Mercedes Bunz, Guardian; Huffington hits out at Murdoch speech:
Huffington Post founder says aggregation is 'part of the web's DNA' and tells old media organisations to 'get real'
"Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington has accused Rupert Murdoch of confusing aggregation with misappropriation following his Federal Trade Commission speech claiming "There's no such thing as a free news story".
Huffington began in a humorous vein: "First of all, I would like to quote my great grandmother who likes to say: 'Never bet on a company that takes itself out of Google.'"
Then she introduced the audience to the three topics of her speech: "One, desperate times lead to desperate metaphors; two, desperate times lead to desperate revenue models; three, desperate times desperately call for better journalism."
She added: "I've talked about how the future of journalism will be a hybrid future where traditional media players embrace the ways of new media (including transparency, interactivity, and immediacy) and new media companies adopt the best practices of old media (including fairness, accuracy, and high-impact investigative journalism)...
After these statements she finished her attack saying: "And now they want to call 'Time out!' and start questioning 'fair use' – have you heard that? – as well as praising the first amendment. Basically they are attacking new media for being, well, new and transformational and there to stay. Get real you guys, the world has changed.""
Showing posts with label News Corp.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News Corp.. Show all posts
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
For whom the net tolls; Guardian, 11/10/09
Cory Doctorow, Guardian; For whom the net tolls:
Rupert Murdoch wants to remake the web as a toll both, with him in the collector's seat, but the net won't shift to his will
"What, exactly, is Rupert Murdoch thinking? First, he announces that all of Newscorp's websites will erect paywalls like the one employed by the Wall Street Journal (however, Rupert managed to get the details of the WSJ's wall wrong – no matter, he's a "big picture" guy). Then, he announced that Google and other search engines were "plagiarists" who "rip off" Newscorp's content, and that once the paywalls are up (a date that keeps slipping farther into the future, almost as though the best IT people work for someone who's not Rupert "I Hate the Net" Murdoch!) he'll be blocking Google and the other "parasites" from his sites, making all of Newscorp's properties invisible to search engines. Then, as a kind of loonie cherry atop a banana split with extra crazy sauce, Rupert announces that "fair use is illegal" and he'll be abolishing it shortly.
What is he thinking? We'll never know, of course, but I have a theory...
Now, what about fair use being illegal? At a guess, I'd say that some Richelieu figure in Newscorp's legal department has been passing some evil whispers to Rupert about international copyright law. Specifically, about the Berne Convention – a centuries-old copyright accord that's been integrated into many other trade agreements, including the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and its "three-step test" for whether a copyright exemption is legal.
Copyright exemptions are all the rights that copyright gives to the public, not to creators or publishers, and "three-steps" describes the principles that Berne signatory countries must look to when crafting their own copyright exemptions.
Three steps limits copyright exemptions to:
1. certain special cases …
2. which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and …
3. do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.
Now, arguably, many countries fair dealing or fair use rules don't meet these criteria (the US rules on VCRs, book lending, cable TV, jukeboxes, radio plays, and a hundred other cases are favourite villains in these discussions; but many European rules are also difficult to cram into the three-steps frame). And I've certainly heard many corporate law mover-shakers announce that with the right lawsuit, you could get trade courts to force this country or that country to get rid of its fair dealing or fair use provisions.
But this view of international copyright lacks an appreciation of the subtleties of international trade, namely: big, powerful countries can ignore trade courts and treaty rules when it's in their interest to do so, because no one can afford to stop trading with them.
The US gets $1 trillion added to its GDP every year thanks to liberal fair use rules. If the WTO says that it has to ban video recorders or eliminate compulsory licenses on music compositions (or shut down search engines!), it will just ignore the WTO. The US is an old hand at ignoring the United Nations. The US owes billions to the UN in back-dues and shows no signs of repaying it. The fact that the WTO looks upon the US with disapproval will cause precisely nothing to happen in the American legislative branch.
And, if the WTO tries to get other countries to embargo the US, it will quickly learn that China and other factory states can't afford to stop shipping plastic gewgaws, pocket-sized electronics, and cheap textiles to America. And furthermore, other countries can't afford to boycott China – because those countries can't afford to allow a plastic gewgaw and cheap textile gap to emerge with America.
Of course, the elimination of fair use would present many problems to Newscorp – because, as with all media companies, Newscorp relies heavily on copyright exemptions to produce its own programming. I'm sure that if there's a lawyer who's put this idea into Rupert's head that she knows this, but I'm likewise sure that she's perfectly willing to expand the legal department to the thousands of lawyers it would take to negotiate permission for all those uses if fair use goes away. Especially if all those lawyers report to her.
