Newsmakers: Be careful what you wish for

Newsmakers: Be careful what you wish for

Summary: At the World Media Summit, Tom Curley and Rupert Murdoch took turns bashing Google over their klepto antics and ruthless news stealing behavior. They have been stealing their content for too long, and it's about time they paid up.

TOPICS: Google

At the World Media Summit, Tom Curley and Rupert Murdoch took turns bashing Google over their klepto antics and ruthless news stealing behavior. They have been stealing their content for too long, and it's about time they paid up.

The truth is, they can prevent Google from stealing from them any time they want -- but they don't. They simply whine and complain about how Google uses their content for Google News, and makes huge profit from it (though I haven't been able to find a single advertisement on Google News anywhere).

Why would they complain? I am willing to bet Google has been their main source of traffic for a really long time. This is the classic "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" situation that has the potential to severely backfire.

Imagine this: Instead of Google waiting for News Corp and the AP to modify their robots.txt file to make Google ignore them, Google does it themselves. I think Google should call their bluff and remove them from the index completely. That would surely stop their complaining, right?

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Without Google they get no traffic

    It does not take a rocket scientist to know that without Google, most of this news sites would probably have little to now traffic at all.

    So how is Google stealing from them? Since when is sending customers to your door a bad thing?
    • Use a little brain matter wacko. If there is no Google news then...

      users would simply go to the news provider's website. Who needs Google anyway?
      • Who needs google? Those who got a life need it!

        As to the rest of you I have no idea.
        The Mentalist
        • People with life or Google butt kissers like you?

          People don't need Google to have a life. Maybe mental cases do? Well, you can answer that I believe.
      • Or they'd go to a different provider.

        One that [i]does [/i]appear on the aggregate news.
  • Without the news providers there's no Google news...

    Without Google news, people would go directly to the providers' websites. So who's benefiting here again? Certainly not the providers.
    • Genius, pure Genius!

      Patent that idea man, go do it, fast or you'll regret it for the rest of your life.

      Just wait til people find out they can bypass google and go directly to websites, they'll save loads of time... and money, all thanks to your brilliant, no not brilliant Genius idea.

      Don't forget to patent it man or someone will do it and rip you off of your much deserved profits.
      The Mentalist
  • Would you like to bet...

    ...that if Google unilaterally removed NewsCorp and the AP from their aggregation that these two crybabies would be filing a lawsuit in very short order?

    I don't know whether Murdoch has gone senile or just stupid. Either way, he'd look a lot smarter if he'd just STFU.
  • RE: Newsmakers: Be careful what you wish for

    Not to mention that AP and NewsCorp probably run Google Adsense on their websites.

    Oh the irony...
    • PROBABLY??

      They have been for a while... like since 2006:

      "The integration of Google's services including consistent search navigation across Fox Interactive Media's network of properties is slated to begin in the fourth quarter 2006 and will provide users with access to Google's industry leading search capabilities as well as text and display advertising from its global advertiser base.

      Under the terms of the agreement, Google will be obligated to make guaranteed minimum revenue share payments to Fox Interactive Media of $900 million based on Fox achieving certain traffic and other commitments. These guaranteed minimum revenue share payments are expected to be made over the period beginning in the first quarter of 2007 and ending in the second quarter of 2010."

      Yup. I found it by googling.
  • Totally silly

    1. Google pays to license AP content, they don't just pull it for free "cause it's on the net."
    2. AP is just a content aggregator themselves, so this is an entertaining pot-calling-kettle claim.
    3. This is mainly the AP looking to get into bed with Microsoft in the "Google vs Microsoft" wars, so blanket claims about how putting their content on the Web is bad is 'tarded (
    4. AP and Fox deliberately push out their content to Google and aggregators of course, like everyone does.,,

    All this boils down to public disinformation designed to provide them negotiating leverage to get an additional chunk of money out of Google.
  • Make the news links ads

    Google should remove their content.

    Then if they want it displayed on Google news
    again, Google could then charge them a click
    through rate since they are now "advertising"
    their content for them on Google news.

    Everyone wins, Google is getting advertising
    money and no one is getting their content
    "stolen" since they are paying for a advert.
    Darc Sentor