Temporary Paywall Removals Only Highlight The Fundamental Paradox Of Paywalls

from the backwards-economics dept

While there's room for debate on whether Rupert Murdoch's paywall strategy for the UK Times and Sunday Times has been disastrous or just mediocre, it certainly hasn't been a massive success or reinvented any online news business models. Now we're beginning to see some telling cracks in the facade: the Times paywall recently came down during the Queen's jubilee weekend, and now TNW reports that a similar free-access period is being considered for the 2012 Olympics.

Now, promotional giveaways are hardly a new or crazy idea, and they don't typically say anything bad about a business model—but I don't think that's really what's happening here. Certainly the Times hopes to convert some of those free readers into paid online subscribers, but there's also a clear pattern in the items they choose to make these exceptions for: huge social events that are attended and discussed by lots of people. In other words, precisely the sort of thing where blogs and social media offer the most competition to a newspaper. Why would anybody pay for Olympic reporting when the web is going to be absolutely flooded with constant updates on every little thing that happens, supplied for free by the fans and hangers-on? If the Times content is behind a paywall, it will be all but ignored.

And this really goes to show why, in the long run, paywalls are unsustainable. If the biggest, most popular topics are the hardest to control—and the ones that lose value the most when controlled successfully—while at the same, time social media and citizen reporting output is growing and expanding to new areas constantly, then the inevitable conclusion seems clear: paywalls are, at best, a temporary way of extracting a little bit of cash at the expense of long-term relevance. If your goal is to directly sell news as a product, but you discover that you have to eliminate your prices whenever product demand is highest, something is clearly wrong—you're trying to apply an old model where it doesn't actually fit, and getting kooky results. The solution is not to keep compromising the broken model, but to embrace the underlying realities (infinite content, no barrier to publishing, the huge value of share-ability) that broke it, and build new models around them.

Filed Under: newspaper, olympics, paywall, rupert murdoch, uk
Companies: news corp

Google Sued Because Some People Wonder If Jon Hamm Is Jewish

from the they-should-just-ask-adam-sandler dept

We've written about a bunch of court cases around the globe, in which Google was sued (and often found liable) for the results of its autocomplete feature, which suggests popular searches based on what users have typed. For reasons that still are unfathomable to me, courts seem to think that Google should somehow be considered responsible for displaying what its users are searching for. These kinds of lawsuits appear to be particularly popular in France, and the latest one seems especially silly. Apparently Google is being sued because autocomplete sometimes shows the name of famous people with the keyword "jew" after them. This includes such non-Jews as Rupert Murdoch and Jon Hamm.
The lawsuit is being fought by a group, SOS Racisme, which claims to "fight discrimination," but if that's the case, then one hopes that racism has all but been obliterated in France, since the group has moved on to fighting ridiculous cases like this one. All that Google autocomplete is showing is that a lot of people (potentially ignorant ones) have searched for these names, along with the keyword "jew" or "jewish" to determine if the individual is Jewish. The fact that users search for something and Google displays that isn't something Google should be liable for. Why blame Google for the actions of its users?

But, more to the point -- and I say this as someone who is Jewish -- what the hell is anti-semitic about doing such searches in the first place? I'm really at a complete loss to understand why this is so horrible. Yes, the reason behind the searches may be ignorance (and some of the results may point to pages that spread ignorance), but the group bringing the lawsuit seem to be suggesting that this is an absolutely horrible thing that people may be prompted to do searches on whether or not non-Jews are really Jews. The only way this story makes any sense is if all real racism and anti-semitism and other forms of ignorance and bigotry have all been eradicated in Europe. Assuming that's not actually the case, perhaps it's just one clueless group overreacting.