That's my theory: Rupert isn't a technophobic loon who will send his empire to the bottom of the ocean while waging war on search engines. Instead, he's an out-of-touch moustache-twirler who's set his sights on remaking the web as a toll booth (with him in the collector's seat), and his plan hinges on a touchingly naive approach to geopolitics. Either way, old Rupert shows every sign of degenerating into a colourful Howard Hughes figure in a housecoat, demanding that reality shift to his will."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-charging-for-internet
Rupert Murdoch wants to remake the web as a toll both, with him in the collector's seat, but the net won't shift to his will
"What, exactly, is Rupert Murdoch thinking? First, he announces that all of Newscorp's websites will erect paywalls like the one employed by the Wall Street Journal (however, Rupert managed to get the details of the WSJ's wall wrong – no matter, he's a "big picture" guy). Then, he announced that Google and other search engines were "plagiarists" who "rip off" Newscorp's content, and that once the paywalls are up (a date that keeps slipping farther into the future, almost as though the best IT people work for someone who's not Rupert "I Hate the Net" Murdoch!) he'll be blocking Google and the other "parasites" from his sites, making all of Newscorp's properties invisible to search engines. Then, as a kind of loonie cherry atop a banana split with extra crazy sauce, Rupert announces that "fair use is illegal" and he'll be abolishing it shortly.
What is he thinking? We'll never know, of course, but I have a theory...
Now, what about fair use being illegal? At a guess, I'd say that some Richelieu figure in Newscorp's legal department has been passing some evil whispers to Rupert about international copyright law. Specifically, about the Berne Convention – a centuries-old copyright accord that's been integrated into many other trade agreements, including the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and its "three-step test" for whether a copyright exemption is legal.
Copyright exemptions are all the rights that copyright gives to the public, not to creators or publishers, and "three-steps" describes the principles that Berne signatory countries must look to when crafting their own copyright exemptions.
Three steps limits copyright exemptions to:
1. certain special cases …
2. which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and …
3. do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.
Now, arguably, many countries fair dealing or fair use rules don't meet these criteria (the US rules on VCRs, book lending, cable TV, jukeboxes, radio plays, and a hundred other cases are favourite villains in these discussions; but many European rules are also difficult to cram into the three-steps frame). And I've certainly heard many corporate law mover-shakers announce that with the right lawsuit, you could get trade courts to force this country or that country to get rid of its fair dealing or fair use provisions.
But this view of international copyright lacks an appreciation of the subtleties of international trade, namely: big, powerful countries can ignore trade courts and treaty rules when it's in their interest to do so, because no one can afford to stop trading with them.
The US gets $1 trillion added to its GDP every year thanks to liberal fair use rules. If the WTO says that it has to ban video recorders or eliminate compulsory licenses on music compositions (or shut down search engines!), it will just ignore the WTO. The US is an old hand at ignoring the United Nations. The US owes billions to the UN in back-dues and shows no signs of repaying it. The fact that the WTO looks upon the US with disapproval will cause precisely nothing to happen in the American legislative branch.
And, if the WTO tries to get other countries to embargo the US, it will quickly learn that China and other factory states can't afford to stop shipping plastic gewgaws, pocket-sized electronics, and cheap textiles to America. And furthermore, other countries can't afford to boycott China – because those countries can't afford to allow a plastic gewgaw and cheap textile gap to emerge with America.
Of course, the elimination of fair use would present many problems to Newscorp – because, as with all media companies, Newscorp relies heavily on copyright exemptions to produce its own programming. I'm sure that if there's a lawyer who's put this idea into Rupert's head that she knows this, but I'm likewise sure that she's perfectly willing to expand the legal department to the thousands of lawyers it would take to negotiate permission for all those uses if fair use goes away. Especially if all those lawyers report to her.
That's my theory: Rupert isn't a technophobic loon who will send his empire to the bottom of the ocean while waging war on search engines. Instead, he's an out-of-touch moustache-twirler who's set his sights on remaking the web as a toll booth (with him in the collector's seat), and his plan hinges on a touchingly naive approach to geopolitics. Either way, old Rupert shows every sign of degenerating into a colourful Howard Hughes figure in a housecoat, demanding that reality shift to his will."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-charging-for-internet
Monday, November 9, 2009
Murdoch could block Google searches entirely; Guardian, 11/09/09
Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; Murdoch could block Google searches entirely:
"Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.
In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.
In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.
"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said...
Murdoch added that he did not agree with the idea that search engines fell under "fair use" rules - an argument many aggregator websites use as part of their legal justification for reproducing excerpts of news stories online.
"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... but we'll take that slowly.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google
"Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.
In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.
In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.
"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said...
Murdoch added that he did not agree with the idea that search engines fell under "fair use" rules - an argument many aggregator websites use as part of their legal justification for reproducing excerpts of news stories online.
