It would appear the we are soon likely to see massive amounts of internet bandwidth cleared of rubbish, and many of the useless and repetitive search results that pollute Google removed.
At least that's the current promise issued by Rupert Murdoch with his announcement that Google is to be blocked from his dynasty's content, and anything else that pours forth from his empire is supplied on a pay-per-view basis.
Of course, as the rest of the internet is happy to provide much the same content for free, and his supporters will leave him in droves as his returns fall from adopting such a policy, it will never actually happen.
Murdoch once famously "got" satellite TV in the 1980s, but not the internet - and this still appears to be true. (But his highly paid advisers will stop saying "Yes" to his ideas as soon as the cash stops - so don't anticipate too many good things.)
Maxwell was shoved off a boat - what might those close to Murdoch come up with if he remains stuck in his ways?
Although much of the material is just cribbed elsewhere, at least if all his stuff was available only for payment, we would at least see less headlines informing is of things like imaginary German wartime bombers being spotted in Scottish reservoirs.
The sooner he sets up his Google firewall, the better
This Murdoch fellow seems to be few bottles short of a crate, and seems to completely delusional.
He appears to think his company is the only one that is reporting anything, and that everyone else is currently stealing it, and should start paying him for using it.
After saying he will block Google (please, do it now), he's now going after the BBC on the basis that they are stealing his content and he will sue for copyright.
This assumes that you can copyright information - which you can't. The form of words used is copyright, but the information those words convey is not. His arrogance would also appear to suggest his reports are always first. After all, if he ever reported a story second, then he'd be up for being sued under the logic he seems to be proposing for suing the BBC.
I think he just wants "his" cut of the license fee (and would love to own the internet and make is all pay-per-click or per-page-view )
Further to yesterday's story about Rupert Murdoch's search engine sabre-rattling, Murdoch could block Google searches entirely, he also launched yet another assault on the BBC.
During the Sky News Australia interview, Murdoch was asked how he will be able to make his plan work to charge for all News Corporation-owned news websites when the likes of the BBC and others internationally provided free news content on its website.
"But we are better," he replied. "If you look at them, most of their stuff is stolen from the newspapers now, and we'll be suing them for copyright.
"They will have to spend a lot more money on a lot more reporters to cover the world when they can't steal from newspapers."
Since he is Australian, at least by birth I assume you mean "a few tinnies short of a barby"!
I am not as optimistic about this as you are.
When Sky TV started out it was all free. He introduced charges which people were obliged to pay and most did. If most people refused Sky would have found another route to revenue earning and most, if not all TV would still be free albeit there might not be the range of programmes, particularly films. If he gets away with this it could well follow the same course as TV and turnout to be the sharp end of a very large wedge (in more ways than one).
He might try a few test cases, but he can't copyright information - fact - and news is reporting facts (unless it's in The Sun).
The web is open and, dare I say it, worldwide.
Operators would only have to work from rogue countries where copyright is not honoured, and everyone could then use that info as source.
Remember Spycatcher?
Banned in the UK, but published around the world so Brits just had to get a copy from across the Channel.
Even Murdoch doesn't have enough money to sue the world for copyright - even theough he simply wouldn't have a case. All he has rights to is the form of word, and images his staff create.
None of which I think, even today, the BBC just copy and paste into any of their stories or web sites.
As far as Sky goes, all he did was buy up a badly run organisation which owns the means of delivery of satellite TV and the licences - and of course the content rights.
Anyone with a better deal could set up and take it away from him, but the start-up cost is now prohibitive, so it's all his thanks to shrewd business plundering.
Looks like I called this one right as far as the majority are concerned, and I can now only assume that Murdoch's bodyguards and money are all that separate him from the men in white coats, and a room with nice soft walls
Quoted Text
Who would have believed it? This week Rupert Murdoch succeeded where countless other stories have failed - uniting business bloggers to one dominant viewpoint.
"It is a novelty to see a Guardian Comments with near unanimity," summarised gpjcyprus after hundreds wrote in to disparage this week's tale that the media baron is considering blocking news from his media empire from Google's search index.
ItalioDutch imagined the scenario: "Breaking news: Pope to visit Iran.
"From The Guardian: Pope's visit to strictly Shiite country first ever.
"From the New York Times: Pontiffs visit already historic.
"From Le Monde: Benoît XVI au pays des Ayatollah
"From The Times: 403 forbidden
"That is going to be a fantastic success."
"News International – big. Google – bigger," said kingfelix. "Murdoch has forgotten the first rule of bullying (which is his business model), the bully must be stronger than those it targets.
"Google won't be getting its dinner money stolen or its PE kit flushed down the bog."
"Excluding yourself from the single biggest source of web traffic?" wrote Ssieth. "What could possibly go wrong with that plan?"