Filed Under: autocomplete, france, jon hamm, rupert murdoch
Companies: google

News Corp. Accused Of Hacking Competitors Smartcards To Increase 'Piracy' Of Satellite TV Rivals

from the all's-fair-in-murdoch-land dept

Four years ago, we wrote about claims that News Corp. had hired hackers to break the encryption on DISH Networks' satellite TV smart cards, and to "flood the market" with those cards, thereby increasing "piracy" of DISH's service. News Corp., of course, owned DISH's main competitor, DirecTV. The whole thing seemed really bizarre, and we were skeptical. This kind of thing only makes sense if you actually believe that "piracy" like that directly takes away money from the company whose service is hacked. But, it seems just as likely that flooding the market with hacked smartcards would take away business from both DISH and DirecTV in the cases where it was a true substitute (rather than going to people who would never pay for either anyway). Either way, that case ended with a jury finding News Corp guilty... but of just hacking one smartcard, for which the company was fined a grand total of $49.69... and another $1,000 for "damages." Honestly, I'm not even sure that makes sense, because if it just hacked a single smartcard, it sounds like it may have just been for reverse engineering purposes.

Of course, in the intervening years, News Corp.'s name has become a lot more closely tied to the word "hacking" thanks to the News of the World scandal where reporters regularly "hacked" into voicemails (and, by "hacked" I really mean used a widely known loophole that makes it easy to listen to many people's voicemails). So with news breaking that News Corp. is again being accused of hacking, a lot of people are thinking about the recent scandals -- but the details suggest that this may have been identical to the DISH/DirecTV story above, but with a UK focus. Basically, News Corp's subsidiary NDS is accused of hacking ITV Digital, a UK competitor to News Corp's Sky TV.

In this case, there are some more details, where it certainly suggests that at least someone at News Corp. was working closely with some hackers to publish the codes necessary to make unauthorized smartcards for ITV. ITV eventually did go out of business, and of course the article linked above quotes an exec there insisting that such "piracy" was "the killer blow for the business, there is no question."

Again, this doesn't make much sense to me. Even if all of these actions were done via News Corp., how does that actually help News Corp? People who got the hacked ITV smartcards weren't going to buy Sky TV services either. The whole thing seems pretty strange, suggesting it was either exaggerated, or whoever at News Corp. decided this was a reasonable strategy didn't even think about how getting more hacked smartcards would likely be a challenge for Sky just as much as it was for ITV.

Filed Under: competition, hacking, james murdoch, piracy, rupert murdoch, satellit tv, smart cards
Companies: directv, dish network, itv, news corp., sky tv

Rather Than Bitching About The Failure Of SOPA/PIPA, Rupert Murdoch Should Take A Closer Look At His Own Policies

from the check-out-your-mirror,-rupe dept

It's well established that Rupert Murdoch threw a bit of a hissy fit on Twitter, after public protests helped put SOPA and PIPA on hold. However, as plenty of people have been pointing out, perhaps the real problem is with Murdoch's (and others') own business model choices. Danny Sullivan recently put forth an open letter to Murdoch, talking about the difficulty of getting The Simpsons legally, despite paying for it:

That’s right. I pay you three times for The Simpsons. First, I get it broadcast over the air. That’s me paying you for it, because the airwaves are mine — not yours. You’re simply allowed to lease them from the public. You’re getting a piece of that spectrum from me. In return, I expect you to deliver me valuable content through it. Well done with The Simpsons.

But you know, it’s easy to miss things broadcast live over the air. Also, my signal is pretty bad. So I pay a second time, to DirecTV, to get exactly the same content you send over the air to me through satellite TV. I get a better picture. I get the ability to DVR episodes to watch later. And I pay something like $125 per month for my subscription, some of which goes into your pocket.

That brings me to my third way of paying: Hulu Plus. I don’t DVR everything. Somehow, I missed The Simpsons when it started up again this fall. But Hulu Plus has turned into a lifesaver in these cases. It has let me catch-up on programs. It’s been well worth the $7 per month I pay for it, some of which, again, goes directly into your pocket.

Yup, triple pay. So, clearly, Sullivan can watch the Simpsons when and how he wants, right? Nope:

And now to tonight. My son fired up Hulu Plus, so we could watch The Simpsons, as we have in the past. But no luck — he got a “web only” message. Turns out, I discovered after doing a little searching with your least favorite search engine, last year you started limited next-day episodes.....

