Norad: FTA: "Under the First Click Free programme, publishers can now prevent unrestricted access to subscription websites.

Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.

Read past the headline much, submitter?
that was kinda my point, if Google tells Murdock here is a robots.txt file use it or not, small sites get a boost or Murdock backs down. with what Google did how long before you start seeing crap like expertexchange. the start of the article with click here to pay to see the rest of it?

FTA Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.

So after 15 seconds of surfing Google News I will get routed to a give-me-your-farking-money page. Fantastic.

BugMetNot, I hope you're still out there.

Also, what DarthBrooks said.

Y'know, whatever else you can say about him, Rupert Murdoch usually knows how to get his damn money. This just seems stupid, though. I have to assume it's just a poor understanding of the internet. I seriously hope the technology gap in important economic/political people closes pretty quick.

/Oh well, since I use fark I probably don't get more than 5 articles from the exact same site a day anyway

it says 5 "pages" a day, not 5 "articles". it will end up being half of a one page story on 10 pages.

DarthBrooks: The Internet will treat this as damage and route around it.

This.

Barakku: I have to assume it's just a poor understanding of the internet.

Since this is a problem, it's pretty clear that these people have no idea what the 'robots.txt' file is, what it does, or how to use it.

fark Rupert Murdoch. That is all.

Sounds more like google just handed the companies what they wanted, in this case a noose.

AesopRock_00: zedster: you do know with expert exchange if you scroll to the vary bottom the thread it there, right?

it amazes me how many people don't know this.

What? All I get is an endless series of "start your free trial" nag boxes.

DarthBrooks: The Internet will treat this as damage and route around it.

This.

You task the top scientists in the most technologically advanced nation (at least at the time) on the planet with designing a powerful, disaster-proof, infinitely extensible communications grid...

And thats exactly what you get.

The Internet is not a series of tubes. Its the global, digitized consciousness of humanity. Its a series of signal repeaters if anything.

/information wants to be free. it will find a way around your petty bullshiat.

Gump Stump: AesopRock_00: zedster: you do know with expertsexchange if you scroll to the vary bottom the thread it there, right?

it amazes me how many people don't know this.

What? All I get is an endless series of "start your free trial" nag boxes.

Well I still don't want to get my sex change from some amateur

spookidooki: DarthBrooks: The Internet will treat this as damage and route around it.

This.

You task the top scientists in the most technologically advanced nation (at least at the time) on the planet with designing a powerful, disaster-proof, infinitely extensible communications grid...

And thats exactly what you get.

The Internet is not a series of tubes. Its the global, digitized consciousness of humanity. Its a series of signal repeaters if anything.

/information wants to be free. it will find a way around your petty bullshiat.

Can't stop the signal, Mal

Google doesn't have and never had magical access to other people's servers. News sites could redirect visitors to a payment page, store a cookie, display a popup ad, or anything else. What is Google saying they'll do differently from now?

/dnrtfa

I don't understand. At all.

Google News links to articles on other servers. Servers not maintained by Google, but are maintained by the IP owners. Just like I can't post a link to a Total Fark thread and have a non-total Fark person see it, Google can't post a link to a paid article and have anyone who hasn't paid see it.

So, given this, what exactly is article saying Google is doing? Somehow IP owners have given Google control over their pages? That sounds retarded.

If you don't want people who haven't paid from seeing your articles on the web, then put up a paid registration page. It works for the porn industry and they somehow make a profit when porn is free all over the place.

hellbilly: it says 5 "pages" a day, not 5 "articles". it will end up being half of a one page story on 10 pages.

For me it does not mater. Information is free at many other sites. If I land at a news site that requires subscription, maxes out at five articles, or only gives me the first page, they go in my hosts file as 127.0.0.1 (I have a hosts file shortcut on the desktop). I don't need the annoyance, or for someone to hold out their grubby little hands for a news article.

Seems like all the stories about Google lately are bad.. stupid this and dorkus that.. Chrome isn't even flash stable.. yet people still flock to it like free beer. Personally don't use it because of the results I get are worthless (do use maps on there occasionaly, however)

TheMega: Chrome isn't even flash stable.. yet people still flock to it like free beer.

Flash is a dinosaur that doesn't know it's going extinct. CSS, HTML 5, AJAX and H 264 in a MP4 container replace a clear majority of the functionality that only flash could provide developers easily. I say good riddance to Flash.

BumpInTheNight: Sounds more like google just handed the companies what they wanted, in this case a noose.

Well they did hand the Chinese government what they wanted. Murdoch was just a party crasher.

And for the guy that asked, yes Bugmenot still works just fine. And others.

/information should be free

arkansas: That is fine, but I still have no intention of paying Murdoch or anybody else a subscription fee. In the old days I just subscribed to my local paper....I still do and I will restrict myself to their website if that is all I have access to.

All it will do is prevent even my ad clicks on their sites.

