/robots.txt (3, Insightful)

SpaceManNH (688561) | more than 4 years ago | (#29707887)

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
User-agent: gsa-crawler
Allow: /printer_friendly_story
Allow: /google_search_index.xml
Allow: /google_news_index.xml
Allow: /*.xml.gz
#
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_search_index.xml [foxnews.com]
Sitemap: http://www.foxnews.com/google_news_index.xml [foxnews.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...