Dear Rupert: Before Putting Up A Paywall, It Helps To Have Your Staff Check The HTML

from the just-a-suggestion dept

As you know by now, Rupert Murdoch's The Times (of London) has kicked off its paywall experiment, with an editor there claiming that news publications that don't put up a paywall will go out of business. Perhaps. We shall see... but in the meantime, Rupert might want to find people who understand HTML before he turned on the paywall. Reader Craig sent over a link to a Times Online story that tries to get people to go to the new paywalled site "for full coverage, pictures and video from the Middle East." The only problem? The link is broken. I took a screenshot with my mouse over the link, and you can see that rather than a proper link, the link doubles up on the http at the beginning: http://http://www.thetimes.co.uk/etc.... If you can't see it in the image above, click through for a larger version. Clicking the actual link, of course, gets you a page not found error. Oops. Now, you can say this is a small mistake that anyone can make (hell, we've made it here at times), but for a big professional news organization that are trying to drive people to this new pay site, you would think they would have at least had someone double check the links... On top of this, it really highlights the pure annoyance factor that The Times has created for everyone. Not only is it locking up its content behind a paywall, it makes you go hunting for it, and redirects its audience to a totally different place (and, in this case, not even very well).

Filed Under: html, links, paywall, rupert murdoch, the times
Companies: news corp.

Writer Splits From Murdoch's Times Of London To Avoid Being Hidden Behind The Paywall

from the get-out-while-the-getting's-good dept

With Rupert Murdoch's The Times of London going behind a paywall, we're already seeing some of their writers bailing out. A bunch of folks sent over the news that the writer of the Times' legal blog, Tim Kevan, has set up shop on his own blog, outside of the paywall. He admits he has nothing against The Times for putting up a paywall, it's just not something he wants to be a part of:

I have today withdrawn the BabyBarista Blog from The Times in reaction to their plans to hide it away behind a paywall along with their other content. Now don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no problem with the decision to start charging. They can do what they like. But I didn't start this blog for it to be the exclusive preserve of a limited few subscribers. I wrote it to entertain whosoever wishes to read it.

We've seen this before. Back when the NY Times had its old paywall around its op-ed columnists, there were plenty of stories of those columnists complaining about the lockdown. And, of course, when Newsday, in New York, put up its paywall (which infamously brought in just a few dozen subscribers), one of its top columnists quit, after publishing an open letter about why paywalls are a bad idea.

This does bring up yet another example of where paywalls can hurt. Even if they do get subscribers (a big if), it might not do much for a writer's own reputation if his or her work can't be read more widely. In an era where an individual's reputation is pretty important in the journalism world, many good reporters and columnists might not want to get stuck in virtual obscurity behind a paywall.

Filed Under: bloggers, paywall, rupert murdoch, tim kevan

Rupert Murdoch Gets Shy: Tries To Hide Traffic To His Pre-Paywalled Sites

from the don't-want-any-comparisons... dept

It looks like even Rupert Murdoch and his crew at News Corp. aren't all that confident in how well his new paywalls for his newspapers in the UK are going to do. Apparently, News Corp. has convinced the media-owned organization, ABC, that tracks traffic to newspaper sites in the UK, to no longer publish the numbers for his sites. ABC is still tracking the numbers, but it won't publish them. Apparently, someone is a bit sensitive about people noticing how much traffic has shrunk. Maybe it's starting to sink in that there really is competition online, and most of it is remaining free.

Filed Under: paywall, rupert murdoch, traffic
Companies: news corp.

As Murdoch Puts Times Online Behind A Paywall, Competitors Happily Plan To Stay Free

from the good-luck,-rupert dept

As Rupert Murdoch is getting ready to put paywalls on two of his UK publications, The Times of London and The Sunday Times, his competitors are remaining adamantly free online. The Guardian, for example, has been a loud and proud supporter of free content, and now the Daily Mail Online is standing by its free online site by noting:

"A pay-wall MIGHT make a little money -- we will make a lot."

The management of the paper explained that people don't pay for news -- they've paid for the convenience of paper, but that online news will likely remain free -- and that they're big enough to make advertising pay well. In fact, it seems likely that if Murdoch locks up his content behind a paywall, that will only drive more readers to sites like The Daily Mail and The Guardian and boost their ad revenue...

Filed Under: paywalls, rupert murdoch

Murdoch Gets His Feet Wet In Bringing Hot News Lawsuit Against Briefing.com

from the and-here-we-go dept

Well, you had to know this was going to happen. In the last year, there had been an awful lot of talk about a previously considered obsolete concept of "hot news" -- which created a copyright-like protection for factual information, without any statutory basis. It's a very troubling concept that shouldn't have any real basis in the law, but does exist due to a nearly century old Supreme Court case. Lots of news publishers have started making noises about "hot news," and in March we had the first ruling that blocked a publication from reposting factual information under a "hot news" claim. Once that ruling was made, you had to know that more lawsuits would follow pretty quickly.

