Rupert Murdoch: linking is stealing

Blames Google, Yahoo and the like


In a speech on the future of newspapers, media baron and Mr. Burns prototype Rupert Murdoch said that Google and Yahoo “steal all our copyright… not steal, but take.” His point is that these search sites re-print and link to news stories, and then get the hits and advertising money that should rightfully belong to the original publications. See below for the, um, link.

Wired Blogs

Filed under:

Rupert Murdoch: linking is stealing

  1. This rings true. So what do we do?

  2. I really wish people like Rupert Murdoch would do some research before they make a statement.
    Unless you have an agreement with google news. Google will never display your full article. They link to articles with a header, short excerpt and photo. If someone wants to read the full article then they are linked to the site that the article sits on. (i.e. Washington post etc)

    If anything Google news will help INCREASE your sites traffic if one of your articles is listed.

    • Oh my. You make it sound like you know more about intelletual property laws and news copyright laws that RUPERT MURDOCH!. whoa. Even I’m not that arrogant! Can I bring you down a peg and will my post remain? See this is my content, what I’m typing here belongs to me, and your magazine is publishing it for me. It’s an agreement. By the terms of the contract, if you delete my writing herein, you will have implited that I have written something offensive (a broad term). Now, if this happens, and only you and I know it, I will feel the deletion as a slur to my name and character cause Truemuse, or Karen Krisfalusi, is Googlable. Maclean’s publishes this comment instantly, and googles crawler finds it and republishes it soon after. How much control is there for me, the writer, the owner of this content, to pull my writing from publication? NONE! Maclean’s can pull it, Google can cache it and republish it as many times as ‘Truemuse’ or ‘Karen Krisfalusi’ is searched. So Jonathan McKinnell, is that fair? What do I gain from the publication of this comment? Am I pushing your ‘link’, am I helping to push Rupert Murdoch’s interview, who am I servicing, in this writing? Why don’t I have as much control as you over the publication of my writing? How exploitive is the contract? Did you ask yourself those questions, cause I’m quite sure ‘ole Rupert Murdoch has mulled them all over and what he says is TRUE. His Wall Street Journal publishes writing that it pays for. There is a contract there between Rupert and a journalist. But then Rupert sees that writing republished (in part and in full) by google. It is cached by google and the copy, the republication, of the Wall Street Journal might be read by someone long after the link dies, and perhaps long after Rupert himself has killed online publication of it. What if Rupert wants to retract the writing he paid for a published? How is easy is that to do? What if Rupert is responsible for retracting stories and yet they keep being read?

      Your point, that the extra push is always welcome, is not very solid. Publishers and writers and artists and musicians and everyone, me, the blog commentor, wants control over their own content. They also like google to republish it sometimes, but they want more control over how google does that. That is what is true. So what google does could be seen, don’t you think, to be less democratic than what the web really should be?

      • I don’t understand the logic of this. If you want selective sharing, then don’t put the content on the internet.

  3. Murdoch owns myspace, which is one of the worst offenders of copyright infringement. Once he figures out how to control it on his own properties, perhaps he can let the rest of the world know.

  4. The problem for Murdoch is straightforward and it is related to Google and search engines; people used to buy newspapers to find out stuff, to advertise stuff, communicate and so on. and that function was a large part of their revenue. Google, craigslist and all the rest of the internet search and listing schemes gets all that now. of course, he has no argument, but no reason not to shake his fists at them!

Sign in to comment.