Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Google The Almighty Buck

Rupert Murdoch Says Google Is Stealing His Content 504

Posted by timothy
from the what-part-of-come-in-don't-you-understand? dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rupert Murdoch Says Google Is Stealing His Content

Comments Filter:
  • Dear Mr Murdoch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by presidenteloco (659168) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:26PM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by SEAL (88488) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:51PM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Wowsers (1151731)

        A good few years ago now, Rupert had certain sections of The Times and The Sunday Times as subscription pages, certainly the archive section was subscription (basically any story over a week old went into the archive which you had to pay to access). They even had a CD-ROM of The Times archive (I remember using it at university - it only went back to about 1990 articles IIRC). Not enough people paid up to justify running the "archive", so it was removed and now we have the free for all, so long as Rupert all

    • Re:Dear Mr Murdoch (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Odinlake (1057938) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:55PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by linzeal (197905)
          We should celebrate the senile and powerful they make the last foolish stand for each generation before they are laughed to death. It is like macabre performance art.
        • This is similar to authors who complain about their books getting listen in catalogs with excerpts (?) from their books, or horror of horrors, libraries.

          Murdoch ain't even smart enough to come up with new idiotic complaint.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          Nah, he just wants to run things his way and have the search companies pay him. If he blocks Google et al. from indexing his sites, there's no money in that for him. So it's better for him to pretend robots.txt etc. don't exist at all and instead make a case for a very different kind of web - one that allows him to get more money.
        • Re:Dear Mr Murdoch (Score:5, Insightful)

          by damburger (981828) on Sunday October 11, 2009 @05:21AM (#29709725)
          Don't turn this into blanket gerontophobia please. Plenty of old people understand and use the internet perfectly well. In fact, I think Murdoch is in command of his faculties and does understand the internet (he can afford to have the very best people explain him to it, after all) - I think he is just being damn greedy. He isn't being stupid, he is counting on everyone else being stupid - a strategy that has served him well with business ventures such as Fox News and The Sun.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by tcr (39109)

            Hmm... not convinced.

            I do remember reading an article that said he has his emails printed out and brought to him...

            He's probably wandering around NewsCorp HQ right now, trying to find the typing pool.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by aeschenkarnos (517917)
          Sad? Sad? Dude, this is Rupert Fucking Murdoch we're talking about. The most evil man alive. Every second his foul influence remains on the earth is a second too long.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by kale77in (703316)

        Dunno if that works with news aggregation

        That's rather the question, as he'd presumably still want to appear in Google search results outside of Google News. So a simple Disallow wouldn't *quite* do the job; he'd have to be able to disallow only the news aggregators, which would only be possible if they had a different signature to regular Googlebot.

        So he may have to just dissallow everything, which would be fair. Is there any way, as a community service, way we could all chip in a few bucks and buy him an

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @09:11PM (#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.

    • by TapeCutter (624760) * on Saturday October 10, 2009 @09:30PM (#29707827) Journal
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Planesdragon (210349)

        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.

        Google is fairly high on contention for "most profitable site on the 'web." A big reason for why they are so profitable is that they have a trusted search engine & an only sliightly-less-trusted news aggrigator. Both of these two exist by pointing to work someone ELSE is doing.

        Now, Google's all fine and dandy with not getting any direct revenue from these things -- they get trust, and knowledge, which let them sell the ads that bring in all that revenue.

        Murdoch's News Corp, otoh, is on all fronts doin

        • by jasonditz (597385) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @10:40PM (#29708231) Homepage

          The line between professional blogger and professional journalist is an increasingly murky one (from day to day I'm not even sure which I am, but its definitely one or the other), and even if some of the major "dead tree" media sites haven't figured out how to make money there are a lot of others that do, albeit on a smaller scale.

          But is that really a problem? I look at it like the OSS industry: there may never be the sort of revenues in the free software world that there was in the commercial software world, but plenty of open source projects/companies are profitable, and so long as the product is better, who cares?

          Google isn't the problem here, and they're just being used as a scapegoat because they make money and other people don't. But I don't hear Canonical griping to HP just because HP is making a profit on their hardware and people just download Ubuntu for free, one of the few things that makes an HP system remotely usable.