And off we go. What's interesting here is that it appears that it's Rupert Murdoch testing the waters this time. Murdoch, of course, has been making odd claims about Google "stealing" content, while also suggesting that fair use doesn't exist. But rather than take on Google in court, it looks like Murdoch is targeting easier prey. Murdoch-owned Dow Jones is suing Briefing.com for copyright infringement and hot news appropriation. You can read the full complaint below: Basically, the complaint is similar to TheFlyOnTheWall complaint from last month that successfully claimed "hot news." Dow Jones claims it puts out info over its wire service, and minutes later Briefing.com seems to put out similar news, often using the same headline. Of course for the most part, headlines are not copyrightable, but are they covered by hot news? We may find out soon enough. The whole thing is silly of course. If Dow Jones can't compete against some company copying its headlines and summarizing its stories, it must not be adding very much value. Suing over this is basically an admission of that very fact.

Either way, my guess is that this particular lawsuit has little to do with Briefing.com -- or even Dow Jones and its newswires. This is Murdoch testing the waters on hot news. Of course, he may come to seriously regret doing so, given how many of his own sites probably violate the same hot news concept.

Filed Under: hot news, rupert murdoch
Companies: dow jones

Rupert Murdoch Doesn't Recognize That There's Competition Online

from the wow dept

People keep insisting that we're crazy to think that Rupert Murdoch is going down the wrong path with his paywall plans. I keep hearing from people saying "don't bet against Rupert -- he's the sharpest guy in the news business and he knows what he's doing." But I just can't see it. Not when he continues to say things that just aren't true. The latest, sent in by reader sinsi, involves yet another interview with Murdoch where he insists that once he puts up paywalls Google and Microsoft will be forced to stop linking to his stuff. Instead, he wants them to put up a subscription form:

"We'll be very happy if they just publish our headline or a sentence or two and that's followed by a subscription form,"

Ok, Rupert, how about you start? After all, we've pointed out that a ton of your own properties have news aggregators, and looking through them, not a single one appears to have subscription forms. Why not?

But, even more ridiculous, is his insistence that people will start paying:

"I think when they've got nowhere else to go they'll start paying,"

Not if but when. Recent profiles of Murdoch have suggested he doesn't use the web, so perhaps he doesn't realize it, but there's always somewhere else to go, and if News Corp. is so short-sighted to lock itself away from the open web, well that just opens up a much greater opportunity for his competitors to make sure they're the place to go.

Filed Under: paywalls, rupert murdoch
Companies: google, microsoft, news corp.

Apparently Rupert Murdoch Loves Fair Use When It Protects Him

from the let's-see-what-the-courts-think dept

Earlier this year, we pointed to a lawsuit involving Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., sued for airing an interview with Michael Jackson's ex-wife. We noted how amusing the lawsuit filing was, because it blatantly mocked Rupert Murdoch due to his earlier statements claiming that fair use would be barred by the courts -- trying to cut off that defense. But, of course, the only way to defend the actions is to use fair use -- and that's exactly what Fox News is doing in its defense of the lawsuit, heavily claiming fair use. It certainly makes you wonder -- if Murdoch ever really does pull that supposedly itchy trigger finger on a Google lawsuit -- if filings such as these will come back to haunt him. How can he claim that fair use doesn't exist on the one hand, while one of his companies uses the doctrine to defend itself in a lawsuit?

Filed Under: fair use, rupert murdoch
Companies: news corp.

Murdoch Puts Up Some More Paywalls

from the adios dept

Last year there were rumors that two publications that Rupert Murdoch owned in the UK, The Times of London and The Sunday Times -- separate operations, but who share a website and a common owner -- would begin experimenting with a different sort of business model, which actually didn't sound too bad. Rather than charging for news, the rumor was that it would involve a "membership club," where people would be purchasing access to additional benefits -- which actually sounded like a CwF+RtB kind of plan. Of course, there weren't many details, and we wondered what the benefits would be, and if they'd be enough to make it worthwhile.

Unfortunately, the details look like the rumor was wrong, or the plans changed entirely, because now it looks like both publications are going with your standard everyday super expensive paywall. Starting in June, both publications will begin charging a whopping £1 per day or £2 per week for access -- which is actually pretty steep, especially in a market where there's an awful lot of competition. On a yearly basis, it's only a bit less than what Newsday is charging for its website -- which has been a colossal failure.

Good luck, Rupert, because it seems like you're going to need it. On the other hand, this might explain why the Times Online is already trying to block companies from sending them visitors. It's as if they don't want anyone to know they exist online.

