Stupid Is As Stupid Does: Is Rupert Murdoch Stupid?
Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corporation, is prepared to remove his company’s content from Google’ search index “within months” as the pay versus free content debate reaches crisis point. The tension is RISING and Mr. Murdoch is amping up. This is a heavyweight championship battle royal.
When asked how long it would be before Mr Murdoch took the step to block Google, which every media company relies upon to send them high levels of web traffic, Murdoch said it would be soon – “months and quarters – not weeks”.
Let’s refresh our memories again….REWIND A full decade after Napster taught the world to share, the music industry’s resistance to new business models continues to obstruct what could preserve it. Napster, created by a college kid to share music with other kids in his dorm, is long gone, and yet file sharing continues to shape the musical landscape.
The RIAA fight with Napster ended with the RIAA spending MILLIONS trying to block sharing using lawsuits against parents of teens (dumb ass move), investing in watermarking techniques (that $#&% didn’t work) and disbanding Napster (good move for Kazaa, Bearshare, Blubster and on and on). Just like a Greek Hydra, you cut off 1 head and 3 more grow out.
Is Mr. Murdoch STUPID? That is my question today? Probably not, he is just OLD! LMAO
Please Rate My Video with 5-Stars DSR’s
Related posts:
y first time when you miss it you really do , he also owns fox channels. he wants to be paid for the use of the rebroadcast of news and entertainment which now gos out for free by Google . if Google had to pay for the news and info they use do you think that there would be as much info on Google, Google charges for its finding search , but pays no one for all the info the glean from every else , Murdock only wants to get paid for some of the money Google is making of him
Hello goliathusmam,
Thank you for your comments. I think the MAJOR point that I am making here
is not about Murdoch wanting to monetize his content. That part I have no
problem with at all. I do not want anyone to think that is what I am trying
to convey.
The issue is that PEOPLE determine how the content is distributed in the new
web world. The PEOPLE want the content available via RSS feeds or
in their RSS readers or on their mobile phone. If Murdoch or anyone else who
is the owner of content does not wake up to the fact that you must provide
it the way the reader wants it, then they might just be in for a rude
awakening.
The listeners of music wanted MP3's and the music company wanted to keep us
buying CD's…Who won? The music companies? NOPE…APPLE!!!
Apple gave the music listeners what they wanted and monetized it. They then
DRAGGED the music labels kicking and screaming to the table. That is how
this works. The people got what they wanted and they are willing to pay for
it.
I am in NO WAY advocating that Murdoch or anyone else not be compensated for
its content. I am saying that Murdoch had better realize that the people
will not continue comming to him on his terms. The times dictact that
companies figure out the delivery of content the way the people want it
(like Apple did for music, Amazon is doing for books and Google does for
searching information) that is where the MONEY will flow going forward.
Thanks,
John
e: John@3rdPO.com
store: http://www.3rdPO.com
address: 3rd Power | 3550 Centerville Hwy | Suite 107-216 | Snellville, GA
30039
fax: 678-805-4900
y first time when you miss it you really do , he also owns fox channels. he wants to be paid for the use of the rebroadcast of news and entertainment which now gos out for free by Google . if Google had to pay for the news and info they use do you think that there would be as much info on Google, Google charges for its finding search , but pays no one for all the info the glean from every else , Murdock only wants to get paid for some of the money Google is making of him
Hello goliathusmam,
Thank you for your comments. I think the MAJOR point that I am making here
is not about Murdoch wanting to monetize his content. That part I have no
problem with at all. I do not want anyone to think that is what I am trying
to convey.
The issue is that PEOPLE determine how the content is distributed in the new
web world. The PEOPLE want the content available via RSS feeds or
in their RSS readers or on their mobile phone. If Murdoch or anyone else who
is the owner of content does not wake up to the fact that you must provide
it the way the reader wants it, then they might just be in for a rude
awakening.
The listeners of music wanted MP3's and the music company wanted to keep us
buying CD's…Who won? The music companies? NOPE…APPLE!!!
Apple gave the music listeners what they wanted and monetized it. They then
DRAGGED the music labels kicking and screaming to the table. That is how
this works. The people got what they wanted and they are willing to pay for
it.
I am in NO WAY advocating that Murdoch or anyone else not be compensated for
its content. I am saying that Murdoch had better realize that the people
will not continue comming to him on his terms. The times dictact that
companies figure out the delivery of content the way the people want it
(like Apple did for music, Amazon is doing for books and Google does for
searching information) that is where the MONEY will flow going forward.
Thanks,
John
e: John@3rdPO.com
store: http://www.3rdPO.com
address: 3rd Power | 3550 Centerville Hwy | Suite 107-216 | Snellville, GA
30039
fax: 678-805-4900