Murdoch (Again) Threatens To Stand Against Google

Wants to stop search engines "from taking stories for nothing"

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:

[ Search]

It’s been about five months since Rupert Murdoch first claimed that he would block search engines from News Corp. content, and even if not a lot’s happened as a result, Murdoch hasn’t let the matter slide.  He issued another warning yesterday while at the National Press Club.

Rupert Murdoch"We are going to stop people like Google or Microsoft or whoever from taking stories for nothing . . . there is a law of copyright and they recognise it," Murdoch said according to Paul Harris.

The chairman and CEO of News Corp. later added, "They take [news content] for nothing.  They have got this very clever business model."

Of course, Murdoch didn’t make any fresh announcements regarding News Corp. content and pay walls, or establish any sort of timeframe for when he might do so.  So if these statements have any effect at all, they might weaken his position by highlighting the fact that Murdoch hasn’t taken action so far.

It’s possible that these comments will draw out a few more supporters, though, giving Murdoch a more defensible stance if he ever does flip the switch.  The situation will bear watching.

UPDATE: In a new WebProNews video, Abby Johnson provides a good perspective on the conflict between publishers and search engines, citing recent events and cutting to an interview with Danny Sullivan.  You can watch the video below.

Murdoch (Again) Threatens To Stand Against Google
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.sitebyjames.com James

    I sympathize and partially agree. While there are methods in place to prevent caching of the materials, there is slightly a little bit more than “fair use” at work…

    The entire contents of someones website is being read. I haven’t done the test on the robots.txt file for a while so I can’t remember if Google is being greedy in regards to that, but they are constantly pushing the boundaries as to what they feel is theirs for the indexing, and in some cases, what’s being shown in the serps.

    I think from a business perspective he really needs everyone on his side for it to work if it doesn’t hold up in court. What happened to the whole Bing deal mentioned a while back? I thought the wall street journal was striking some sort exclusivity deal, and I even sort of associate Murdock with that?

    All technical matters aside… it’s something that would obviously go to court. No? I mean who cares about the tech aspect… it’s the law that ends up making the decision…

    No point to my comments really. Just felt like filling some space up.

  • http://www.sitebyjames.com James

    But to be honest… Agree with your mention that “So if these statements have any effect at all, they might weaken his position by highlighting the fact that Murdoch hasn’t taken action so far.”

  • Guest

    His position is ridiculous. Google News consists of headlines, sometimes with a blurb, that lead directly to the publisher’s site. Where is the theft in telling people FOX News has a great story about..

  • http://www.zadling.com/blog/ Zadling

    Sorry Rupey, I have plenty of great websites that provide me with the news I need for free.

  • http://www.stephensumner.co.uk Stephen Sumner

    OK, Murdoch is commited to taking on Google and co for spidering the news content.

    Within the entire global empire of the Murdoch machine, is the no one that has heard of no-follow tags? If he does not want his content to feature on search engines then that is all he has to do!

    I suggest that he is after the publicity more than actually realistically seeking to stop search engines from spidering his content.

    If he does want to stop them, then RIP!

  • Adsense Publisher

    So when do you think Murdoch will quit screwing around and just block the bots by putting into their robots.txt file a dissallow for Google and other bots?

    Personally I think just like China, Google needs to take a pro active approach and ban all his url’s and purposely not index any pages linked to any of Murdoch’s many websites.

    See how he likes that!

    Many people will start linking elsewhere for their news, because nobody wants to not have their pages be indexed because they are linked to a banned site.

    • Guest


      If Google did drop his site from the serps see how quickly he would file a lawsuit to try and get them back.
      What a tool.

  • http://www.lookupbook.com Guest

    Most people say, so what, Murdoch properties benefit from Google traffic. Well, that’s true. But is the relationship more to Murdoch’s benefit or more to Google’s benefit. After all, Google earns billions from displaying links to content created by others.

    In the cable industry, there is a similar relationship. Media companies earn money from advertisers, just as websites do. Media companies are also dependent on cable companies to get their content to the public, just as websites are dependent on search engines to reach their public. Without that access to the public, the media companies are out of business. Likewise, without the media companies the cable companies are out of business. So, is there a symbiotic relationship that permits cable companies to carry any media they choose for free? No. Cable companies must pay the media companies based on the number of viewers.

