Google is to restrict free news to just 5 clicks a day.

Run_to_da_hills

Goggle has detailed plans to limit the number of on line newspaper articles its users can read for free. After just five clicks you then have to subscribe.

I do agree that it has been a free for all against media corporates with scoops being pirated and edited by various groupes however I would like to know who will make from this subscription.

I can also see the pro's and cons of this. Setting up pay walls is the first step towards internet restriction and could eventually lead to media censorship.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/12/091202_googlenews_ap.shtml

MrStuffins

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Goggle has detailed plans to limit the number of on line newspaper articles its users can read for free. After just five clicks you then have to subscribe.

I do agree that it has been a free for all against media corporates with scoops being pirated and edited by various groupes however I would like to know who will make from this subscription.

I can also see the pro's and cons of this. Setting up pay walls is the first step towards internet restriction and could eventually lead to media censorship.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/12/091202_googlenews_ap.shtml

Did clicking on that link count as one of my 5 clicks?

(PS, that picture of Murdoch, nazi salute?)

Gummy Panda

Rupert Murdoch is an annoying cúnt!

thehomeofDob

It's bypassing a companies subscription. Googles well within their rights to do this. It's not media censorship as the information is still available if you pay a subscription.

This is the same as you walking into Spar and picking up the Times, reading the whole thing and leaving. Now Spar are telling you that you can only read five articles before you have to pay for it.

gerry28

They will jump to help big business and money alright.

What are they doing about some of the monstrous stuff floating around the internet... bullying, exploitation and all the other nasties hosted on their site.

Ita all about the money money money!!!

kmick

There will always be free news on the internets. I mean its free on tv - why would we pay for it online.

MrStuffins

thehomeofDob wrote: »

It's bypassing a companies subscription. Googles well within their rights to do this. It's not media censorship as the information is still available if you pay a subscription.

This is the same as you walking into Spar and picking up the Times, reading the whole thing and leaving. Now Spar are telling you that you can only read five articles before you have to pay for it.

Spar ain't the boss of me!

SV

gerry28 wrote: »

They will jump to help big business and money alright.

What are they doing about some of the monstrous stuff floating around the internet... bullying, exploitation and all the other nasties hosted on their site.

Ita all about the money money money!!!

lol@bullying on the internet.
It's very easy to get away from..go to a different website.

Nevyn

Don't use google, set up an rss feed reader from the site you want.
/hugs her bloglines account.

phantom_lord

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Goggle has detailed plans to limit the number of on line newspaper articles its users can read for free. After just five clicks you then have to subscribe.

I do agree that it has been a free for all against media corporates with scoops being pirated and edited by various groupes however I would like to know who will make from this subscription.

I can also see the pro's and cons of this. Setting up pay walls is the first step towards internet restriction and could eventually lead to media censorship.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/12/091202_googlenews_ap.shtml

why do you always make such leaps in logic...google want you to subscribe for premium content...OMG MEDIA CENSORSHIP!!

Miami Weiss

Fail.

gerry28

SV wrote: »

lol@bullying on the internet.
It's very easy to get away from..go to a different website.

Business/money or people and their wellbeing - money wins every time for entities like google

ScumLord

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Rupert Murdoch is an annoying cúnt!

He's a dirty money grubbing knacker is what he is.

I don't see why google crumbled to his demands. What's stopping people from going directly to the websites if they want the news so bad? It would have been one of the best things to happen to the internet if they'd just dropped all his so called newspapers.

hooradiation

gerry28 wrote: »

Business/money or people and their wellbeing - money wins every time for entities like google

Yeah! Who do these businesses think they are, with their whole "expecting to be compensated for the use of the product they produce"?

Damn corporations being all corporation-y....

biko

Switch search engine

Mark200

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Goggle has detailed plans to limit the number of on line newspaper articles its users can read for free. After just five clicks you then have to subscribe.

