Is Microsoft Behind Murdoch’s War Against Google?
According to a report in the Financial Times, Microsoft has approached News Corp. about de-listing their sites from Google, which would be an apparent escalation in the search engine wars.
It appears that Microsoft isn’t limiting this to just News Corp either. It’s reported that they are approaching numerous online publishers and offering to pay them for content if they delist from Google. One publisher approached by Microsoft said this is all about “Microsoft hurting Google’s margin”.
Microsoft’s new search engine Bing is their latest attempt to give Google a run for the money. Here are the October search engine market shares, and as you can see Microsoft has a long way to go to beat out Google:
Bing has increased at the same rate that Google has, but what is interesting is that it appears their shares are coming from Yahoo. In July of this year Microsoft and Yahoo entered a deal for Yahoo to use the Bing search engine on their sites in exchange for a split on advertising revenue, so Yahoo’s decrease in the market share also directly effects Microsoft.
Of course the whole basis of this plan depends upon the belief that Google is actually “stealing” content, something that is in serious debate in both the tech and legal worlds. If this war does escalate and end up in the courts then we could finally see a ruling come out on exactly what the “fair use doctrine” covers – something we have been running blind on for years. Given the fact that Google only reproduces the headline and first few words of an article and that this use is both for research and archival purposes, it appears that Google would have a very strong case in the courts. To really solidify their case and put the final nail in the coffin of this war, Google could remove advertising from the news section of their search engine, which is the only questionable part of “fair use” when it comes to their service. Even better would be for Google to spin off the news part of their search engine and make it a non-profit partnered with Google. Google can surely afford it, and this would destroy any battle Microsoft or News Corp may be planning.
Whatever happens with this, it is clear that Murdoch still isn’t set on removing his sites from Google. I just checked again and what I reported a couple of weeks ago still stands – News Corp sites have explicit directions asking Google to index them. This could also be used against the Murdoch/Microsoft plan. What would happen if Google showed that News Corp sites saw a large percentage of their visits originate from Google? I know that they have records of those kind of metrics, and it would be interesting to hear News Corp argue that they didn’t mind Google increasing their online visibility all these years for free.
(cross posted at IntoxiNation)
MS is being monopolistic? The hell you say! BTW, Billy's comment that Google would have a short shelf life made Newsweek's top 10 worst predictions of the decade.
More importantly, they have the dough to win.
The internet and all the issues around it are constantly changing.
Murdoch is insane. He thinks the iternet access is somehow stealing his content? He better be careful what he wishes for. What lesson could he learn if very few wanted to pay for his crud. It might be the best for all of us?
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
You can't steal what is already freely given.
If Google were ignoring the Robots.txt and using fake logins to index and cache content then they might have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise Rupert just needs to update his Robots.txt file to exclude all searches and indexing of his sites and be done with it.
I hope he does, it will be interesting to see how much of his traffic is driven by the search engines.
could be as illusory as their cable ratings if people actually have to pay extra to get to their 'news' online.
Made for each other. I almost want Newscorpt to follow through on this threat. I would never pay for any of their content and could easily live without it. The problem is the second part, if they get other people to also start following that model.
This is all so over my head that I think I may have strained something in my brain as I read the information.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
LoL, I couldn't have said it better. I clicked in to read the replies to try and get a grasp on whats going on. Didn't help.
Good! You can sit over here by me and we'll just fold our hands in our lap and try to learn something. Actually I look pretty good in a dunce cap.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Me too. Huh? I don't really get it.
Google is my homepage because it is simple in design, loads fast, and nothing moves or flashes at me. That's all I know.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Murdoch is complaining that Google is stealing content he owns. Microsoft is egging Murdoch on because Microsoft is competing with Google on, amongst others, the search engine front. Google says that they are merely providing links to Murdoch's content.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Thank you Andy K, that took some of the knots out of the brain cells for me.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
;D
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
What's so hard to get? Corporations collude together to price gouge/control/rape consumers. People love to shout "free market." I don't think they understand that the only markets that are free are only the ones that do not yet exist. Google was able to gain control of a market that didn't exist until about 1995. You want to get rich? You better figure out what new markets are emerging before someone else.
Because one the corporations control it, it's no longer a free market and they can either chose to attempt to control all of it, therefor setting the prices at whatever they want, or once a market is capped, they can collude with other corporations to gouge said market. Welcome to "The World is Corporate." As wages and hours continue to fall, these dang corporations just can't understand why pirates and hackers, many of them actually employees at these companies, would want to steal software.
Google should pull the trigger first. Drop all News Corp papers from their search. Do it on their own terms, don't give them the time to retool and spread the news that they're moving to MS.
People use Google News to scan, and then read up on 2 or 3 articles on a certain topic to get an overview. Who's going to notice that certain papers aren't available when the news is still delivered?