    Maybe Murdoch’s complaint is based on a prior, private, analysis of the value of the relationship between content owners and search engines, and maybe Murdoch is one of the few who realizes that Google should be paying every site it indexes.

    The relationship between directory advertisers and directory publishers is also similar. Each is dependent on the other, but in that case, the advertisers pay the publishers. Again, the relationship is based on a known analysis of value and who benefits the most.

    Lacking such an analysis, one that is made fully public, there is little to lead one to think things might change. However, once such an analysis is done, it’s safe to say we might very well see one side or the other paying based on the quantity and quality of links provided by search engines.

    • http://www.TheOkayNetwork.com Adsense Publisher

      It’s called being greedy.

      First you get a site that gets tons of traffic from Google, of which you make millions off of from advertising. Then you turn around and claim the same people that gave you all that traffic for free are infringing on your copyrights and should have to pay you to send you traffic that you make money off of.

      Google needs to say Goodbye to Mr. Murdoch and his websites and all the free traffic they will not be giving them. What happens when a few sites disappear in the #1 index in the world? The next sites in line get all that traffic. There will not be less people searching because of this.

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/StanleyMathis Guest

    Frankly, I see nothing wrong with Google, and other search engines indexing relevant news in their top 10 listing. It’s what the algorithms were created for, and if the most relevant news happens to be content from News Corp., or an affiliate, so be it. But we all know that the same relevant news story will also be offered elsewhere.

    No publisher of any newspaper ever paid me anything for the press coverage I received from them in thier medium. In fact, their leverage to publish stories on everyone, is, ‘You get free exposure, and people learn about who you are, and what you’re all about”. I see your business model the same way you view Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, in the medium they controll, and manage.

    Mr. Murdoch, and all other platform operators (and social networks) looking to make a profit on the internet should focus more on how each operator (owner) can receive up to a 4% royalty for every purchase your platform refer to PayPal.

    I’m not an expert at this, but i believe I’ve spotted a relatively unknown company with the technology (or engineers) to make that happen for Ebay.

  • http://www.stir-plate.com Tom Hargrave

    Does this guy realize that Google actually drives traffic to his articles? Probably not, he just wants them to stop from “stealing his content”. He’s still stuck in the printed media world.

  • Guest

    Factual news items should be in the public domain, however if he wants to peddle his fiction, he should be able to. I sure he has enough worshippers that would be willing to pay for his slant on world issues.

    • Guest

      Oh, and I suppose you get your newspaper for free! What you do steal them. You have spoken like a true liberal employee type who has no idea what is required to run a business. Just like the bozo in the WH likes to call himself President. He’s not until he acts like one.

      Murdock has a perfect right to restrict access to the work that he has paid for to have done. And no one has a right to take it for free. Anyone who would do so is nothing more than a thief. Just like the libs in congress who espouse the same sentiment (most the Democrats and some of the Republicans and, of course, the entire content of the WH).

      • Guest

        Wow… there is a comment from a FAUX News zombie if ever I saw one.
        Please go tell your leader to follow through on his threat and add the “no index” tag to his site already.
        It would save a lot of the free-thinking world from being polluted with his propaganda.

      • Guest

        This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Why must people not address the topic but throw ignorant talking points into every topic posted? Posters lose any credability that they may have by simply spewing ignorance!

      • Guest

        Hatred and division that that vile old fool murdoch spews via his resources.

        dear mr murdoch, please block your content.

  • Stephen – Warrington

    I’m sorry but what is the paid advertisement for on his website, doesn’t this fill his pokets enough?

  • http://www.delishibusiness.com Arwen Taylor

    I wish he would just follow through on his threats and give the matter a break. When you keep saying you are going to do something but don’t do it, your credibility kind of falls apart.

  • http://Lillicotch.com Jim L

    Hey Rupert,

    Shut up, don’t allow the search engines, and fade into oblivion. I am sick of you running his mouth.

    How come you don’t mention how you index other people’s content on your sites all the time? Many times without even giving credit. I guess it’s different when you do it. You own the news, right?

  • http://www.SamuelTilden.com Nikki Oldaker

    Hello James – I like your comments —while these 2 power-houses go against each other I tend to lean toward Murdoch’s POV… He is after-all running a news business and does own the rights to what he produces. /the only question in my mind though – Where is he getting his stories from? Off the wire re: AP, Reuters?