"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... but we'll take that slowly.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Hulu to charge for content, but needs to sweeten the deal; Ars Technica, 10/23/09
Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Hulu to charge for content, but needs to sweeten the deal:
Would you start paying Hulu for content that you previously got for free? The company's backers sure hope so, and they want to stick some content behind a paywall as early as 2010. "It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online," said one exec.
"The free-for-all days of Hulu may soon be over. News Corp. executives indicated (again) this week that the free, ad-supported model wasn't bringing home enough bacon and that the company was preparing to start charging users for content as soon as 2010. This news comes as a harsh reality check to dedicated Hulu fans, and Hulu will have to offer them more than just a browser-based stream if the company wants people to start forking over money.
"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey said at the B&C OnScreen summit this week. "Hulu concurs with that; it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.""
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/10/hulu-will-have-to-add-benefits-if-it-wants-to-start-charging.ars
Would you start paying Hulu for content that you previously got for free? The company's backers sure hope so, and they want to stick some content behind a paywall as early as 2010. "It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online," said one exec.
"The free-for-all days of Hulu may soon be over. News Corp. executives indicated (again) this week that the free, ad-supported model wasn't bringing home enough bacon and that the company was preparing to start charging users for content as soon as 2010. This news comes as a harsh reality check to dedicated Hulu fans, and Hulu will have to offer them more than just a browser-based stream if the company wants people to start forking over money.
"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey said at the B&C OnScreen summit this week. "Hulu concurs with that; it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.""
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/10/hulu-will-have-to-add-benefits-if-it-wants-to-start-charging.ars
Monday, October 19, 2009
ACTA Text Revealed To 42 Select Insiders; Intellectual Property Watch, 10/15/09
Intellectual Property Watch; ACTA Text Revealed To 42 Select Insiders:
"In the weeks leading up to the next negotiating session (first week of November in Seoul) of the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, 42 Washington, DC-area insiders, mostly from industry, were invited by the United States Trade Representatives to see copies of its text on the internet, according to a new report.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the USTR, think-tank Knowledge Ecology International received copies [pdf] of the non-disclosure agreements the insiders signed prior to viewing the ACTA text.
The list included several members of software industry group the Business Software Alliance, online auction site eBay, internet media giant Google, conservative media conglomerate News Corporation, and nongovernmental group Public Knowledge, among others.
A full list of names of those who saw the draft, and their affiliations, is available on the KEI website here."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/15/acta-text-revealed-to-42-select-insiders/
"In the weeks leading up to the next negotiating session (first week of November in Seoul) of the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, 42 Washington, DC-area insiders, mostly from industry, were invited by the United States Trade Representatives to see copies of its text on the internet, according to a new report.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the USTR, think-tank Knowledge Ecology International received copies [pdf] of the non-disclosure agreements the insiders signed prior to viewing the ACTA text.
The list included several members of software industry group the Business Software Alliance, online auction site eBay, internet media giant Google, conservative media conglomerate News Corporation, and nongovernmental group Public Knowledge, among others.
A full list of names of those who saw the draft, and their affiliations, is available on the KEI website here."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/15/acta-text-revealed-to-42-select-insiders/
Sunday, August 23, 2009
News Corp 'in talks on web news consortium'; Guardina, 8/21/09
Jason Deans via Guardian; News Corp 'in talks on web news consortium':
"News Corporation executives have met counterparts from rival newspapers including the New York Times and Washington Post to discuss forming a consortium to charge for online news content, according to a US report today.
Jonathan Miller, News Corp's chief digital officer, is believed to have talked to executives from the Times and Post, along with other major US newspaper publishers including Hearst and Tribune, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The meetings, held in recent weeks, were to discuss forming a consortium that would charge for news content on the web and mobile devices, reported the LA Times, which is published by Tribune.
Earlier this month the News Corp chairman and chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, revealed that the company planned to start charging for content on all its news websites in the US, UK and elsewhere in the next year.
"Quality journalism is not cheap," said Murdoch. "The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites."
Murdoch added that he had completed a review of the possibility of charging and that he was willing to take the risk of leading the industry towards a pay-per-view model: "I believe that if we're successful, we'll be followed fast by other media."...
He accepted that there could be a need for furious litigation to prevent stories and photographs being copied elsewhere: "We'll be asserting our copyright at every point."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/21/news-corp-online-news-consortium
"News Corporation executives have met counterparts from rival newspapers including the New York Times and Washington Post to discuss forming a consortium to charge for online news content, according to a US report today.
Jonathan Miller, News Corp's chief digital officer, is believed to have talked to executives from the Times and Post, along with other major US newspaper publishers including Hearst and Tribune, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The meetings, held in recent weeks, were to discuss forming a consortium that would charge for news content on the web and mobile devices, reported the LA Times, which is published by Tribune.
