Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com

HEADLINE HEADLINE HEADLINE

SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Friday, October 09, 2009 2:59 PM

Rupert Murdoch Says Google Is Stealing His Content. So Why Doesn't He Stop Them?

Weston Kosova

The executives who run big, ailing news organizations—in particular Tom Curley of AP and News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch—complain every chance they get that search engines—in particular Google—are stealing from them, because Google links to their stories but doesn't pay the AP or News Corp. to do so. The way the news bosses see it,  that is theft, plain and simple. They say Google is making tons of money by shamelessly lifting their content, and it's driving newspapers out of business.

At a meeting of media executives going on this week in Beijing, Murdoch and Curley gave impassioned speeches, saying they're mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore. They warn that aggregators like Google had better start paying up, or else.

"We content creators have been too slow to react to the free exploitation of news by third parties without input or permission," Curley told the audience.

Advertisement

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

Of course, that's not even close to true. Curley and Murdoch's macho outrage is calculated to be quotable, but it is fake.

Here's why: go to Google News, or type a newsy topic like "Obama wins Nobel" into Google's search box. What do you get? Headlines and very brief teasers linking to news stories from news sites. If you click on them, you are taken to that news site, where you can read the story, which is surrounded by that site's ads. What, exactly, did Google steal in this scenario? If you don't click on the link, you don't see the story. If you do click on the link, you see the story on the originator's Web site.

Instead of stealing, I would call this something else: a free service that drives lots of readers to news Web sites that wouldn't get nearly as much traffic, if any at all, if Google didn't link to their sites for free. That may not be as pithy as crying "thief!" But it has the advantage of being true.

Murdoch and Curley know this. How do we know they know? Because if they really thought Google was stealing from them, and if they really wanted Google to stop driving all those readers to their Web sites at no charge, they would simply stop Google from linking to their news stories.

Google doesn't force Web sites to be included in its search listings. The people who run any site can remove it from Google's results with a few keystrokes. All they have to do is go to the Web site's robots.txt file and type this:

User-agent: Googlebot

Disallow: /

Poof, the site becomes invisible to Google. Their stories will no longer show up in Google searches. It will be as if they don't exist.

It's not like this is some big secret. Google even has a page on its Web site explaining step by step how to do it. Yet neither AP nor News Corp. has taken this simple step to stop the marauding Google pirates from pillaging their cargo. Why? Because they know that their traffic would dry up overnight. They'd rather blame someone else for their failure to compete in a changing marketplace. They happily take all the customers Google sends them for free, and then accuse Google of theft. Classy.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and Curley and Murdoch really didn't know that they had the power all along to rid themselves of the Google scourge any time they wanted to. If that's so, they know now. So go right ahead, gentlemen. Stop the thievery. Pull the plug on Google right now. I double-dog dare you.

Tag(s):
You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Tim Clive (October 20, 2009 at 7:54 PM)

Rupert Murdoch is not able to think clearly. I think this is part of a digital showdown between two schools of thought. Google and Murdoch facing each other off and I think Google will win. This insightful article explains it clearly:

"Google vs Rupert Murdoch- who will win?" @ http://cij.inspiriting.com/?p=852

It's time to sell News Corp stocks!


Posted By: avraamjack (October 16, 2009 at 2:37 PM)

The only revenue model that works for quality online journalism is Subscription Federation.

Subscription Federation grants the subscriber, for one low monthly fee, access to all the quality online journalistic content.

Each subscriber's fee is broken up to each online site based upon which sites the subscriber visited and how long they were there.

There are no antitrust concerns because all the sites in the Federation are still in competition and no revenue is guaranteed.

The small fee each site gets is compensated for by the huge number of subscribers.

If I can post a link, this is a better description:

http://corporate-statesmen.org/images/Subscription_Federation.pdf

and http://corporate-statesmen.org/policies.html


Posted By: gaeldami1 (October 12, 2009 at 7:30 PM)

The current context of the online media industry is that it is often be a choice between traffic or revenue. This is because the free content model where advertisers buy ads on sites with good traffic thus funding the costs of running that site isn't working. Rupert has experienced like many others that highly trafficked sites often don't bring in the revenue from advertisers. Since there's no revenue currently coming in from Google to the publishers, Rupert and co will at least take the traffic. Rupert knows he could make it so that Google can't link to any of the articles on his sites but what would that do? Then his sites would get no traffic AND no revenue. And he knows that other sites will then get the traffic his sites aren't getting. He's trying to get all the publishers on board for strength in numbers so that all of them will demand a percentage of Google's profits.