    Google on the other hand has grown there company as a sort of organizing catalog library of info…which nany of us use daily.

    In the end I am (like many) just a spec on the Net trying to sell my books on Samuel Tilden…neither Murdock or Google have donated or invested in my biz – so ka sa rah -whatever will be will be – I have no dog in this fight.

    • http://www.SamuelTilden.com Nikki Oldaker

      Sorry I should have spell checked my comment – please forgive. :>)

  • http://www.dailyscoff.com J. Gravelle

    Add a meta name="robots" content="noindex" tag to your websites.

    You’re welcome.

    That’ll be three billion dollars, please…


  • Alan Urdaibay

    I can only sell my work once because no technology exists to replicate this work and sell it multiple times. Some people are very fortunate and can replicate their work countless times – each time taking a handsome profit. This is particularly the case with publishing and the media in general.

    There can be no moral justification for profiting from selling the same pice of work millions of times and turning rock stars into billionaires any more than there is for bankers to pay themsleves hundreds of millions of dollars for work they would have done for a fracion of the price. The same is true for newspapers – they are benefitting more from the existence of a favourable technology and not so much from their work. They do not deserve to make excess profits from this.

    On a similar theme, it is absurd that the patent on pharamaceutical products that are vital for our health and well-being is a mere 20 years when the the copyright for the written word, songs and music is 70 years. It shows just how much our priorities are scewed – and just how much this system is ripping off the general public.

    Let Google index the web (but also stop them making excess profits). Interestingly, they seem to have some notion of how lucky they are by investing in products such as Google Earth which give them no immediate financial benefit. Good for them. Maybe Murdoch could consider what he does in terms of being a public service rather than merely as a method of self-agrandisement.

    • Guest

      I do not care that the written word and music have 70 years copyright (for all I care it is protected for 700 years) but…
      I do have a problem that pharmaceutical companies earn crazy amounts of money on the back of dieing people. NO pharmaceutical product should have a patent. These patents make lifesaving products not payable AND hold other companies back to make better pills.
      People die on a daily base because of these patents.

      • Alan Urdaibay

        Your comments against medical patents are naive. I am in regular contact with people in the pharmaceutical industry and know their side of the story. New medical products are fantastically expensive to develop and have to undergoing rigourous testing lasting for several years before they can go on the market. For evey product that reaches the market dozens fail. When a product does reach the market but turns out to be problematic the drugs companies have to pay out (rightly) vast sums in conpensation. Where do you suppose these vast sums come from?

        People are not dying on a daily basis because opf these patents – they are living because the drugs were developed in the first place. Drugs companies also supply drugs at cost to many poor countries, particularly in Africa.

        If you rich Americans want to complain about teh cost of health you should look again at your own absurd (pre-reform) system which makes vast sums of money for insurance compnies, frequently by providing whole lists of unnecessary treatments but still leaving the USA with poor life expectancy compared with other deveoped nations and a system ranked 23rd when it comes to infant mortality. The richest country in the world is 23rd on this measure! Blame your political conservatives.

  • http://www.brain-waves-technology.com/ Brain Waves Technology

    Old Rupert is definitely on to something that

  • Neal

    The problem with that Media Nazi is that his so called publications can hardly be called newspapers so I fail to see what he is constantly bleating on about. Perhaps if he spent as much energy into actually creating worthwhile news instead of constantly promoting his own personal agenda, muck raking and celebrity gossip then he might get some sympathy. It is media moguls like him who have constantly polluted the name of the media with their endless self serving tripe that is a crime against free speech.

  • Guest

    Despite the fact that he’s a money grabbing cunt, I agree with him.

  • Guest

    The real issue is that Google will often index content you don’t want indexed, regardless of robots.txt

    Was a time you could just place something as a .PDF but now Google indexes the content of PDFs as well…

  • http://ipstat.com IPStat

    What does he hope to accomplish, im sure he still things his old media is somehow more important to the internet than say the millions of bloggers writing content for free.

    As old as he is he should forget about it, and go retire on some tropical island.

