Showing posts with label Rupert Murdoch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rupert Murdoch. Show all posts

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Murdoch renews hostilities with Google over 'contempt' for copyright; Telegraph, 9/18/14

Christopher Williams, Telegraph; Murdoch renews hostilities with Google over 'contempt' for copyright:
" Rupert Murdoch has intervened in a European row over the power of Google, with News Corp accusing the search engine of being "contemptuous of intellectual property" and having "cynical management" that provides "a platform for piracy and the spread of malicious networks".
In a letter to Joaquin Almunia, the European Commissioner at the head of a long-running investigation of allegations that Google abuses its dominance of the web search market to crush competition and exploit publishers, Robert Thomson, chief executive of News Corp launched a scathing attack."

Monday, July 19, 2010

[Podcast] Should Newspapers Charge for Content Online?; NPR's On the Media, 7/16/10

[Podcast] NPR's On the Media; Should Newspapers Charge for Content Online?:

"Should newspapers put up paywalls? Pro-paywallers, like Rupert Murdoch, say absolutely! Newspapers must charge for costly reporting in order to survive! Anti-paywallers argue that papers can't afford to shut out the open and free web. Alan Murray of the (paywall-ed) Wall Street Journal and Alan Rusbridger, editor of the (free) Guardian, discuss."

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/07/16/03

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Lawsuit accuses Fox News of copyright infringement; Yahoo News, 1/8/09

Anthony McCartney, Yahoo News; Lawsuit accuses Fox News of copyright infringement:

"A former adviser to Michael Jackson sued Fox News on Thursday for copyright infringement, claiming the cable channel aired portions of an interview with the singer's ex-wife without proper payment or permission.

The lawsuit in federal court by producer F. Marc Schaffel seeks damages from Fox News for airing portions of the 2003 interview with Debbie Rowe after Jackson's death in June. The filing states the interview made up a significant amount of Geraldo Rivera's July 5 show.

Schaffel, who once sued Jackson and won a judgment against him, owns the copyright to the Rowe interview. Portions of the interview were aired on the Fox network in 2003 as part of a special intended to balance out a damaging interview aired earlier that year.

A spokesman for Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said the channel does not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit states Fox News has claimed a "fair use" right to air the footage as part of news programming.

The filing chides Murdoch, who has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corp. and others for copyright infringement because he claims they are stealing content from his company's newspapers.

"Fox sanctimoniously operates unencumbered by the very copyright restrictions it seeks to impose on its competitors," the lawsuit states."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_en_ot/us_jackson_interview_lawsuit

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Huffington hits out at Murdoch speech; Guardian, 12/2/09

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.""

Friday, November 20, 2009

Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing; Guardian, 11/19/09

Charles Arthur, Guardian; Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing:

Labour colleagues are concerned business secretary could set precedent that would allow Tories to help Murdoch take on Google

"Lord Mandelson is seeking to amend the laws on copyright to give the government sweeping new powers against people accused of illegal downloading.

But Labour colleagues are concerned that if he succeeds it could give a future Tory government the ability that Rupert Murdoch wants to quash Google.

In a letter to Harriet Harman, the leader of the house and head of the committee responsible for determining changes to such legislation, Mandelson says he is "writing to seek your urgent agreement" to changes to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act "for the purposes of facilitating prevention or reduction of online copyright infringement".

By writing to Harman, the business secretary is seeking to get the change made through a "statutory instrument" – in effect, an update to the existing bill that the government can push through using its parliamentary majority.

That can be done with the minimum of parliamentary time, which is already at a premium.

The letter, which is circulating inside the government, comes as ministers prepare to publish the digital economy bill at 7.30am tomorrow. That is expected to set out a "three strikes" policy under which people who are found to be illicitly downloading copyrighted material have their internet connections withdrawn after three warnings.

Internet service providers have warned that the scheme is unworkable and unlawful.

The proposed alteration to the Copyright Act would create a new offence of downloading material that infringes copyright laws, as well as giving new powers or rights to "protect" rights holders such as record companies and movie studios – and, controversially, conferring powers on "any person as may be specified" to help cut down online infringement of copyright.

The changes proposed seem small – but are enormously wideranging, given both the breadth of even minor copyright infringement online, where photographs and text are copied with little regard to ownership, and the complexity of ownership.

Mandelson says in his letter that he is concerned about "cyberlockers" – websites that offer users private storage spaces whose contents can be shared by passing a web link via email.

"These can be used entirely legitimately, but recently rights holders have pointed to them as being used for illegal use," Mandelson writes in the letter.

But the proposal to alter the Copyright Act in this way has caused alarm within government, where some fear that an incoming Tory administration could use it to curry favour with Murdoch, head of the News International publishing group.

"They've seen that file-sharing is essentially unpoliceable, but the net effect is that a future secretary of state could change copyright law as they see fit," said one Labour insider.

In his letter, Mandelson sets out the expected reaction from the three groups who would be affected by the changes: rights holders such as record companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and consumers.

"I expect rights holders to welcome this and to support it. ISPs are likely to be neutral until it is clear what effect it will have on them in terms of costs." Consumer groups "are likely to oppose [the move] but will see it may lead to further unquantifiable measures against infringing consumers."

He also expects "a great deal of scrutiny" of the idea in parliament.

Murdoch has recently said that he believes that copyright is being abused, particularly by organisations such as Google, which uses short extracts from online newspapers to create its Google News page, and the BBC, which he has accused of "stealing from newspapers".

Earlier this month Murdoch was vituperative about how search engines have aggregated news. "The people who simply just pick up everything and run with it – steal our stories, we say they steal our stories – they just take them," he said. "That's Google, that's Microsoft, that's Ask.com, a whole lot of people ... They shouldn't have had it free all the time, and I think we've been asleep."

By giving the business secretary the power to amend the Copyright Act at will, Labour fears Mandelson could be creating a Trojan horse that under a Tory administration would allow Murdoch to be rewarded for his support for David Cameron over Gordon Brown, for example by making it illegal to use such extracts from a news site for profit.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business said the department could not comment on correspondence between ministers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/19/mandelson-copyright-filesharing-murdoch-google

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Murdoch threatens to sue BBC; Guardian, 11/10/09

Roy Greenslade, Guardian; Murdoch threatens to sue BBC:

"Further to yesterday's story about Rupert Murdoch's search engine sabre-rattling, Murdoch could block Google searches entirely, he also launched yet another assault on the BBC.

During the Sky News Australia interview, Murdoch was asked how he will be able to make his plan work to charge for all News Corporation-owned news websites when the likes of the BBC and others internationally provided free news content on its website.

"But we are better," he replied. "If you look at them, most of their stuff is stolen from the newspapers now, and we'll be suing them for copyright.

"They will have to spend a lot more money on a lot more reporters to cover the world when they can't steal from newspapers.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-bbc

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

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

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

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

Monday, April 6, 2009

Murdoch Calls Google, Yahoo Copyright Thieves — Is He Right?; Wired.com Threat Level, 4/3/09

Via Wired.com Threat Level: Murdoch Calls Google, Yahoo Copyright Thieves — Is He Right?:

"But whether search-engine news aggregation is theft or a protected fair use under copyright law is unclear, even as Google and Yahoo profit tremendously from linking to news...

Better yet, if Murdoch and Zell are so set on monetizing their web content, they should sue the search engines and claim copyright violations in a bid to get the engines to pay for the content.
The outcome of such a lawsuit is far from clear.

It's unsettled whether search engines have a valid fair use claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The news headlines are copied verbatim, as are some of the snippets that go along.

Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that "There's not a rock-solid ruling on the question.""

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/murdoch-says-go.html

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