He might just pull this off and if he does there is going to be an almighty rush to join him.
I still think there is a parallel with the original free Sky TV which became a largely pay for view service when they had aquired enough punters. I am sure he sees it as a parallel.
More power to the typing fingers of those who object!
Murdoch's apparent insanity may have an underlying logic - for his empire at least.
The idea is spreading to other newspaper groups, who seem to be unable to pull their heads out of the sand and find a way to revive their flagging sales and falling advertising revenue.
Instead of improving their current services, or introducing new ones, they appear to be seeking to simply try and charge for the same rubbish that people are drifting away from - surely a course for disaster, or merely playing into Murdoch's hands, as he can afford to wait and snap up the the debris of their failure.
This is not merely my opinion, as Johnston Press, responsible for papers such as The Buteman and many other small publications which it has swept in recent years (many once independent, but now part of the larger group), prepares to charge readers for its online material.
Following the comments offered by those readers, it soon becomes apparent that many are not interested in paying for what they have had access to without charge for years - and it would also appear that the online readers are a separate group from those who read the tangible paper version.
One of the consistent comments seems to be that if online content was to be charged for, then it would have to improve significantly in content and quality, otherwise few would consider it worth the cost.
I can almost hear the sound of Murdoch dynasty hands being rubbed together in glee, and that well known phrase "I love it when a plan comes together" being uttered
The Johnson Group (who publish my local paper which I buy faithfully every week) are entitled to charge to view their product if advertising is not covering the expense of producing it and publishing it online, or alternatively they could just abandon their news websites. Its their (and News Inc's) choice as its their money that is providing a free service to web users.
Something that concerns me far more - and I see it as a creeping cloud on the horizon is the BBC and their heavy expenditure in making not only their full news resources available online but increasingly providing TV programmes online via iPlayer and/or Catch Up.
I suspect the Beeb have a grand plan, playing the long game if you like in that if they spend enough of licence payer's money on providing programmes and news online they can go to government and plead for a tax on PCs and laptops.
A loose example - but close enough to be relevant to this - is the case of my daughter in halls at Uni. The day she moved in I noticed a notice on her room wall from TV Licensing warning (yes it was a warning and not advice) her that if she watched TV programmes as their were being broadcast on a laptop she was breaking the law (and would be caught) if she didn't have a valid TV Licence (£142.50 P.A.). What was missing from this warning was whether this would be an offence only in her room or anywhere at all - grounds, gardens, the pub, on a bus ........... the list could be endless. What was also very noticable was in the main admin block where a lot of acitvity was going - the TV Licensing agency had hired students to hand out more copies of this warning notice and in fact were trying to sign new students up there & then. We can presume they were on a commission from TV Licensing for every 'sale'. It was also purely a coincidence that a letter from the head of TV Licensing warning of the dire consequences to students appeared in the letters column of my local paper the following week, an identical one no doubt repeated in local papers all over the country.
What the TVL people emphasised was 'watching TV programmes as they were being broadcast' required a license but NOT if watched after they were broadcast.
I suspect the BBC's long game is to wade right into the net by every new technical means available and to blur the boundaries of television and the Internet inasmuch it may well become difficult to distinguish between what is technically a television receiver and what is a computer.
I have to say as a TV Licence payer that I do not understand why watching time shifted TV programmes on the web should be free. I also do not understand why the BBC website should be free access either, nor really why TV stations should waste money on websites in the first place. I also find their ads suggesting you go to the website for further information for exampple on how the programme was made curious. Why would they want to divert people away from watching their programmes?
Google has responded to the robber press baron with an interesting partial solution.
Following this, there has also been a number of requests from users for Google to introduce a button which blocks content from Murdoch's empire, so they are not even presented with it as an option.
The (Glasgow) Evening Times has just launched a digital edition equivalent to the printed copy, it looks like you get a free 3 day trial but I never ventured any further than the register page so I don't know how much they are charging. Could be a good thing if ye canny manage down to the shop or your paper boy is down with swine flu. God send for hame sick ex.pats too.
A single issue of an online publication that has a cover price of 46 p can be had for a mere £1.50
Now, tell me that paywalls are a good thing.
How on earth do they justify charging three times the price of the paper edition for a virtual version that costs them next to nothing to prepare or deliver (since it already exist for all the other subscription plans, and the online ordering and delivery process will be automated), and has no material (paper, ink, printing presses, machine operators) costs?
Yet a one week sub is only 45 p more - at £1.95.
Talk about old school racketeering/profiteering
Shamelessly manipulating the customers to take out a longer subscription, and spend more than they probably want to overall.