  • http://legalspaghetti.blogspot.com/ Voyle Glover

    It’s pretty clear that once we put something on the internet it is (1) there forever; (2) copied extensively (and often unfairly); (3) used by others (and often abused). The legal waters are somewhat murky at this point. Our Congress never really envisioned the internet as we know it today. They certainly did not foresee a Google tsunami rolling over the shores and into the homes, basements and rising to the highest high rise. Murdoch and others in the news organization have a serious problem that really needs to be dealt with on a congressional level. They are in something of a quandary. If they leave their material “out there,” the search engines are going to index it and there will be enormous visibility (and arguably, increased publicity for the paper). If they go to a paid subscription, the readership will fall.

    Google is driving scores of readers to Murdoch’s papers. Is he really upset about that?

    • Guest

      I believe it is the other way around. Murdoch’s properties (TV and Print), with their conservative slants, are driving people to Google to try and get alternative opinions and views. I saw the complete interview and was not convinced that he was really fully aware of much of what was going on, in his media empire.

  • http://www.programmer.net Guest

    Technically Google is not stealing or breaking Copyrights, Google provides a much easier way for others to find content that allows to be indexed.

    If a news website just performed the correct SEO then they can stop google from crawling some or all of there content!

    Notice if you search for something through Yahoo like Golfing you won’t see any listings pointing to Google, and vice versa if you search for something on Google you won’t see links pointing to Yahoo.

    Search engines don’t gain search engine traffic through because of other websites!

    Google, Yahoo and Msn ~ keep doing what your doing :*)

  • ausi

    Poor old Rupe – he really thinks people NEED to read his papers – ridiculous
    He obviously doesn’t really understand the net – no matter how much he states the opposite
    Best thing for Rupe to do is give the control to his very bright kids, retire and get out of it all and come home to Australia and count his sheep!

    • http://www.sitebyjames.com James

      That is a strange slant if I ever heard it… I highly doubt he’s sitting there thinking that you NEED his stuff… If anything his wondering why you want the drivel he creates which appeals to the lowest common denominator…

      If anyone is laughing at your dependencies… it’s Google…

      Content is a Popularity Game… (I am not a professional content provider)

      • ausi

        You dont understand James – the man has spent a lifetime trying to prove himself worthy and successful
        Power is all important and he is all important – his papers must be the best – thus we must NEED to read them if we are to be well informed
        Thus the belief that if we are denied free access we will be suffering!!

        • http://www.sitebyjames.com James

          Ausi – I really don’t understand where you think you NEED to read or watch what Rupert Murdock broadcasts.

          I don’t watch it… I am sure there are plenty of other people who don’t as well…

          Years ago a common term came up describe his news. It appeals to the lowest common denominator. It appeals to the widest audience possible. Sensational…

          People don’t NEED it, they WANT it… I don’t think even Rupert Murdock himself thinks anybody really NEEDs his stuff, he just doesn’t want his stuff taken for free. If people WANT it, they can pay for it. I’m sure that’s exactly what the guy is thinking.

          If they NEEDED it, he could just stop and people would fork money over for it. They would have to in order to fulfill their NEED. It’s a WANT…

          • http://www.sitebyjames.com James

            Okay… so maybe I watch it just a little…

    • http://www.rokstok.com andrew moquin

      Yeah that the ticke! Lets get rid of his publications and let bloggers like Perez Hilton report our news!! This world is going to hell in a handbag, nobody cares about truth or consquence anymore.

  • http://www.homestylehut.com Home Style Hut

    I can see Murdoch’s point but at the same time as a web serfer, it seems like he may be shooting himself in the foot. I scan the headlines on Yahoo everyday and then use search to find which news site the contains the whole article. If Murdock is successful, I guess I’d never get pointed in his direction.

  • http://www.blackballonline.com Pittsburgh Business Marketing

    Regardless of political stance or the age of this guy, his opinion moved the author of this post to write about him. It moved all of us to read it and comment on it. PT Barnum always said there is no such thing as bad publicity. Every time this guy wants to he can ring the register just by making a statement and posturing.

    As to the content of the post, If Murdoch could have done something more decisive he would have by now. I agree with some of the other comments that he may be testing the waters but it looks like he could get eaten by the Google fish.