I bet the tea baggers would bitch about it even if most of them don't know how to turn on a computer.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
They didn't chime in on the Napster/file-sharing controversy a few years ago. That was much more easy to understand. I don't think this will gain any traction with them.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Murdoch pulls his data from Google, wingnuts see a decline of crazy rightwing BS in Google results, scream liberal-bias/Obama censorship.
Its all so sadly predictable.
If Google were to pre-emptively stop indexing and serving links to Microsoft and Murdoh Republican web sites, Google would be slapped with a civil lawsuit with an injunction, the claims being that Google is being unfair and motivated by desired to harm Microsoft and Murdoh's Republinazis.
So Google can't just easily stop indexing on their own volition, they certainly *can* pick and choose what they index, of course, but there is always a civil lawsuit looming if they stop indexing content based upon marketing.
After Microsoft/Republinazis demand that Google stop indexing and serving, then once Google stops there's no hope of a civil lawsuit filed by Microsoft/Republinazis winning, obviously. But Microsoft and the right wing domestic loons don't want Google to stop indexing and serving their content until Bing acquires market share and makes doing so financially beneficial.
Sounds like Google needs to file criminal charges against Microsoft and Murdoch.
My opinions only and only mu opinions, as always.
Is that if Google delists Murdoch on their own, then MS won't have to pay Murdoch to request that Google delist Murdoch.
Not sure about this at all, but if MS pays Murdoch to delist from Google, only to offer the same listings on Bing for free then I would think Google has a case against MS with the anti-trust dept. No?
Murdoch meets Microsoft-what a thought.
I've been using Firefox for years now and have been meaning to dump the MS operating system and go with open source.
I think Google actually has a system out now or will soon.
Anyone know about this?
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
when I get off the bus every morning, I walk by a news stand selling copies of USA Today. every morning there's 2 or 3 huge headlines with some basic content underneath that I can read.
if I decide to read more, I put in my 4 quarters or whatever, and buy the damn paper.
this is EXACTLY what Google is doing but on a much much bigger scale. they are like a drunk man walking by every single web page on the internet, glancing at it, and categorizing it.
***
when users put in a google request, they see a link with a short explanation. if users like what they see, they click on it and go directly to the vendor's site.
some vendors have tricks allowing Google to display what users see .. IF THEY PAY .. in a snippet .. but when you click on the link you only see a "please login" or something.
such as the New York Times.
Murdoch needs to initiate a system like the New York Times does if he wants to monitor and secure his content. complaining that sales are down because he allows the whole world to view his data is asinine.
its not unlike gluing his newspaper to the window every day, then suing the window manufacturer because people are standing outside the window reading his paper instead of purchasing their own copy.
Isn't this that great free market these bastards are always going on and on about? They just love the free market until real competition comes on the scene and then they are just fine with the bullshit rules they put into place to rig the game against everyone else.
The American dream isn't dead, but it's assholes like Murdoch who are stealing it from us.
42
Murdoch ignores the fact that the WSJ has an agreement to have its content indexed by Google and indeed to allow Google to link directly to the full text of WSJ articles without any need for the user to have a subscription. This uses a Google offering called First Click Free, which is essentially a form of cloaking. Alex Bennert, the WSJ's SEO specialist, confirmed this arrangement in August at http://networkednews.wordpress.com/2009/08/27... .
Ah, good old-skool Microsoft, competing with business tactics and lawyers instead of products and quality.
Every day I hate Microsoft more.
But isn't this illegal? Microsoft and the right wing domestic loon Murdock can legally demand that Google stop indexing and serving content, however these scumbags aren't going to make such requests until Bing's search engine market share becomes high enough to make such requests financially beneficial. Until then, these god damned scumbags will continue to use Google to divert people to their (microsoft and Republinazi) web sites.
Where are the indictment panels that sought to control the crimes and abuses that Microsoft commits? Why haven't they stopped in and stopped this latest round of right-wing crimes against us?
My opinions only, as always, and only my opinions.
Who would have thunk seeing how well it turned out the last time.
The last time Microsoft got tagged for their behavior, they were fined some insignificant slap-the-wrist fee that amounted to what? Half a day's sales revenues? An hour's worth of sales? Something like that.
It is financially beneficial for criminal corporations to engage in such practices, their ringleaders don't go to prison nearly often enough.
The rich get richer, the rest of us get poorer because *we* must play by the rules. Criminal corporations don't have rules constraining their behavior.
My opinions only and only my opinions, as always.
Bing is a lousy search engine, cumbersome and with an unpleasing to the eye format. Goggle is still best with Cuil for advance searches.
Frank Zappa - Make A Jazz Noise Here
If Newscorp is removed from the best search engine and will only appear for a fee on Microsoft sites, I'd call that the best of both worlds.
http://the-billablog.blogspot.com/
for these greedy bastards. MS sucks ass.
Comments are closed on this entry