Filed Under: paywalls, rupert murdoch, sunday times, times of london, uk

James Murdoch Is Very, Very Confused About Copyright Infringement (And So Is His Dad, Rupert)

from the good-luck-to-you dept

TorrentFreak has an article about how Ari Emanuel, brother of Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and the "inspiration" for Jeremy Piven's "Ari Gold" character in the show Entourage, is claiming that he's talking to President Obama about implementing a three strikes law in the US. While I'm sure he's talking, I'm at least somewhat confident he's not getting very far. Almost everyone I've spoken to on various sides of this debate agree that a blatant three strikes law in the US is unlikely to get very far. Now, something like ACTA might put pressure on ISPs to adopt a three strikes rule, and Emanuel's buddies in Hollywood still think that they can convince ISPs to voluntarily put in place such rules -- but very few people seem to think that a full on three strikes law in the US is in the cards. Hopefully that's the case.

What may be more interesting, however, is what Rupert Murdoch's son, James Murdoch was saying at the very same event. He didn't just echo his father's blatantly incorrect notions of copyright, he went way beyond them. The younger Murdoch, who apparently is the current heir apparent to the Rupert Murdoch throne at the top of News Corp., made a bunch of statements about copyright infringement that sound like the typical comments of someone who has just entered this debate and has never thought about the actual issues. That is, he trots out the ridiculously wrong line that infringement is the same as "theft":

"We need enforcement mechanisms and we need governments to play ball... There is no difference with going into a store and stealing Pringles or a handbag and taking this stuff. It's a basic condition for investment and economic growth and there should be the same level of property rights whether it's a house or a movie.... The idea that there's a new consumer class and you have to be consumer-friendly when they're stealing stuff. No. There should be the same level of sanctity as there is around property. Content is no different. They're not crazy kids. No. Punish them."

Where to begin? First of all, yes, there's a very big difference between going into a store and stealing Pringles (why Pringles?!?) or a handbag. If you do that, the Pringles or the handbags are now missing, gone, kaput. If you make a copy of a digital file, the original is still there. You've just created a new one. And, no, it's not "a basic condition for investment," that there needs to be the same property rights in a house or a movie. The two things have never had the same property rights. A house never goes into the public domain after a certain period of time. There is no fair use of a house (though, to be fair, the Murdoch family seems to think that fair use doesn't exist either, despite relying on it heavily in some of their companies). And there's a reason that there are those significant differences, and it has to do with basic, fundamental economics, and the difference between scarcity and abundance.

Honestly, seeing James Murdoch's words immediately call to mind Larry Lessig's recent talk where he discusses how the current media bosses at companies like Viacom are dinosaurs, with the younger generation waiting in the wings to take over, claiming that they don't hold these same draconian notions on copyright. Except, in this case, James is the younger generation which is supposed to get this stuff.

Perhaps he should take some notes from his (slightly older) sister Elisabeth, who recently made comments that appear to be the exact opposite of what her brother and father are saying:

"Fans remain the best salesmen of our content, even if that behavior is on the borderline of piracy. Danger of the new world is that we must concede that we'll lose some control."

I wonder if James' "the idea that there's a new consumer class and you have to be consumer-friendly" line was directed at his big sis. Of course, in that recent NY Mag profile of Rupert, it notes that many people expect Elisabeth to come back into the News Corp. fold at some point (she left to start her own -- successful -- TV production house). Either way, if James really does get control over News Corp., it sounds like it'll be more of the same: more misunderstanding about how copyright law works, more misunderstanding of the economics of content and more mistakes designed to hold a company in the past, rather than embracing the future.

Filed Under: ari emanuel, copyright, elisabeth murdoch, james murdoch, rupert murdoch, three strikes
Companies: news corp.

Murdoch's NY Post Continues To Source Articles From Bloggers With No Credit

from the what's-stealing,-Rupert? dept

Rupert Murdoch and his minions at News Corp. have been going around banging the drum that Google and others are "stealing" from News Corp. newspapers by linking to their stories and sending them traffic. But at the same time, they seem to have no problem totally taking credit for stories that they source from elsewhere. Late last year, the Times (of London), which is a News Corp. paper was caught publishing someone's blog post without their permission at all. And then there's the News Corp.-owned NY Post, which last year had a reporter admit that it was the paper's "policy" not to credit bloggers as the sources for stories. After that story came out, the NY Post insisted that wasn't true, but it appears the paper has been caught doing it again.

Andrew Fine alerted us to the news that suggests the NY Post used one of his posts as inspiration for a story. Fine had written about the rather disconcerting sign in a Chuck E. Cheese in Harlem. That blog post got some attention on various other blogs... and then just a couple of days later, the NY Post had an article about the very same sign (apparently, it took two reporters to write that article), with nary a mention of Fine's original blog post (or even any of the other blog posts that promoted Fine's original story).

Now, to be clear, while I do think it's good manners to cite where you sourced a story, it's certainly not required (legally or otherwise) by any means. But where it gets hypocritical is for this to come from an organization that claims that other sites merely linking to its articles are somehow "stealing." But when the NY Post comes in and blatantly borrows an idea from someone else, and does so without credit, that's perfectly fine? It seems like Murdoch and News Corp. have quite the double standard going.

Filed Under: citations, ny post, rupert murdoch, sources, stories
Companies: news corp.