    • http://www.rokstok.com Andrew Moquin

      No way, Google and others like them would easily be defeated on this topic. No website for business has the right to steal copyrighted intellectual property and republish it? Can I take the information from another website and place it on mine for profit, no. Google knows this and will blacklist me if I do it. While the news event itself is not copyrighted, the news article and how it is carefully crafted is in fact a copyrighted item. Nobody has the right to use that content without the consent of the author. Don’t let the notion of the internet confuse you, placing something on a website doesn’t make it public domain.

  • http://www.midrand.oink.co.za InterNut

    There are numerous technical ways to ensure your website is not indexed by Google. One of them is by not submitting it to the search engines for indexing. DUH! Problem is, ol’ Rupey will have to take his News back to relying on techniques of marketing which will lead his company and any investors straight back into the dark ages. The Courts. More good money on bad understanding of the times …

  • Guest

    Pure jealousy.
    This guy, or is it a robot beleives it seems that NEWS is not fact but creative, and as such contravenes all sort of laws that the robot/Murdoch can imagine.
    He isn’t onlyold and outdated, but useless and dangerous.
    If he’s really not a robot – put him out to grass, and if he is a robot, take him apart and repair him…!

    • http://www.rokstok.com Andy Moquin

      Are you crazy? How on Earth is news and journalistic reporting not creative? The news doesn’t report itself and the collection of data, the interviewing of people, the assembly of the words that makes the story interesting and compelling while yet factual is certainly creative. Would your rather get your news from Perez Hilton or Anderson Cooper? Thats the problem with the internet, its ruining the quality of journalism and factual reporting. Everyone assumes because its written on the internet is true and holy. Come on people haven’t you heard of journalism school? These people study and learn their craft so that you are delivered factual yet compelling news. Get your head out of the sand!! No I have an idea, lets get rid of Murdoch, the Times, Wall Street Journal, and CNN. We’ll let Perez Hilton, other idiot bloggers like him and Google tell us was interesting and true.

      • Guest

        “factual”, “news” and “Murdoch” cannot be used in the same sentence… unless you get REALLY “creative”… LOL :D

        • jon2348

          LOL I have to laugh at all the ‘enlightened’ ones hatred towards this man. Maybe if BO and Queen Pelosi gets a hate crime bill passed we can stop it.

          • Guest

            um, sweetie, you may wish to enlighten yourself a bit, as the hate crime bill was passed and signed into law last October.

            hey! I have an idea! google it! lol

  • lc

    Goggle, Microsoft, Yahoo (order is not relevant) changed the face of this world in less than 10 years.
    Many of us hear about Mr Rupert Murdoch because he is “fighting” against the Big Boys.
    Anyone knows that it is more easy to destroy than to build something.
    About above article, I may miss something and Mr RM wish to to do something for the humanity. As far as he looks in the photo it is less probably to happen but who knows?

  • http://www.rokstok.com Andrew Moquin

    Copyright laws are copyright laws, plain and simple! The creator of intellectual property has full rights and ownership to it. Google, MSN, Yahoo and others have no right to take that content and republish it without paying for it. The search engine code and algorithims that these websites created and own is copyrighted, would it be ok for someone to take all of Google’s intellectual property and re-use it and profit from it. Clearly not, it goes both ways and Google and the likes should know an understand that better than anyone. I think the courts find in favor of Murdoch, he has a very strong leg to stand on in court.

    • larry

      Wake up mate, we are 2010 and not in 1930.
      The net has change the face of this world. Oops sorry, have you the same age as MR or did you get paid for what you publish here?

  • Rami

    It about time someone stood up to Google. Obviously Murdoch is not going to lay out his plan just yet as he is obviously hoping for negotiations first rather than invest in setting up pay walls across his network.

    It was laughable how quickly Google came back to the table the first time when Murdoch started talks with Microsoft. This is a big worry for Google and I think Murdoch is doing the right thing in holing out and not showing his cards.

    By the way, you wouldn’t use Robots.txt as they would place content behind a pay wall with SE bots cannot access anyway.

  • Guest

    Just typical from this smug antipodean robber baron. Perhaps he should pay the people that make the news!

    • http://thehotlinedating.com Anne Mcmicheals

      Amen to that,

  • http://www.onefathersloe.com onefatherslove

    So, is Mr. Murdoch saying that Google, Microsoft and others are copying people’s content, turning around and publishing it, and making millions and millions of dollars from it?