I do agree that it has been a free for all against media corporates with scoops being pirated and edited by various groupes however I would like to know who will make from this subscription.

I can also see the pro's and cons of this. Setting up pay walls is the first step towards internet restriction and could eventually lead to media censorship.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/12/091202_googlenews_ap.shtml

I think the problem is that Google News was bypassing a subscription requirement for some news content. I think for example the Wall Street Journal etc required subscriptions to view their content but Google News got around that for those who clicked on a Google News link.

So this 5 click restriction will, I believe, only apply to those subscription related sites

(Although if the site owners wanted to, they could have blocked Google very easily).

pickarooney

I don't understand what google has to do with the content of third-party websites and its availability, paid or unpaid

Mark200

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand what google has to do with the content of third-party websites and its availability, paid or unpaid

I think the problem was that if Google didn't do something about the subscription thing, Rupert Murdoch's websites and others may have cut off Google from accessing all content, but continued to allow Microsoft's Bing to access it.

BaZmO*

Ah the Irish Times tried to charge for an online subscription a few years too. When they realised that nobody was ársed paying for it they weren't long going back to free content.

The beauty of the internet is that as soon as someone starts to charge for a service that people don't want to pay for they just get the service somewhere else.

BaconZombie

They did not "bypass" anything, the site just did not setup their " robot.txt " file properly so Google were perfectly within their right to used and published the information under " Fair-Use " laws.

Mark200 wrote: »

I think the problem is that Google News was bypassing a subscription requirement for some news content. I think for example the Wall Street Journal etc required subscriptions to view their content but Google News got around that for those who clicked on a Google News link.

So this 5 click restriction will, I believe, only apply to those subscription related sites

(Although if the site owners wanted to, they could have blocked Google very easily).

efb

bbc.co.uk simples

Dont be at yourself

If Murdoch wants to charge for access to his news, people will simply go elsewhere. There are a lot fewer barriers to get news onto the web than there are to get it onto shop shelves or television sets.

Blowfish

gerry28 wrote: »

They will jump to help big business and money alright.

What are they doing about some of the monstrous stuff floating around the internet... bullying, exploitation and all the other nasties hosted on their site.

Where exactly is this supposedly hosted on Google?

gerry28

Blowfish wrote: »

Where exactly is this supposedly hosted on Google?

My wording prob wasn't great but my point is they have been asked quite a few times internationally to help clean up aspects of the internet and they don't seem too interested in that. But along comes rupert murdoch and they are jumping through hoops for him.

ScumLord

I don't know why they did, I would have thought google would have much more clowt at this stage what with them owning two of the biggest websites in the world. Everyone uses google.

I wonder if you had to choose one would it be google/youtube or sky/the sun?

Theta

Its only going to be news corp **** anyway so who cares i dont read any or there rubbish.

GLaDOS

I'm assuming it restricts it to access directly from google, so whats to stop you searching then putting the URL in manually?

IvySlayer

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I'm assuming it restricts it to access directly from google, so whats to stop you searching then putting the URL in manually?

I'm lazy.

Theta

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I'm assuming it restricts it to access directly from google, so whats to stop you searching then putting the URL in manually?

Because all news corp sites are going subscription based. The sun, wall street journo, fox news. So if you goto the site you will have to pay.

Which no one will pay!

BBC, Irish Times and Indo FTW

GLaDOS

irlmarc wrote: »

Because all news corp sites are going subscription based. The sun, wall street journo, fox news. So if you goto the site you will have to pay.

Which no one will pay!

BBC, Irish Times and Indo FTW

Ah ok, I get all my news from boards anyway :pac:

And BBC would be my preference if I really needed to look up something

General Zod

MrStuffins wrote: »

Spar ain't the boss of me!

I work in Centra.

lostexpectation

i still don't get this, all i ever read on google news is summaries or the first five lines, is murdoch complaining because few of his "News" articles go beyond five lines?