Looks nice though
The Evening Times e-dition Subscription Plans Info Evening Times
Plan terms Archive length Fee (GBP) Single Issue N/A £1.50 1 Week Subscription (auto-renewed) 7 days £1.95 1 Month Subscription (auto-renewed) 7 days £4.99 3 Month Subscription (auto-renewed) 14 days £13.99 1 Year Subscription (auto-renewed) 30 days £49.99
I don't quite understand how a year's subscription equals 30days?
Mind , have you checked out http://www.dunoon-observer.co.uk ? They charge £40pa for the Adobe electronic version. At 65p per week the locals only pay around £34 for the printed version, if I can still count. I assume that the person who transposes the content into Acrobat and presses the send button must be the highest paid person in Dunoon.
The paper's full title is The Dunoon Observer and Argyllshire Standard. In Dunoon it is generally referred to as The Standard, whereas outwith the town it is known as The Observer. Make sense of that if you can.
The ET figures made no sense to me - apart from the single copy farce - so I just listed the rest without comment. I'll certainly never need to know the prices anyway. If they make it view-for-cash only, then I'll never see another one.
Here are the current The Dunoon Observer and Argyllshire Standard sub rates:
I've noticed the name thing, but too embarrassed to ask anyone about it - looks as if it's just as well I didn't ask
All I can say is that I have absolutely no problem with the price for a paper copy, funding not only the staff, but the print, materials, and distribution costs of the physical item. All of which are ongoing repeat costs, plus renewal of obsolete machinery, and its continuing maintenance.
What I don't see is why the electronic version, which is merely a single conversion of the paper version (produced electronically anyway), and a one-time setup cost for its online distribution system, should cost anything like the paper version.
Believe me, it is just greed and rip-off - and I speak from experience, having been involved in businesses where it was done.
Certain bosses, not all by any means, were quick to see the difference between electronic versions of their product, and the conventional, tangible item, and having been responsible for implementing "modern" computerised systems around the 1990s - which did away with numerous staff and their costs - these same bosses were only to keen to have me convert those systems to produce their output as data files (formats such as pdf files were yet to be widely adopted, so we had to create suitable means of electronic data delivery), and eliminate many of their production and recurring costs as well.
Online subs, if anywhere even near the price of the tangible product, are simply a windfall for the business charging for them - until they become the norm, and everyone else is doing it, then prices will have to fall. Not because consumers will walk away and refuse to pay them, but because there will then be a level playing field, and the usual price war will break out, with each trying to undercut the other.
Their electronic version charges have always exceeded the cost of the paper version. I assume the greater number of electronic subscribers are in the US. Have they done their sums?
Buy a subscription, but it only lasts for 48 hours!
Quoted Text
The Daily Express today launched an archive service charging readers £5.95 (plus VAT) for 48 hours' access.
The service, at http://www.express.co.uk/archive, has been two years in the making, and features 1.7 million pages from every edition since the paper first appeared in 1900.
Users can see a preview of each page for free, but if they want to identify more than the headlines and the occasional picture, then they are going to have to pay.
A sample search of "Richard Desmond" throws up 286 results, including one from 23 November 2000 titled "Express's new owner pledges a bright future" and another from 7 December 1994, headlined "Seedy empires built on dirty money".
"After nearly 110 years at the forefront of news, the Daily Express is still leading the way," says the paper today.
Well, yes and no. Plenty of papers have offered an extensive online archive service. Rather fewer of them ask their readers to pay. How much would you be prepared to pay to read as much Daily Express as you can handle for 48 hours?
The Scotsman and the Times (of London) have charged for access to their online archives for years so the Express aren't being mean at all. They have to pay for the digitising and have to recover that. Its a boon to historical researchers.
It would appear that Murdoch, owner of News International, is not free of some bias in the plans I mentioned earlier, and is selective in who he does, and does not allow free access to his empire:
News International is blocking the news aggregator NewsNow.co.uk from linking to Times Online content.
News International has told the aggregator that it may no longer link to any content on Times Online, and imposed a technical block by altering its robots.txt, the file through which a website can ask search engines not to index its pages.
"News International has for some time been indicating to us that it would like us to refrain from linking to their content," said Struan Bartlett, managing director and chairman of NewsNow, who is sponsoring a campaign called right2link
"We have been trying to solicit from them their reason for wanting us to stop, but not other search engines. They haven't given us a reason that we understand..."
There is still some time to go before the promised News International paywall is put in place, to block any access to their content without crossing their palms with silver, however it interesting to look at the comments that follow, as they pose the question of News International charging for anyone that wants to link to their content, but happy to browse the web itself and use other people's sites for leads, but will no doubt regard such information as "free", and not offer them a penny for the help they provide.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Massive internet cleanup announced
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
Private message
)
ICQ
Skype
