"Murdoch's UK newspaper titles will start charging for access to their websites this summer."
Murdoch's UK newspaper titles will start losing readership at their websites this summer.
News agency Dow Jones Newswires is suing an online news distributor based on US law's controversial 'hot news' doctrine. The court-created right came into being in 1918 and has recently been revived in internet cases. Dow Jones says that Briefing.com breaches its copyright by copying its headlines and stories and selling them …
Unfortuately, the newspapers are in a similar situation to the recording industry - The introduction of the internet has changed consumer expectations and no amount of litigation is going to change that.
I feel far more sympathy for newspapers as (in my opinion) they weren't trying to abuse their position - At least not as badly as the recording industry.
It's simply a case of evolve or die.
...yes they do.
They force the brain deads to vote for whichever party is going to give Murdoch the best deal (hence the current suport for the Tories who want to cut the legs from the BBC).
Because most of the people that read Murdochs rags can't read words bigger that TITS or 38DD, they will vote for whatever they are told to vote for, so yes, they do abuse their postition.
If that were actually the situation, they might have a case, but in these days of 24 hour rolling news, instead what we have is "publish or broadcast first and *then* check to see if the facts are correct" because the important thing is being "first with the story" even if it isn't accurate...
The other news outlets meant in the article are most likely outlets like Reuters, AP, ANP, etc. National or International news outlets that are used by most newspapers to actually gather the news bulletins upon which newspapers write their own stuff.
On the other hand, there are those self-investigated stories that are often times held back by editors in chief for fear of not being acurate or not upholding to actual evidence. Which will cause blackmail of liability suits.
Shooting from the hips in the news(!) world is very bad practise, and I can hardly imagine Mr Murdoch using that kind of approach in his empire.
Of course, UK type tabloids are a whole different story. They simply report whether someone farted or showed their t*ts. That's hardly news, though is it?
"so a website C&P's the headlines and posts them on their delivery system ! and Google does what exactly!"
Murdoch keeps spouting that Google are stealing his content, but he knows if he blocks them he will lose huge amounts of traffic to his sites.
You'll probably find this will be a test case and if he is successful he will go after Google next.
He doesn't want them to stop doing it, he wants to be paid for it.
Can we have an Icon for Evil Murdoch please?
Murdoch wants to charge google for sending all that folk over onto his sites?
He really thinks he's gonna get away with that, doesn't he? Murdoch 'should' pay google for the generated traffic, if one of them has to pay!!!!!!
How stupid, and no, I do not really think google is that evil ... Microsoft is a far greater danger to the free world than google will ever be. Oh, and I know bill looks nothing like Rupert the bear, but it's the closest I could find - poor old Steve looks nothing like him.
Quite why anyone would want to purchase or be interested in the what is in fact and/or fiction the Past, rather than concentrating on and demanding news of the Future, tells me more than enough than is needed to be known about Man's debilitating ignorance and arrogant stupidity, and especially so whenever the organ grinder monkeys would defend the situation and deny the proposition.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019