I am not sure why they think that the people that currently click through are going to subscribe to all of the stuff they click through. People are not going to pay for Slate, WSJ, Chicago Tribune, NYT, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. They are going to pick ONE, and that one will most likely be their local.

It will be a boon for the locals if they lock down open news sites, but not for Rupert.

1 paid subscriber for a month ($9.99) = 5000 or so ad views (although that's standard google rates, directly sold advertising is probably much better).

Assuming the average viewer has about 5 page views, you only need between 0.1-0.3% of your readers to subscribe to make the same amount of money.

DarthBrooks: The Internet will treat this as damage and route around it.

While I generally agree with this maxim as regards censorship and whatnot in our current environs, I haven't seen a lot of good arguments about what happens when this idea is taken to its logical extreme and you then throw in some totalitarianism. Imposed voluntarily by populist fear, of course.

So, near term, what is the future? In the era of (nearly) free digital reproduction, print is proving more and more unsustainable, perhaps rightly so. Who journalizes in the future? Are ad-supported bloggers really the future of journalism?

Going further, I guess the problem is that the maxim assumes that there is no control of information and that all flow of information is free. This is already not true in certain locales. If the local, physical press is eventually completely eliminated, it would be very simplistic technologically to filter and shape all information flow.

So what if that happens? What then happens to print? Will libraries require security clearances? What if distribution of paper is outlawed, for environmental reasons? What if writing and sending mail becomes an arcane art practiced only by subversives (as opposed to typing and sending email like normal people) and is punishable by ostracization/jail/death? What if the manufacturers of pens, pencils, and markers are bought and shut down by the government?

If I was more motivated, I'd probably write a book about this train of thought or something. It would be 1984 meets White Noise meets Clockwork Orange meets Crying of Lot 49. Any publishers here willing to hear a pitch?

/the internet is not a free market

I use Google News because it works. Why are you making it not work?

First, Google censors itself to kowtow to China.

Three years later, Google sends a cease-and-desist letter to an Android modder named Cyanogen.

Now this.

Google = evil

I didn't think I'd switch to bing but hey, gotta go to what works!

Renowned transvestite sexologist:
If you don't want people who haven't paid from seeing your articles on the web, then put up a paid registration page. It works for the porn industry and they somehow make a profit when porn is free all over the place.

Because it's the suckers that pay for it.

I think Google should start charging Murdoc and the like for linking to thier shaity sites. Greedy bastards the lot of them!

thumpnugget: What if distribution of paper is outlawed, for environmental reasons?

I love unrealistic hypotheticals.

In your brave new world where everyone uses a computer network to transfer their pedestrian information, I doubt paper usage is a serious environmental concern anymore.

thumpnugget: What if writing and sending mail becomes an arcane art practiced only by subversives (as opposed to typing and sending email like normal people) and is punishable by ostracization/jail/death?

Ok, now you are just getting retarded.

thumpnugget: /the internet is not a free market

Aside from the laws of physics, limitations of basic protocols (im talking tcp/udp not higher level like http/ftp/etc) there really are no rules on the internet. Sure, if you start distributing content that is illegal in the real world to someone who notices you can be jailed after they chase you down. But, there is no inherent nature in the internet to really filter anything.

/the internet, as least as we know it even today, does not really have the capacity to enslave you.
//your cell phone, on the other hand, is providing real time location data to whatever law enforcement agency has the whim to want to know where you are

thumpnugget:
So what if that happens? What then happens to print? Will libraries require security clearances? What if distribution of paper is outlawed, for environmental reasons? What if writing and sending mail becomes an arcane art practiced only by subversives (as opposed to typing and sending email like normal people) and is punishable by ostracization/jail/death? What if the manufacturers of pens, pencils, and markers are bought and shut down by the government?


Ask These guys. They have had their own set up for quite some time.

CasperImproved: I don't need the annoyance, or for someone to hold out their grubby little hands for a news article.

Um, yeah. It's one thing if the news source is actually, y'know, generating really good articles and relevant material that can't be found anywhere else. That's worth paying for, in terms of scarcity. But... Newscorp material? BWAHAHAHAHA(gasp)HAHAHA! It's like the AP feed dumbed down to simple.wikipedia.org standards.

Good on Google - basically telling these guys to go EABOD; all this posturing was for was to try and extort money from Google for the "privilege" of linking Newscorp articles. Google responded by saying that they'd bloody well choke off clickthroughs if they keep pushing the issue.

I'm not really surprised by this. I've been hearing a lot of drumbeating by Newscorp flaks lately; threatening to make their material exclusive to Bing (HAHAAAHAAAAAAA-ahem. Sorry.), to cut it off altogether... Yeah. Right.

Okay, let's be entirely clear on this. This is not and has never been about "unpaid access" to Newscorp material by regular users. Newscorp, being a bunch of bungling farkwads, apparently thinks that Google is a load of "new rich" rubes that they can run an extortion scam on. Google has showed them that they not only have a load of very smart people working for them, but also very expensive and experienced lawyers that can detail to them exactly how to tell Newscorp to suck it long and hard without getting a slap on the wrist.