    • http://thehotlinedating.com Anne Mcmicheals

      well it isn’t piracy because we do not pay for the Google search engine the ads that they run on the sides and at the top and bottom of the search engine is and it isn’t Google stealing the content, they gather the content from reliable sources and then ad links and they do not charge for the content, by the way most content on the internet is considered public domain and public information… in my own sites, if i have a news item i think is worthy for one of my news groups, i copy a snippet and then add a Read More Here>>> link for my users to go and read the whole story on some other site…. i was taught that little gem from a woman that writes a column for the New York Times…. if some one is using the articles from News.com then they need to be able to track who that is, because i have never gotten full articles from Google, just a link that takes me to the site where that news generated, there fore that means that Google is NOT the culprit here but the people that search Google are at fault for taking what is not theirs to take, there are ways to go about posting content from sites and i do it legally, apparently others go about it illegally

      and for some one to make a statement such as “So if these statements have any effect at all, they might weaken his position by highlighting the fact that Murdoch hasn’t taken action so far.” and has not even implemented a plan as to how to stop this from happening is only looking for attention for his site; and looks like he got it, i bet he gets an influx of new visitors for quite a while after this posted news item about him and his site

    • http://www.slickrockweb.com Eric Nelson

      Piracy, copy-write infringement? Are you kidding me? Google doesn’t claim content or produce content. Come on people does no one understand what a search engine is anymore?

      If Fox and Murdoch had a piracy claim against Google that is a simple legal case to try in court and we would have heard about a long time ago. Google is just aggregating content and displaying all in one place …. just like any other Portal website does (of which there are millions on the internet now). Google maintains the links to Fox News and maintains their authorship. No one that I know of thinks Google actually wrote any of the garbage you can find on any of Murdoch’s properties.

      I say to Murdoch go invisible on Google and start charging subscriptions for your content and see what it does to your readership.

      • gjb

        I love this comment by Eric, a true believer and tool of the capitalists. “Does no one understand what a search engine is anymore?” he says. You think a search engine is a hammer, you just look at it and then you’ve got it once and for all?

        Read Lawrence Lessig’s book, *Free Culture*, Eric the Fool, and try to learn something about what you’re calling “Piracy”. If nothing else, learn that it’s spelling “Copyright”.

  • http://www.cwtgroup.net Charlie Terry

    When Samuel B. Morse invented the telegraph and news started to travel via telegraph. In May 1845, James Gordon Bennet, editor of the New York Hearld, wrote that many newspapers would be put out of business by this new communications technology. Curiously he got the 21st century phrase backwards when he said: “The scissors-and-paste journalism of the country will be annihilated.” He did say that if papers provided comentary and analysis, they would survive!

    As the Reuters story goes…it used the backbone of the telegraph network to get started and become overnight a new dominant force in news. Rupert should give up on the old business models and instead of burying his news in some dark hole that no one will ever find or read…he needs to do what every other business has had to do since the beginning of time when new technology comes along…use the Internet technology (of which search is now an integral part of) in a better way than everyone else or face extinction.

    (The Economist of December 19, 2009 is the source of my historical facts.)

  • anthony

    fuck the fucking jews like the fucking Mirdoch

    • Guest

      Your comment is ignorant hate mongrel.

    • gjb

      Anthony is a wimp who eats shit for breakfast lunch and dinner so no wonder he knows nothing but hate. May he and Murdoch spend eternity in an everlasting loving embrace.

  • Guest

    Google = Fair

    Murdoch = Unbalanced

    Murdoch is spewing his normal hate vomit, while he grabs even more publicity for himself by whining that google is stealing from him.

    Google keeps advertising his properties for FREE and he bitches. Amazing.

    If this was his original plan — to bitch and whine, only to get MORE publicity — then his organization is even more of an evil genius than we originally thought.

    At least GOOGLE still believes in FREEDOM of SPEECH, no matter how small the brain and how large the mouth of the imbecile spewing it.

