"There is a collective consciousness among content creators that they are bearing the costs and that others are reaping some of the revenues. There is no doubt that certain websites are best described as parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the Internet."
First Of All If Murdoch really believes that Google is stealing copyrights from his media properties, when in fact Google is sending loads of traffic to his websites.
Apparently, Rupert Murdoch. Either that, or he wants Google to pay him to send his online publications traffic.
The fact is Rupert Murdock gives Google permission to index and use his media properties written materials. All of his web sites do not block search engine web spiders from crawling his web site.
Then all Rupert Murdock has to do is put two tiny lines of code at his website that blocks all search engine spiders.
If Rupert were to put this two lines of code at the Wall Street Journal no search engine in the world would visit the WSJ server.
The dirty little secret is that Rupert pays his Wall Street Journal techies a lot of money to constantly tweak the settings and design of their home page in hopes of attracting more aggregating search-engine robots.
Because despite the hot air billowing out of Murdock's pie hole, Google drives traffic to his news sites. A hell of a lot of lot of traffic.
Google and other search engines could always drop from its index the publishers like Rupert Murdock who expect to be compensated and send all that traffic instead to those who understand that news aggregating is helping, not hurting.
If Murdoch and other newspapers 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.
Whether news aggregation is theft or a protected fair use under copyright law is a matter of unsettled law.
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.
When failed Greenwich Time Editor Bruce Hunter got Hearst Newspaper's corporate lawyers to attack Greenwich Roundup, because he has criticized Hunter's poor performance.
Hearst Newspapers corporate lawyers backed down when Greenwich Roundup said "Let's Go To Court" and further pointed out that "There's not a rock-solid ruling on the question." about fair use.
Blaming one of the only pro-consumer features in copyright law isn't going to make it better, either. Newspapers need to recognizing reality and start dealing with it in a positive and constructive way.
Bloggers have the right to political speech. We're working with a number of other public-interest organizations to ensure that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) doesn't gag bloggers' election-related speech. We argue that the FEC should adopt a presumption against the regulation of election-related speech by individuals on the Internet, and interpret the existing media exemption to apply to online media outlets that provide news reporting and commentary regarding an election -- including blogs. (See our joint comments to the FEC
Bloggers have the right to stay anonymous. We're continuing our battle to protect and preserve your constitutional right to anonymous speech online, including providing a guide to help you with strategies for keeping your identity private when you blog. (See How to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else).)
Bloggers have freedom from liability for hosting speech the same way other web hosts do. We're working to strengthen Section 230 liability protections under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) while spreading the word that bloggers are entitled to them. (See Barrett v. Rosenthal.)
June 2005 Comments to the FEC on Bloggers' Freedom of Speech
Please send yourcomments to GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com or click on the comments link at the end of this post.