          The "old media" types have an outdated business model, but they also increasingly have a credibility problem. Most of their highest priced talent has gotten very sloppy in recent years, and a lot of them just pick their favorite politician or party and parrot the official line until told otherwise. Show me a well known newspaper columnist of the last ten years and I'll show you someone who has repeatedly claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

        • by cgenman (325138) on Sunday October 11, 2009 @12:18AM (#29708627) Homepage

          I wouldn't be surprised if Murdoch's beef with Google is not that Google makes the money, but that Google retains the audience. People go to news aggy sites, rather than entering into a News Corp empire portal, going to a News Corp source, and ultimately staying within the News Corp family throughout their visit. The latter is far more valuable than sharing ad revenue for a single article impression.

        • by khchung (462899) on Sunday October 11, 2009 @12:40AM (#29708729) Journal

          because we are FAR better served as a country by having professional journalists and bloggers, than by having bloggers alone.

          While I agree this statement on the basis that by "professional journalists" mean people who "reported fairly and factually on world events important to most people". However, I have to contend that most (but not all) "media" we see day to day, including Murdoch's, are NOT populated by "professional journalists".

          The only "professional" about most journalists we see in the media are only the sense that they get paid, i.e. it is their "profession" as a journalist.

          About "actually do research and write something", most media companies are only doing the "write something" part, and are seriously lacking in the "do research" part. Note that I said "most", I admit there are a few journalists out there that really "do research and write something".

          So, given that the current business model only give you a handful of real "professional journalists" mixed in sea of "journalists" not much better than bloggers, I am not sure what is the value of preserving this business model by having Google pay those media companies. It is the same argument for supporting RIAA because a few of their "artists" are really talented and deserved to be paid. Well, I suppose most people would think there should be a better business model to achieve that goal.

          Google is fairly high on contention for "most profitable site on the 'web." A big reason for why they are so profitable is that they have a trusted search engine & an only sliightly-less-trusted news aggrigator. Both of these two exist by pointing to work someone ELSE is doing.

          While this is somewhat off-topic regarding Murdoch, I think this statement downplayed the value Google is providing.

          Consider this, there are lots and lots of knowledge available in the world, both static like a cooking recipe, or dynamic like the news or a blog. But the fact is, for most of human history, these knowledge are not available cheaply and timely to most people. What Google did is making the knowledge that already exists on the web available to anyone, that alone is providing tremendous value to most people, and I congratulate them for thinking of a business model that can also make a profit doing it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jesset77 (759149)

            Consider this, there are lots and lots of knowledge available in the world, both static like a cooking recipe, or dynamic like the news or a blog. But the fact is, for most of human history, these knowledge are not available cheaply and timely to most people. What Google did is making the knowledge that already exists on the web available to anyone, that alone is providing tremendous value to most people, and I congratulate them for thinking of a business model that can also make a profit doing it.

            Oliver's point about the value of Google's service is a point lost on most armchair entrepreneurs these days.

            Too many of us get hung up on "creativity" being the only valuable service you can provide digitally, the product of which becomes some kind of "product" which should then be marketed to the masses by least efficient and most pocket-lining means possible.. be that Murdock, RIAA, PRS, whoever.

            We then disrespect any second tier services that may organize and present this information to you in a meaning

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by the_womble (580291)

          Murdoch's News Corp, otoh, is on all fronts doing what everyone else in the "actually do research and write something" industry is doing -- losing money.

          Do you not mean the "rewrite stuff from press releases and news wires, distorting it to suit a political or business agenda" industry. People will pay for good content: It works for the FT and the New Scientist.

          professional journalists and bloggers, than by having bloggers alone

          Most of the blogs I read are better than anything the journalists produce. For example, I get news on the economy by reading blogs by economists, rather than a journalists summary of what he or she half understood after interviewing economists.

      • by Asclepius99 (1527727) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @09:50PM (#29707969)

        I think you're giving the man too much credit. You're reasoning is that because he knew a technology back in the 80s he should be aware of how technology works 20 years later and in a completely different medium.