Despite paying for Hulu Plus, I cannot watch The Simpson on any device like my Roku player that is designed to play The Simpsons direct to my TV.

I gather this is because you don’t want me to buy Hulu Plus and stop paying for DirecTV, right? I get that. But it’s not like I have the same option to watch archived episodes on DirecTV, If they’re offered on demand, they are impossible to find.

Sullivan points out that all this is really doing is pushing kids to go to their search engines and to start exploring the infringing sources Murdoch seems so angry about. Seems like more of the same old story we've heard over and over again... with the twist here being the fact that Sullivan is already paying three times for the same content and still can't get it legally.

Filed Under: business models, rupert murdoch, the simpsons
Companies: news corp.

Rupert Murdoch Lashes Out Bizarrely Against The White House For Asking Congress Not To Break The Internet

from the get-your-stories-straight dept

While the lobbyists favoring SOPA/PIPA have decided that the talking point on the White House's statement opposing SOPA/PIPA as written really means that the bills, as they are, are great, it appears that no one sent Rupert Murdoch the talking points. Murdoch, who has been personally lobbying Congress in support of the bills, took to his relatively new Twitter account to lash out at the President:

So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten allsoftware creators with piracy, plain thievery. -

— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) January 14, 2012

Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them.No wonder pouring millions into lobbying.

— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) January 14, 2012

Film making risky as hell. This has to lead to less, hurting writers, actors, all concerned.

— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) January 14, 2012

Of course, almost nothing in those statements is true. First, it's well documented that Hollywood spends ridiculously more money lobbying than the likes of Google. Second, Silicon Valley is the heart of software development. Kind of bizarre for him to claim that Obama's "paymasters" from Silicon Valley want to... um... destroy Silicon Valley. Third, nothing in the White House's statement said that they were solely supporting the other side's view here. They simply expressed specific concerns with the existing bill. Considering that they specifically rejected parts of the bill that would lead to censorship, excess private litigation and problems for online security... is Rupert Murdoch really coming out in favor of censorship, excessive private litigation and a broken online security system? Really, Rupe?

Next, when it comes to streaming films, it's true that Google puts advertising around certain videos on YouTube. However, it's not all videos, and their system (quite famously) allows the actual copyright holder to make the money from those ads, leading to a rather lucrative new revenue stream for many content creators. Furthermore, for years, people have mocked YouTube for losing a ton of money, so it's not like this is a particularly lucrative part of Google's business. As for filmmaking being "risky as hell," so what? Lots of things are risky, but most of us don't think that the government should censor free speech, break internet security and create massive undue litigation... just to make Rupert's investments less risky. That he seems to think that's a reasonable tradeoff shows just how Rupert Murdoch views the government: as a tool to funnel extra money to himself. Furthermore, his claims that it will lead to "less" are just laughable as well. The number of movies made per year has more than tripled in the past fifteen years, just as online piracy ramped up. Also, Nigeria, China and India -- three countries known to have more infringement than the US -- all built up huge film businesses over the last few years, despite all the infringement.

After thinking about it for a few hours, Murdoch went right back to it:

Seems like universal anger with Optus from all sorts of normal supporters.Maybe backing pirates a rare miscalculation by friend Axelrod.

— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) January 16, 2012

More pirates.Whole entertainment ind employs 2.2 million ave salary 65 g. Good jobs and expanding foreign earnings. Made in America, too!

— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) January 16, 2012

He later admits that he had a "damn you autocorrect" moment in that first one. "Optus" was supposed to be POTUS, but his iPad "changed it." First of all, we haven't seen any "anger" towards Obama over this -- other than from Murdoch. Quite the opposite. We've seen widespread agreement (and surprise!) that the White House would actually dare speak out against Hollywood on an issue. And, once again, it's insulting and ridiculous (but typical of the disdain the Hollywood old guard has for the rest of the world) to claim that concern over censorship, excess litigation and online security problems means "backing piracy." As for the stats, it's nice to see him use the 2.2 million jobs number, rather than the 19 million jobs that is usually thrown around (someone in Hollywood really needs to get Rupe the talking points memo on this one), but even that is misleading.