    • http://thehotlinedating.com Anne Mcmicheals

      i totally agree with you, Google is free advertising and i thank them daily for putting my sites on their search engines

      perhaps he is bitching because he is paying other search engines to put them up on their search, and believe me there are a few that do charge; so far i have been lucky to be able to use the ones that are free, but i have had several that wanted me to pay add fees

      the money that google gets is from the ads at the sides and at the top and bottom of the search window, they are calling them sponsored ads and it says so right there by them

      Murdoch needs to stop being a baby and grow up and get some really good webmaster that know more then what the ones he has now do

      apparently that is where he is getting his false information from

  • http://thehotlinedating.com Anne Mcmicheals

    like you said, “So if these statements have any effect at all, they might weaken his position by highlighting the fact that Murdoch hasn’t taken action so far.” To me, when a person says they are going to do something and then never implement a plan to do so, is nothing but a person looking to be getting attention from people. this little so-called stand puts him in the lime light right now. if he does what he claims he wants to do, then stop bellyaching about it and do it, other wise he needs to just put his tail between his legs and go off to a corner and whine about how people are stealing his sites content, there are ways to stop people from copying the stuff, such as disabling the right click for instance, it really isn’t Google stealing the content; it might be the people using Google, Google is not the bad guy here, people when they see info they like will copy it, perhaps if they had better webmasters working for news.com, they might be able to squelch the copy right infringement, using as i said the disable right click item on all their articles and items

  • Advocate

    Google is a search engine. It helps people find news. If google had to pay to index articles then why bother doing it when there is plenty of material for people out there to read. The news is often full of crap anyway. Almost all of the main stream news is owned by just a few companies, and those few may even be owned by Reuters. So the news is owned. This being the case, it is being reported according to the viewpoint of the owners. Why pay for this? The people report on real issues that are not being covered by big news companies. These are issues that effect everyday people not just the power elite. If they force google to pay, then google should boycott them by not covering their stories, so that others people’s information will be read instead.

  • Guest

    I don’t sympathize with this man at all as his supposed news networks are nothing but biased slants on the news anyway.

  • Judy

    While I certainly understand Mr. Murdoch’s concerns and the copyright infringement, he really needs to get with the program and catch up with the times. The internet is a very powerful medium, and newspapers have a bleak future as it is and will probably become obsolete.

  • Guest

    I hope he can stop Google. Not sure why the ‘special’ people at Google think all is for them for nothing so they can reap billions on advertising.

  • Guest

    There’s no fool like an old fool.

  • http://www.jinggatersenyum.blogspot.com Blogger puisi

    I m not sure

  • Guest

    All he’s doing is drawing more attention to himself by this ridiculous accusation. There are many, many other news sites — like Wall Street Journal — that charge a subscription fee to view their articles online.

    Surely it is google and other search engines that drive their online customer base to make those purchases.

    C’mon, old man Murdoch! Get with the program and catch up to current media!


    • http://www.couponmammoth.com Guest

      Pretty sure he owns the Wall Street Journal.

      • Guest

        Oh my gosh, you’re right!

        That means he’s talking out both sides of his face and clearly this is just another of his pathetic attempts at publicity.

  • Guest

    Let Murdoch have his news. It’s hard to call it that. He will find out quickly how few people really think his news is worth paying for. I look forward to the day he puts up a barrier to his crapola.
    c drew

  • http://www.klausmedical.com Ernest

    We strip content as a matter of practice, it’s insaine to pay for internet content.

    Klaus Medical specializes in Medicare Education and Adult Sex Novelties

  • http://www.stmentertainment.com Stan The Man Griffin

    Rupert Murdoch’s reasons for wanting to block search engines specifically Google is that, maybe he

  • http://harleyradio.ning.com/ DJBOSSMAN

    Murdoch is right Google runs around getting away with everything .

  • http://www.traffictomyblog.com Oli

    All this man is showing is his complete misunderstanding of the internet, and it’s not the first time.

    Why he has not yet learned to embrace the new technology and the profits which come from it are beyond me, I would, for instance, quite like to know the percentage of visitors who find his content through search engines, and how much money he has made through them during that time.

  • Chris

    Hey thats right James. I do remember the exclusive bing deal last time. So what happened? It would be nice to have a little more details as well as more detail on the specifics, like doesn’t fox news get the credit for the news information? If so, then google is working on behalf of Fox news, but if not, and google is claiming ownership of the information, well then I could see why the fiasco exists, and if google is taking news from fox and claiming ownership, well then thats’ a no no. But I have no idea what the problem is because I am missing some details, so I just guess what they are for now..

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom