A Look At All The Sites Owned By Rupert Murdoch That 'Steal' Content
from the who-ya-gonna-block-now,-rupert? dept
As Rupert Murdoch talks about how he wants to cut off Google, while claiming that aggregator sites are "parasites" and "stealing" from him -- and that fair use would likely be barred by the courts, it seemed like a good time to examine at least some of the sites that are owned by Rupert Murdoch that appear to aggregate content from other sites and which rely on the very same fair use argument. We've mentioned a few in the past, but figured it wouldn't hurt to explore them more thoroughly.Well, let's start with the flagship Wall Street Journal itself. It integrates its own "aggregator" with headlines and links to other stories. For example, on the WSJ's tech news page if you scroll down, you'll find a bunch of headlines and links to other sources -- without permission:
![](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2803/4095112780_25bc603466.jpg)
Okay, how about Fox News itself? Yup. It's got an aggregator as well. Here's its Politics Buzztracker that aggregates and links to stories from a variety of different publications, including the NY Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and others:
![](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2754/4094352175_0ac26a5e37.jpg)
Then we've got the folks over at AllThingsD, who I actually think do excellent work, and who have built up a nice part of their site called "Voices." I actually quite like this and find it useful (and yes, every so often, they are kind enough to "parasite" one of my posts). In fact, it helps keep AllThingsD in my RSS reader because it's so useful. But, damn, if that doesn't look just like what Murdoch is complaining about. Not only does it have headlines, but also a fair bit of intro text (no summary, no commentary) and even the links are hidden at the bottom, rather than using the headlines as links:
![](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2520/4094352281_9c0e3b0aee.jpg)
![](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2763/4095112932_2eaa3912e4.jpg)
Some other IGN sites don't quite have aggregators, but I do find it interesting that they've integrated in Google search, such that you could do searches for things across the web and have them remain in a totally News Corp./IGN-branded experience. Effectively, on these pages, Murdoch's own properties are able to "parasite" back Google's own "parasite" engine. Here are two examples:
![](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2449/4094352305_f9a27214eb.jpg)
![](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2578/4095112882_7bd032b9cb.jpg)
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aggregators, copyright, fair use, rupert murdoch, search engines
Companies: news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
now I know why fileplanet and gamespy suck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: now I know why fileplanet and gamespy suck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: now I know why fileplanet and gamespy suck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gheesh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously...
It appears the left hand is too busy scratching its backside to know what good work the right hand is doing.
(It would have to be his backside, because he's talking out his a$@)
-Mike, thank you for good examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of reminds me of Disney...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You left out...
Fox Nation is built from the ground up to "steal" content from around the web.
Murdoch is a first-class hypocrite. He can shut down Google's indexing anytime he wants with a simple "disallow" in his robots.txt file. Now he says he will stop Google, but only after he erects his pay wall. Guess what? With a subscription only site, Google can't access his content anyway.
Idiot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You left out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You left out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Murdoch's master plan?
Bear with me. Newspapers around the world watch what Murdoch does and then follow suit. What if his game is to get them all to put paywalls up and isolate themselves, spending fortunes to do so on the promise of exclusive deals and fortunes to come ("why would Murdoch do it if it wasn't going to make money?" they'll say)? Then, when they're committed to the new system, and deeper in debt, News Corp will have a "change of heart", drop the paywalls (that they never actually built) and embrace openness and sharing. Several major papers would go to the wall, and be ripe for takeover by a still cash-rich News Corp.
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Murdoch's master plan?
What would Murdoch do?
WWMD?
Has an ominous ring to it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Murdoch's master plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Murdoch's master plan?
Mike has a great point (though FoxNews Buzztracker is dead, as far as I can tell...Mike had to grab and old link on origin2.foxnews.com). Murdoch definitely has some major inconsistencies to deal with.
That said, he is no one's fool and has turned crap into gold many, many times before. It is silly and historically inaccurate to portray him as quixotic, out-of-touch or stupid. Doesn't mean he hasn't and won't again make a bad call, but it does mean that there is a definite (and most often successful) method to his madness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Murdoch's master plan?
But I think its even simpler.
He is so old and stupid he couldn't possibly afford all the free publicity he is getting for his paywall service changes.
He just has to act dumb and we all know about it- and not just through his advertising channels...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Murdoch's master plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL!!!
Genius ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181204,00.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Haha that's funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further, the first example is a series of nice text links off and nothing else no first paragraph or anything. It isn't parasiting when the read cannot enjoy the story without visiting the site.
It's a really nice try to slam Ol' Rupe, but it just makes you look like an Ol' rube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm, let's head on over to Google News. Oh no, a headline AND A WHOLE SENTENCE OR TWO! THE HORROR! Why would I ever need to read more than a 2 lines of text to get a news story?
And by your definition of parasiting...half of the News Corp-owned sites are...still parasiting, and doing it even more than Google News. Oops.
I just realized that you can rearrange the letters in your name to spell "Terrible Troll." What communist leader is paying your bills? WHY AM I THE ONLY ONE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is simply not true.