As was highlighted in an excellent report by Zach Carter just last month, the 2.2 million jobs number is complete bunk:

[The] 2.2 million jobs figure, however, exaggerates Hollywood's contribution to the American economy. According to supplemental data provided to HuffPost by MPAA, only 272,000 people work for movie studios and television companies. The lobby group claims that an additional 430,000 people work in related "distribution" jobs dependent on Hollywood, legal web streamers like Netflix, the few remaining video store clerks and cashiers checking out DVD purchases.

But the vast majority of the jobs Dodd & Co. claim are threatened by online piracy are only peripherally related to the entertainment business. MPAA takes credit for nearly 1.6 million jobs at florists, catering companies, hardware stores and other industries that work with major movie studios, assuming that these jobs could not ultimately be out of a job without Hollywood help.

Yeah. 1.6 million of those jobs are not actually in the entertainment industry at all. Rupe, before you tweet, perhaps try learning the details of the "facts" you're about to spew so you look a little less ridiculous next time.

Filed Under: pipa, protect ip, rupert murdoch, sopa, the white house
Companies: news corp.

Rupert Murdoch Personally Lobbies Congress For SOPA And PROTECT IP

from the wouldn't-he-just-love-that? dept

Well, well. Apparently dealing with the fallout from the News of the World reporters hacking into phones in the UK isn't keeping Rupert Murdoch busy enough. He showed up in DC last week to make a personal plea to Congress to support SOPA and PIPA and censor the internet. It's been clear for quite some time that Rupert Murdoch doesn't get the internet. His history is littered with massive and expensive internet failures. So it's no surprise that he's lobbying hard for a law like SOPA and PIPA, which will restrict up and coming online competitors and help clear out some of the field so that maybe he and his son James can finally get their wish to turn the internet into something that looks a lot more like TV: with the big media conglomerates delivering the content, and everyone else just consuming (and paying for) it.

Filed Under: copyright, lobbying, pipa, protect ip, rupert murdoch, sopa
Companies: news corp.

UK Law Enforcement Demanding Guardian's Sources On News Of The World Hacking Scandal [Updated]

from the journalist-shields? dept

There's been a growing attack on the right of journalists to keep their sources secret. In the US, we've seen attempts to expose newspaper sources using the Espionage Act, and it appears that over in the UK something similar is happening. Scotland Yard is apparently demanding that The Guardian reveal its sources for its thorough and widespread reporting on the News of the World phone hacking scandal. This would be the same UK law enforcement folks who were alerted to the phone hacking and chose to ignore it... while The Guardian pushed on doing the reporting to expose it. To then pressure The Guardian to give up its sources certainly has the feeling of attacking the guys who exposed Scotland Yard's failures in investigating News of the World earlier... Update: Looks like the press attention to this story has caused Scotland Yard to back down. Still, it seems like this could create serious chilling effects for UK press.

Filed Under: journalism, news of the world, protection, rupert murdoch, scotland yard, shield
Companies: news corp.

WSJ's Defense Of News Of The World: Hey, It's Not Like They Published Wikileaks Secrets

from the uh-what? dept

Lots of folks are pointing out the ridiculousness of a new editorial in the WSJ defending News Corp. (the owner of the WSJ) in the ongoing hacking debacle. Basically, it defends everything about News Corp. and its actions with a tiny nod to the fact that phone hacking is illegal at the beginning and at the end of the piece, but, even then, it tries to pin the blame on UK law enforcement rather than News Corps.' own actions:

Phone-hacking is illegal, and it is up to British authorities to enforce their laws. If Scotland Yard failed to do so adequately when the hacking was first uncovered several years ago, then that is more troubling than the hacking itself.