        It seems to me that this is more of a cause of him not understanding exactly how the internet works. Especially since he calls them "plagiarists" and "content kleptomaniacs*", which implies he thinks that they somehow are copying and keeping his content. Maybe he was just trying to be dramatic to get more attention, but I'm still pretty sure he's not exactly sure what it means when a search engine links to the page of a website without going through it. (This is guessing a lot, but I tend to think he believes that if he goes to paid content using a Google search will bring you to the content by going around the page that asks you to pay for it.)

        *Google probably is the definition of a content kleptomaniac. They store all your information on their servers forever and their terms and agreements state that pretty much any content you e-mail, use their hosting service for, or put in any of their other tools becomes theirs. However, them being a search engine is pretty much their only service that they aren't kleptomaniacs about.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dbIII (701233)

          I think you're giving the man too much credit. You're reasoning is that because he knew a technology back in the 80s he should be aware of how technology works 20 years later and in a completely different medium.

          He was certainly making expensive business decisions about internet companies in 2001, so unfortunately for us all that makes you the one that is out of touch while he has had his finger on the pulse for more than a decade.
          Murdoch understands it all right, the problem is he is quite happy to try to

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thogard (43403)

        It's not so much that he wants a bigger slice of the pie, its that he has to talk up every other newspaper in to going to a charge for content model before he turns off Google. If Google was smart, they would simply stop crawling his sites until he comes back begging. Murdoch owns most of the newspapers that aren't going to die in the next few years but he owns lots that will be dead in a less than a year and I think he is spooked by the numbers. For the last few decades the newspaper was paid for by ads

      • Murdoch might be looking at things differently

        First, he has come to the conclusion that people don't type in http://www.google.com/ [google.com] to an address bar to visit Google, they're going to Google to eventually go somewhere else.

        Second, he probably feels that his newspapers get a lot of web traffic. I have no idea, I'll assume they do.

        Third, since he seems to own most of the major newspapers these days, he's probably convinced himself that he is an important part of the internet.

        Fourth, he realizes Google is mak

  • by onionman (975962) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:26PM (#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 ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gslavik (1015381) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:26PM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

      Yeah because Murdoch knows he panders to poor inbred mouth breathers and there is no money to be made from racist douche bags in a trailer park.

      Perhaps his new companies should try raising the bar on their quality rather than asking Google to fund their half assed "journalism".
  • by Golddess (1361003) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:26PM (#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.
  • A simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ivoras (455934) <ivoras&fer,hr> on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:27PM (#29707359) Homepage
    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).
    • by TRS80NT (695421) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:39PM (#29707463)
      "...everyone (especially readers)."
      There. Fixed that for you.
    • by Strange Attractor (18957) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:56PM (#29707575) Homepage

      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.

    • by fermion (181285) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @09:51PM (#29707971) Homepage Journal
      It will do no good. Murdoch lives in a fantasy world where one is not responsible for one's own actions. Just watch Fox News. When someone loses a job, it is the governments fault, and due to the fact that the person had no skills or chose to sell crappy products. The free market only works when the big business can do whatever they want, and smaller firms have to be subservient to them. The responsible free market solution is to at least block content from all users who are not subscribers, and at most put forth a competing search engine that requires a fee prior to linking to copyright information. but this would be the capatilist solution, which Murdoch would never go for. Instead he uses the socialist solution which is to have government pass more regulations which the tax payers then have to fund. It is like asking police to make sure that newspaper are read by only one person, then thrown away. I am sure he would love a law where our police would be responsible for arresting people who leave newspapers on park benches, or fining business who buy a personal subscription and then allow the customers to read it. Who cares if our taxes goes up. He doesn't pay them.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Wildclaw (15718)

        socialist

        I don't think that word means what you think it does. The socialist solution would be to create a public newspaper, or in the case of extreme socialism, confiscating private newspapers companies. But you rarely here about socialist solutions nowadays, because there hardly are any real socialists in politics. Instead it is all about the government hiring private contractors, or the government paying money to private companies so they can build infrastructure. Or the government selling its property to private

    • A better solution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jamesh (87723) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @10:59PM (#29708299)

      A better solution would be for robots.txt (or a more secure equivalent) to allow google to know that they need to pay when their results come up in your search results. Of course, google will require the searcher (eg you) to pay to see those results. A simple click through would work ("click here to see this pay-per-view result - your account will be debited $0.01c"). Add another link at the top (and bottom) of the results for "Never, ever, show me pay-per-view search results again. It's a stupid idea and I hate it.".