And it is hilarious, because they deserve every second of it, and is just another symptom of decline. Anyone in the business with half a brain cell is now pretty much aware that Newscorp is functionally powerless/helpless in the online realm, and they'll probably get torn to shreds over this in the coming years.

I mean, c'mon. A corporation made out of a bunch of newspapers, local news stations, radio stations and a couple of national TV stations? Newspaper, TV, and cable TV? That's what you got in the 21st century?

Heheheh. It's like watching the whip & buggy maker cartel try and shake down Henry Ford for a cut of the action.

spookidooki: //your cell phone, on the other hand, is providing real time location data to whatever law enforcement agency has the whim to want to know where you are

In case anyone was wanting a link:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/gps-data

spookidooki: I love unrealistic hypotheticals.

In your brave new world where everyone uses a computer network to transfer their pedestrian information, I doubt paper usage is a serious environmental concern anymore.

I too love unrealistic hypotheticals. They're the basis of a bunch of great works of art which I love.

Outlaw paper, and only outlaws have paper.

spookidooki: Ok, now you are just getting retarded.

I did say I was taking things to extremes.

spookidooki: the internet, as least as we know it even today, does not really have the capacity to enslave you.

In the logical extreme, it's not the internet itself that is the problem, but those that control the information flow that happens across the medium and whether or not there is a viable alternative.

/great point about the cell-phone/GPS thing. So much easier to control subversives when you know their location in real time.

I wonder if Rupert Murdoch thinks Idiocracy is something he can profit from?

thumpnugget: So, near term, what is the future?

Some people are journalists because of greater calling. They go into war zones, by themselves, armed only with a computer and camera. Currently, wire services pay them to do what they do. Journalist like that risk death everyday in an attempt to find the truth. Those people will never go extinct, nor will the curious questioner a press conference. Who pays for them will change.

The old print system is dead, the market has demanded it. The system that will replace them will not be of their choosing and that is why they are making all this noise. Publishers have enjoyed scarcity of distribution since the invention of writing. Now, in the 21st century, there's no longer a scarcity AND it takes significantly less of them to do the same kind of job they did 15 years ago. They can't even fathom a world where they are not only dinosaurs, but they can't control how they go extinct.

Like all other paradigm shiats, the market will find a way to monetize it AND meet the demands of the consumer. It will start by making most of them go bankrupt, since they offer redundant services. The ones who find a way to survive the culling will end up with the capital necessary to do what the public demands.

We should pay for our news, because we want good news.

Information should be free in Utopia, but reporters are trying to make a living. If readers won't pay them to report, advertisers will willingly fill that role--but advertisers couldn't give a shiat about truthfulness, compared to profitability and image.

DON'T sacrifice real information for some pocket change. Getting relevant unbiased news is really one of the most important things in the world, yet we treat it like trash... probably because we can't recognize it anymore.

I love NovaeDeArx. That is all.

Huh. People pay for news.

NovaeDeArx: CasperImproved: I don't need the annoyance, or for someone to hold out their grubby little hands for a news article.

Um, yeah. It's one thing if the news source is actually, y'know, generating really good articles and relevant material that can't be found anywhere else. That's worth paying for, in terms of scarcity. But... Newscorp material? BWAHAHAHAHA(gasp)HAHAHA! It's like the AP feed dumbed down to simple.wikipedia.org standards.

Good on Google - basically telling these guys to go EABOD; all this posturing was for was to try and extort money from Google for the "privilege" of linking Newscorp articles. Google responded by saying that they'd bloody well choke off clickthroughs if they keep pushing the issue.

I'm not really surprised by this. I've been hearing a lot of drumbeating by Newscorp flaks lately; threatening to make their material exclusive to Bing (HAHAAAHAAAAAAA-ahem. Sorry.), to cut it off altogether... Yeah. Right.

Okay, let's be entirely clear on this. This is not and has never been about "unpaid access" to Newscorp material by regular users. Newscorp, being a bunch of bungling farkwads, apparently thinks that Google is a load of "new rich" rubes that they can run an extortion scam on. Google has showed them that they not only have a load of very smart people working for them, but also very expensive and experienced lawyers that can detail to them exactly how to tell Newscorp to suck it long and hard without getting a slap on the wrist.

And it is hilarious, because they deserve every second of it, and is just another symptom of decline. Anyone in the business with half a brain cell is now pretty much aware that Newscorp is functionally powerless/helpless in the online realm, and they'll probably get torn to shreds over this in the coming years.

I mean, c'mon. A corporation made out of a bunch of newspapers, local news stations, radio stations and a couple of national TV stations? Newspaper, TV, and cable TV? That's what you got in the 21st century?

Heheheh. It's like watching the whip & buggy maker cartel try and shake down Henry Ford for a cut of the action.

But I wasn't responding to the submitter's link, I was responding to a poster's response.

I agree with your assessment of the original article.