Earlier this month the News Corp chairman and chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, revealed that the company planned to start charging for content on all its news websites in the US, UK and elsewhere in the next year.
"Quality journalism is not cheap," said Murdoch. "The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites."
Murdoch added that he had completed a review of the possibility of charging and that he was willing to take the risk of leading the industry towards a pay-per-view model: "I believe that if we're successful, we'll be followed fast by other media."...
He accepted that there could be a need for furious litigation to prevent stories and photographs being copied elsewhere: "We'll be asserting our copyright at every point."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/21/news-corp-online-news-consortium
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Murdoch closes paper as free news squeeze begins; CNN.com, 8/20/09
CNN.com; Murdoch closes paper as free news squeeze begins:
"Rupert Murdoch's News International, which plans to begin charging for online content, said Thursday it was to close its free London newspaper as part of cost-cutting measures.
The Londonpaper, which employs 60 editorial staff, will cease publication within a month, according to a statement...
Rupert Murdoch said earlier this year his News Corp. media empire would begin charging for online content on its portfolio of titles including The Wall Street Journal, the London Times and the New York Post.
"We are now in the midst of an epochal debate over the value of content and it is clear to many newspapers that the current model is malfunctioning," he told analysts in May."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/20/murdoch.paper/index.html
"Rupert Murdoch's News International, which plans to begin charging for online content, said Thursday it was to close its free London newspaper as part of cost-cutting measures.
The Londonpaper, which employs 60 editorial staff, will cease publication within a month, according to a statement...
Rupert Murdoch said earlier this year his News Corp. media empire would begin charging for online content on its portfolio of titles including The Wall Street Journal, the London Times and the New York Post.
"We are now in the midst of an epochal debate over the value of content and it is clear to many newspapers that the current model is malfunctioning," he told analysts in May."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/20/murdoch.paper/index.html
Monday, April 6, 2009
Fox Censors News Amid 'X-Men' Piracy Imbroglio -- Reporter in Hot Water, Wired.com Threat Level, 4/6/09
Via Wired.com Threat Level: Fox Censors News Amid 'X-Men' Piracy Imbroglio -- Reporter in Hot Water:
"Fox News, owned by News Corp., announced Sunday it had "terminated" the popular freelance writer because he wrote a review of a pirated copy of the flick that began making the rounds on BitTorrent sites lasts week. The firing, which is now in dispute, came days after News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch called Yahoo and Google copyright thieves.
The X-Men review has also been removed from the site. (Copies of the review are linked here.)"
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/fox-censors-new.html
"Fox News, owned by News Corp., announced Sunday it had "terminated" the popular freelance writer because he wrote a review of a pirated copy of the flick that began making the rounds on BitTorrent sites lasts week. The firing, which is now in dispute, came days after News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch called Yahoo and Google copyright thieves.
The X-Men review has also been removed from the site. (Copies of the review are linked here.)"
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/fox-censors-new.html
Roger Friedman's Leaked "Wolverine" Review Gets Him In Trouble With Fox News, News Corp; Huffington Post, 4/5/09
Via Huffington Post: Roger Friedman's Leaked "Wolverine" Review Gets Him In Trouble With Fox News, News Corp:
"Friedman's FoxNews.com column Thursday — since deleted — was a review of "Wolverine" that studio bosses viewed as an implicit endorsement of movie piracy, according to Deadline Hollywood Daily's Nikki Finke.
In the column, Friedman marveled at the ease of viewing a pirated movie: "It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer," he wrote.
A News Corp statement Sunday (below) indicated that he had been "promptly terminated," which Friedman denied to ABCNews.com...
News Corp statement:
"Roger Friedman's views in no way reflect the views of News Corporation. We, along with 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, have been a consistent leader in the fight against piracy and have zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy. When we advised Fox News of the facts they took immediate action, removed the post, and promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/roger-friedman-fired-by-f_n_183293.html
"Friedman's FoxNews.com column Thursday — since deleted — was a review of "Wolverine" that studio bosses viewed as an implicit endorsement of movie piracy, according to Deadline Hollywood Daily's Nikki Finke.
In the column, Friedman marveled at the ease of viewing a pirated movie: "It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer," he wrote.
A News Corp statement Sunday (below) indicated that he had been "promptly terminated," which Friedman denied to ABCNews.com...
News Corp statement:
"Roger Friedman's views in no way reflect the views of News Corporation. We, along with 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, have been a consistent leader in the fight against piracy and have zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy. When we advised Fox News of the facts they took immediate action, removed the post, and promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/roger-friedman-fired-by-f_n_183293.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)