      The users are happy because they get to exclude search results from people who just don't get it.

      Media empires will be happy because they got what they wanted (and unhappy as they go broke as they become invisible to the internet without understanding why, but that's not google's problem).

      Google will be happy because all the companies that want this feature will finally stfu and go broke.

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

  • dear Rupert, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:28PM (#29707371) Journal
    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.
  • Please Google... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:35PM (#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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:53PM (#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...

    • by syousef (465911) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @09:19PM (#29707739) Journal

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by timmarhy (659436)
      it's pretty straight forward. google sells ads and so does rupert, they are in direct compeition for the same dollars. he just wants to try smear them as much as he can. he knows full well that he can stop them indexing his sites (to all you moron's prattling about robots.txt).

      if google isn't in the least bit afraid of rupert and he knows this as well, it's just the game thats played at that level.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by janwedekind (778872)

      He is just doing what he does best: Spreading FUD and steering public opinion. Some time ago there was an interview with the very same Murdoch proudly explaining how the purchase of MySpace would transform his media empire.
      But he would rather see a world in which Google faces strong mistrust by people and their governments. That's why he is spreading this nonsense. What an imposter!

  • by AuMatar (183847) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:38PM (#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.

  • by Cytlid (95255) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:40PM (#29707465)

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

  • The Irony... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:40PM (#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.

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:44PM (#29707489) Homepage

    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.

  • by boguslinks (1117203) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:45PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by grcumb (781340)

      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.

      And you think it won't work? It worked with Iraq.

      Just sayin'....

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by slimjim8094 (941042)

      Typical News Corp. Look at the recent Faux News bits about the tea parties - "OMG ITS SUCH A NATIONWIDE GRASSROOTS PROTEST!"

      The entirety of his business model, it seems, is to come up with something and go on about how big a deal it is, until it actually becomes a semi-big deal.

  • Misinterpretation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @08:48PM (#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.

  • by russotto (537200) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @09:18PM (#29707719) Journal
    "There you go again".
  • by Improv (2467) <pgunn@dachte.org> on Saturday October 10, 2009 @09:24PM (#29707773) Homepage Journal

    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cdrguru (88047) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @09:29PM (#29707815) Homepage

    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.

    • Re:Real problem (Score:4, Informative)

      by SEE (7681) on Sunday October 11, 2009 @03:55AM (#29709427) Homepage

      No, this isn't anywhere near as simple as just using robots.txt to deter Google from indexing.

      Sure it is. If Google's spider is blocked from indexing "Murdoch" content by robots.txt, it's also blocked from caching any "Murdoch" content, the "Murdoch" headline never shows up on Google News, and there isn't any "Murdoch" text appearing to let me know if I really want to look that the whole article.

      Murdoch has, in fact, deliberately made content available for free by and through Google. Before Murdoch took over the Wall Street Journal, all Wall Street Journal news content could not be accessed by Google News, and could not be obtained by using Google News or a Google cache. You could only get WSJ content by going to the WSJ site. After Murdoch took over the Wall Street Journal, all Wall Street Journal content was made accessible to Google News. Furthermore, the WSJ paywall was deliberately lowered to allow people to read articles on the WSJ site for free if they follow a link to the article from Google News.

      Murdoch isn't letting Google access this content by accident or through ignorance. He has actively chosen to make this content available by and through Google. He can undo that any time he chooses, for any of his sites.

  • by SpaceManNH (688561) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @09:41PM (#29707887) Homepage

    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]

  • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Sunday October 11, 2009 @12:21AM (#29708645) Homepage

    "/Dear/ Mr. Murdoch,

    In wishing to completely and speedily address your worries, we have permanently removed all domains owned by your corporation from our search index. You will now no longer suffer from an onslaught of non-paying visitors to your sites. With the best wishes, Google."

    They should stop fucking around. Murdoch and the other paid-content-idiots know they can't do business without the search engines linking to them, and if they don't, it's high time they learned it. They need the search engines more than the search engines need them.

Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.

Working...