Uh, yeah. What struck me as even more ridiculous was the editorial's attempt to mock other publications for talking about this by noting that some of those publications (they're mainly talking about The Guardian, who has been the main force driving the phone hacking story for the past few years) worked with Julian Assange and Wikileaks:

The Schadenfreude is so thick you can't cut it with a chainsaw. Especially redolent are lectures about journalistic standards from publications that give Julian Assange and WikiLeaks their moral imprimatur.

Let's see. One involves getting whistleblowers to expose corporate and government malfeasance... and one involved hacking into the phone of a dead girl and erasing messages, throwing off the investigation and giving her family hope. Sure, I can see how there's a moral equivalence there...

Does the editorial board at the WSJ really believe that the public is so stupid as to think that the two things are even remotely equivalent? And if so, why is it that the WSJ set up its own Wikileaks-competitor, with much weaker security and promises to protect identities?

It's a sad day when the Wall Street Journal admits it can't tell the difference between whistleblowing and reporters hacking into personal voicemails and then paying off police and others about it.

Filed Under: news of the world, phone hacking, rupert murdoch, wall street journal
Companies: news corp.

Murdochs' Latest Attempt At Crisis Control: Kill Off News Of The World

from the wipe-hands,-problem-solved dept

Apparently all the negative stories about questionable (and potentially criminal) activities by Rupert Murdoch's News of the World, and various advertisers pulling out of supporting the tabloid, have resulted in the Murdoch Family/News Corp. deciding to pull the plug entirely on the newspaper as of Sunday. The crisis control includes finally admitting that the problem was much wider and deeper than the company had claimed earlier. James Murdoch put out a statement, in which he also confirmed that he had tried paying off the victims of News of the World's phone hacking/spying:

Murdoch told employees at the 168-year old title: "The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed to when it came to itself".

Murdoch said in a statement: "Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued."

Murdoch also conceded the company had "made statements to parliament without being in full possession of the facts. This was wrong".

He said "the News of the World and News International wrongly maintained that these issues were confined to one reporter" but that was untrue, and that the company had passed information to the police which would demonstrate this.

"Those who acted wrongly will have to face the consequences," he said.

Murdoch also said in his statement to staff that he had authorised out-of-court payments to victims of hacking and that: "I now know that I did not have a complete picture when I did so."

He added: "That was wrong and is a matter of serious regret."

While it's good to see the Murdochs finally willing to address the mess head on, it also shows just how bad things are that they couldn't keep trying to brush the whole thing aside as one or two rogue employees.

Filed Under: james murdoch, news of the world, rupert murdoch
Companies: news corp.

Murdoch Phone Hacking Story Just Gets Worse And Worse

from the rupert-running-for-cover dept

Following the reports that employees for Rupert Murdoch's UK tabloid "News of the World" hadn't just hacked into the voicemails of politicians and celebrities, but also those of a murdered teenager (in which they supposedly deleted some message, leading to false hope that the girl was still alive), now come reports that News of the World hacked into the voicemails of the families of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On top of that, it's also come out that the former editor of the paper, Rebekah Brooks was allegedly warned by Scotland Yard about possible illegal spying taking place via the paper's resources. In that case, she was warned that a reporter was helping two murder suspects spy on the detective investigating them. In other words, we're getting way past just hacking into voicemails and into interfering with police investigations.

Not surprisingly, the Murdoch family is in full-on crisis mode. Advertisers are bailing on the paper, the Murdochs' relationships with top politicians in the UK are being scrutinized and it seems likely that this is one scandal that won't be easily brushed under the rug.

Making matters even crazier, to help deal with the crisis, Murdoch has actually hired the (former) prosecutor who originally investigated the hacking allegations back in 2005 & 2006, and knew the extent of them, but didn't do much about them. Apparently, UK politicians are screaming about this being a pretty serious conflict of interest, given that the guy failed to do much about the news of the hacking early on. You would think that the Murdochs would realize just how bad hiring this guy would look, but it's beginning to become clear that they're really not sure at all how to react to this news coming out in public after all these years.

Filed Under: eavesdropping, milly dowler, news of the world, rupert murdoch, voicemails