Sep 10
Emphasis on "misappropriation", as though they're stealing it.
Quality content? From News Corp? If I open News.com.au RIGHT NOW, I guarantee the top article is something to do with a celebrity.. *opens*.. Yep, Magda Szucranskywhatever's weight loss! Seriously.
More claims that search engines "steal" their content.
More desperate grabs for cash now that they realise their industry is flailing in the wake of the technology boom. Sure, some of the average public will fork out a few dollars to get access to the news, but all this will do is drive the internet MORE towards pushing free sources of information. Google etc will gain more traffic than ever with services like Google News (news.google.com), a news aggregator (that links people to the source, and gives full credit) that probably won't even notice News Corp vanishing from it's source-list.. while picking up lots of viewers who are unwilling to pay hard-earned money just to read some re-hashed tabloid crap that's usually itself taken from other online sources in the first place! But, enough distractions.. here's my FAVOURITE part:
That single-handedly has to be one of the worst analogies i've ever seen.. and those that know me, know how much I love analogies. Let me break down WHY the above is not only not true, but also hilariously hypocritical on SO many levels. The best part is bolded, because I feel like getting it printed on a T-shirt and wearing it every day to remind everyone how little of a clue some people have about what they're talking about. If he wants to use the analogy that search engines have broken into their house, then how about we continue that analogy.. If their website is a house, and the contents of that house is their articles, then what they have basically done is put a massive, neon, flashing, 20foot high billboard outside the house.. proudly saying "Everything in this house is free. Please come inside, take what you want, and do what you will with it".. What am I talking about?Exhibit A your honour: http://www.news.com.au/robots.txt"Robots.txt" is a special file you put onto your website, that literally ASKS search engines to come in, index everything, and spread the content. The fact that they have a robots.txt file, and have configured it quite extensively, says that they KNOW what it's for, and what it does. All a developer has to do, to stop Google, Yahoo, or ANY search engine from indexing content, is make the file read:
Once you have that in your robots.txt file, search engines are told "Leave this site alone, you are not allowed to index it".. and guess what, they obey. So while News Corp and Fairfax Media sit here saying that they're absolute victims of all this, and they deserve compensation for Google indexing their content.. with the other hand, they're basically giving WRITTEN PERMISSION for the search engines to come in, and do what they want. That, is the definition of hypocritical.If I was Google? I'd blacklist News.com.au completely. and send this to the powers that be:
So, the news companies want Google (etc) to PAY for indexing/linking to the news?
This seriously made me laugh out loud.. and no, I don't mean I typed "LOL".. I literally cackled to myself at work. The idea of the news corporations being unhappy at Google (etc) indexing, archiving, and linking to their news articles is one of the funniest tech news items i've followed in a while. To bring you up to speed, here's some excerpts from News.com.au (sorry News Corp, but yes, i'm linking to you, AND paraphrasing your article): http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,26053970-462,00.htmlTHE "misappropriation" of online newspaper content by rival media companies and internet search engine providers is the major challenge facing print media companies today, the head of Australia's largest regional newspaper publisher says.
Emphasis on "misappropriation", as though they're stealing it.
Mr Hopkins said charging for online content would not be controversial if publishers offered high quality, unique content.
Quality content? From News Corp? If I open News.com.au RIGHT NOW, I guarantee the top article is something to do with a celebrity.. *opens*.. Yep, Magda Szucranskywhatever's weight loss! Seriously.
Internet search engine providers, such as Google and Yahoo!, in particular should pay, he said.
"We don't need to be reborn, we just need to be paid properly for what we do," Mr Hopkins told the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers' Association (PANPA) conference.
"As an industry we must strive to protect our content from those who contribute nothing to its creation and are happy to run on its coat tails.
More claims that search engines "steal" their content.
News Corp chairman and chief executive Rupert Murdoch has already announced plans to begin charging readers for access to the websites of the company's newspaper network.
Last month, publisher Fairfax said it also was considering charging for online news content.
More desperate grabs for cash now that they realise their industry is flailing in the wake of the technology boom. Sure, some of the average public will fork out a few dollars to get access to the news, but all this will do is drive the internet MORE towards pushing free sources of information. Google etc will gain more traffic than ever with services like Google News (news.google.com), a news aggregator (that links people to the source, and gives full credit) that probably won't even notice News Corp vanishing from it's source-list.. while picking up lots of viewers who are unwilling to pay hard-earned money just to read some re-hashed tabloid crap that's usually itself taken from other online sources in the first place! But, enough distractions.. here's my FAVOURITE part:
However, Mr Hopkins singled out search engines for particular criticism, saying their business models had been key in promoting the notion that journalism content is "free". "To use an analogy, I see search engines as breaking into our homes, itemising the contents, walking out and listing everything for everyone to see. And they get money out of that process," he said. "The only problem is, I don't see any revenue being paid directly from Google, Yahoo! or Microsoft in our company profit and loss accounts."
That single-handedly has to be one of the worst analogies i've ever seen.. and those that know me, know how much I love analogies. Let me break down WHY the above is not only not true, but also hilariously hypocritical on SO many levels. The best part is bolded, because I feel like getting it printed on a T-shirt and wearing it every day to remind everyone how little of a clue some people have about what they're talking about. If he wants to use the analogy that search engines have broken into their house, then how about we continue that analogy.. If their website is a house, and the contents of that house is their articles, then what they have basically done is put a massive, neon, flashing, 20foot high billboard outside the house.. proudly saying "Everything in this house is free. Please come inside, take what you want, and do what you will with it".. What am I talking about?Exhibit A your honour: http://www.news.com.au/robots.txt"Robots.txt" is a special file you put onto your website, that literally ASKS search engines to come in, index everything, and spread the content. The fact that they have a robots.txt file, and have configured it quite extensively, says that they KNOW what it's for, and what it does. All a developer has to do, to stop Google, Yahoo, or ANY search engine from indexing content, is make the file read:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Disallow: /
Once you have that in your robots.txt file, search engines are told "Leave this site alone, you are not allowed to index it".. and guess what, they obey. So while News Corp and Fairfax Media sit here saying that they're absolute victims of all this, and they deserve compensation for Google indexing their content.. with the other hand, they're basically giving WRITTEN PERMISSION for the search engines to come in, and do what they want. That, is the definition of hypocritical.If I was Google? I'd blacklist News.com.au completely. and send this to the powers that be:
Dear Sir/Madam,We recently heard you were unhappy with the fact that our search engine indexes your content, and provides links to the general public helping them find your articles. We are deeply disturbed that our attempts to bring more valuable viewers to your well-researched, concisely-written, and brilliantly topical news articles has upset you, and therefore we have taken the appropriate steps to rectify this immediately by removing all links to your site, all archives of your content (including their attributed source links that credited you as the creator), and have blocked all future indexing of your domains in our search engine. We hope you forgive us for our intrusion, and trust this will solve our differences.. Regards,Google.
