Google's access to index content and free access to information on the Internet
Since last week (and up) is one of the major topics of conversation on news sites and blogs that NewsCorp - personifiseret in Robert Murdoch - will block that Google indexes all of their newspapers online content (The Times, The Sun, The Sunday Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, etc. etc. and their Fox and all its sub-brands).
On the one hand, some journalists and claps his hands above the blade out from the mouth and the fight against the mighty Google will be addressed. On the other hand, network media and taking his head over the old fashioned way of viewing reality. I can refer to Ole Nørskov ( Media Watch ) on the one hand, and Danny Sullivan ( Search Engine Land ) on the other side.
TRAFFIC ON THE INTERNET
The rationale from the news media is so far right to:
Murdoch says he is not interested in the random traffic. He can see that you can tell advertisers that there are so many users of the newspaper online but he prefers loyal users who come back to the content they find interesting - and pay for it - rather than randomly roving users who do not pay for it.
But this premise is wrong. Erick Schonfeld has an article from April 2009 wrote to Google News, Yahoo News and other aggregators are not actual news, but just stand as they are in. And the news media's fear of Google in the same degree transferred to Digg, Delicious, etc. services?
And with the above article from Danny Sullivan, there's no reason to block Google. It's news consumers should be kept out if they will not pay - if the industry and therefore will believe in the business model.
Speculation: NewsCorp vs. Google
I've seen highlighted that Google in less than a year pays the last installment of a record contract with Myspace (NewsCorp) on Web Search from Myspace - see TechCrunch May 2009 . But it is not abundant conspiratorial thinking that these things should be mixed together? Myspace problem to recoup the purchase price originally paid to be found elsewhere - the music industry (nuff said).
And it is only speculation that NewsCorp could go to Bing and say that Microsoft can pay to be allowed to index the content and then market themselves to users that they - unlike competitors - have all content on the web. Firstly, it is Murdoch not especially after Google. He mentions in the interview, Microsoft and Ask in the same breath. Secondly, it's more about the newspaper business model. The subscription numbers fall - in some places dramatically. So instead of having to rely on printed newspapers, then Murdoch seeing opportunities online.
Speculation is raised after in this video on YouTube with Jason Calacanis I have seen through another article on TechCrunch .
FREE ACCESS TO CONTENT
But the idea is as interesting enough to pursue. Not in terms of going after Google. But in relation to copyright and access to information on the Internet.
Will NewsCorp (and others) managed to introduce micro payments and keep search engines out, so will the Internet as we know it today is changing its basic structure. Either the news media's suicide, because others gladly want to meet user needs for news and users do not see 'quality' of old newspapers as journalists and editors look. Or get the news media's success in taming the population to a degree the music industry has long failed with.
FUTURE
And basically I do not believe it. And it makes you probably do not either. Traditional newspapers risks in those years a bloodbath of dimensions because of competition from other traditional news outlets. Twitter is not a newspaper-killer. But it is the users' behavior, perhaps?
If newspapers fail to maintain its position as the point where I as a user go when I need to be updated and get the correct information so that their time is over. At best, they live a more humble life side by side with clean user created news media aggregators as newser.com, Yahoo / Google News and new additions to the online magazine that collects content from such niche. blogs and creates interesting sources of information.
It will mean that many people with a journalistic position and / or training must redefine their professional identity, which some people are already doing. Both by virtue of changes in the media. And because there is no need for so many paid reporters.