Further, the first example is a series of nice text links off and nothing else no first paragraph or anything. It isn't parasiting when the read cannot enjoy the story without visiting the site.
Not particularly different than Google news, which often displays just a link to a story and no summary text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you need to go back and look at the ownerships of the sites... it can be very complex to find out who really owns them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and some form of evidence would be nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yah, very few people know this, but Murdoch actually owns Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Marburgers report characterized parasiting as having enough of the content from an original source on your site to disincentivize people from clicking on the link. It's unclear that headlines meet this standard, so the WSJ example is thin at best.
The Fox news example "parasites" articles from the AP and AFP. I could not find membership lists for the AP or AFP, but Murdoch is on the AP board. If I understand the AP correctly, it's a cooperative. I do not know whether any Murdoch organizations compensate the AFP.
AllThingsD has a long page explaining that it is cognizant of the issues with parasiting/scraping and the measures used to maximize the number of people who actually click on the link. There is also a well-documented way to opt-out.
The RottenTomatoes site has a page where it pretty clearly indicates that the critics on the site must opt-in and meet certain criteria before being aggregated.
Google freely offers the search on your site feature, and in fact encorages people to use it. It's hard to understand how this is equivalent to parasiting, especially by the Marburger definition: if Murdoch was scraping off Google's ads and such in the result pages to display his own maybe you'd have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Indeed. I agree. In fact, that's the whole point. Sorry if you missed that.
The Marburgers report characterized parasiting as having enough of the content from an original source on your site to disincentivize people from clicking on the link.
Who said anything about the Marburgers? We're using Murdoch's definition.
The Fox news example "parasites" articles from the AP and AFP.
No, that's not true. It uses links from the NY Times, the Washington Post and MSNBC. I don't believe Murdoch is on the board of any of those.
AllThingsD has a long page explaining that it is cognizant of the issues with parasiting/scraping and the measures used to maximize the number of people who actually click on the link. There is also a well-documented way to opt-out.
Gee... just like that "parasite" Google News.
Thanks for proving the point, even if you thought you were disproving it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But, you can rearrange the letters in "Mr. Murdoch" to make "Marburgers!" Is it an EVIL AUSTRALIAN SOCIALIST FASCIST PLOT TO TAKE OVER AMERICA'S NEWSPAPERS!? Why am I the only one asking these questions!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They "parasite" from lots of sites they don't own.
Further, the first example is a series of nice text links off and nothing else no first paragraph or anything. It isn't parasiting when the read cannot enjoy the story without visiting the site.
Gee, that's not exactly how Murdoch looks at it when Google does it.
It's a really nice try to slam Ol' Rupe, but it just makes you look like an Ol' rube.
Did you have to use 'lube to get your head that far up Ol' Rupe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guest 18
If you will trade your nationality for money, you are lacking in principles in any case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guest 18
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boycott everything from Murdoch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides, I don’t wan’t him back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comment by xman(20)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A case of do what I say not what I do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Negotiations
Murdoch and his advisers are not stupid: they know the threat to block their content from google is empty, but they need to start somewhere in their bid for a share of the advertising dollars that google has lured away from them.
It's just Negotiations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Negotiations
Please block all of News Corp.
Thx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the google-fu gods?
What if these sites cut off Mr. Murdock?
And include a sample communication, if one was to write asking if they have considered blocking Mr. Murdock's properties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
Does anyone have a complete list of websites owned by douche corp? Might need to clean up some bookmarks lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Red herring. The end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Old Rupert!
All this with not one thought about profit, simply a deep love and affection for the world of sport and his audience.
Not for him the world of buying and selling for profit. I feel sure everything he does is for the greater good of telemedia, society and the world as a whole.
I'm sure I have the right person dont I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Murdoch's pov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Murdoch sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Murdoch sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's just the fringes of NewsCorp hypocrisy ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's just the fringes of NewsCorp hypocrisy ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting, yet at the same time irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rupert Merdoch is a BIG Pharma Genocidalist!
His mother, Elizabeth conducts vax testing on pregnant women at the Victoria Women's hospital in Melbourne. His son James is the the Overseer of Glaxo Smith Kline, He is behind a genocidal scheme to kills us off for population control. Rupert Murdoch is co-chairman for David Rockefeller's partnership for New York City. The partnership is the core of the evil. They were responsible for taking down the WTC to bring about the Patriot Act, and responsible for rebuilding it. Thomas Glocer the CEO of Reuters and the Director of Merck pharmaceuticals is also on the board.
See FluScamdotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rupert Merdoch is a BIG Pharma Genocidalist!
His mother, Elizabeth conducts vax testing on pregnant women at the Victoria Women's hospital in Melbourne. His son James is the the Overseer of Glaxo Smith Kline, He is behind a genocidal scheme to kills us off for population control. Rupert Murdoch is co-chairman for David Rockefeller's partnership for New York City. The partnership is the core of the evil. They were responsible for taking down the WTC to bring about the Patriot Act, and responsible for rebuilding it. Thomas Glocer the CEO of Reuters and the Director of Merck pharmaceuticals is also on the board.
See FluScamdotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]