Google to limit free news access

AlaskaDenise · Dec 1, 2009

Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google, the company has announced.

The concession follows claims from some media companies that the search engine is profiting from online news pages.

Publishers will join a First Click Free programme that will prevent web surfers from having unrestricted access.

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

'Gaining' revenue

"Previously, each click from a user would be treated as free," Google senior business product manager Josh Cohen said in a blog post.

"Now, we've updated the programme so that publishers can limit users to no more than five pages per day without registering or subscribing."

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch had earlier accused firms such as Google of profiting from journalism by generating advertising revenue by linking readers to newspaper articles.

Some readers have discovered they can avoid paying subscription fees to newspaper websites by calling up their pages via Google.

BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones said the concession was relatively minor but Mr Murdoch might see it as vindication of his decision to take on Google.

Google users may start seeing registration pages appear when they click for a sixth time on any given day at websites of publishers using the program, according to Mr Cohen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8389896.stm

AlaskaDenise · Dec 1, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

I wonder how this will work for site that use the entire article (not requiring a click either thru Google or to the original source)?

FT newhounds may find their searches limited.

.

Hogweed · Dec 1, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

AlaskaDenise said:
I wonder how this will work for site that use the entire article (not requiring a click either thru Google or to the original source)?

FT newhounds may find their searches limited.

.

For the moment I believe this only affects access to sites which already require a subscription. Frequently, especially, financial stories (some Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal items for example) have been subscription only but available via Google for free and that's a known work-around to read these news items.

Roehl_JC · Dec 1, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

Impeding the freedom of access to information in the INFORMATION AGE should be verboten.
Impeding access to information in the time of swift-moving pandemics is nefarious IMO.
Greed-driven constructs on the Internet are actually self-defeating and destructive to democratic principles and the mercantilist construct of knowledge as a saleable commodity ought to be seen for what it is, information for sale to the highest bidders...and the same information denied to the masses.

In fact over the years I've learned that those search sites that spend a lot of energy on keeping information and news under tight control also deter interest in themselves.

Those websites that gain readership over time from Google linking are doing so for a combination of reasons, both altruistic perhaps as well as pecuniary. The ones that make visitors subscribe and log in will over time MISS OUT in increasing their web presences as most Googlers will simply find alternate sites with the same information accessible immediately. Those including Google who might choose to use programs that go counting numbers of searches per day per IP on any subject and then 'clockout' or go 'per/pay' will only shoot all their collective status and investors in the foot, I fear then they'd be literally killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

For there will be quick responses by the Freedom of Information majority who will geek their ways forward and relaunch tools to accomplish the same functions but for totally NONPROFIT principles. And most information sources WANT to be visited. An unvisited site, even if it has great FX and news, is just a fish out of water gasping for breath.

IMO If only the murdochs and fox and sky's of the world could stop formulating for-profit modalities that foster elitist discourses...let's all move on to the recognition of much vital local, national and international interests and rights in realtime information flows for ALL impartial science and professional service sites...which in turn will profit them but not always in direct pecuniary ways.

Niko · Dec 1, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

Just my :twocents: analysis.

News organizations are suffering. The economy and the internet have taken a bite out of their profits. I support independent privately owned news sources. As a believer in capitalism, I have no issues with profit earnings of private industries. However, I can't see how limiting access will boost their earnings. It seems counterproductive

.

Additionally, I think that the mega-main stream media organizations have been allowed far too much influence on what and how information is disseminated.Thank goodness for alternative media sources that help keep these conglomerates on their toes!

AlaskaDenise · Dec 2, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

Niko said:
Just my :twocents: analysis.

News organizations are suffering. The economy and the internet have taken a bite out of their profits. I support independent privately owned news sources. As a believer in capitalism, I have no issues with profit earnings of private industries. However, I can't see how limiting access will boost their earnings. It seems counterproductive .

Additionally, I think that the mega-main stream media organizations have been allowed far too much influence on what and how information is disseminated.Thank goodness for alternative media sources that help keep these conglomerates on their toes!

All good points. New reporters don't want their paychecks to bounce, so the news agencies need profits. Perhaps the worsening economy means online advertisers aren't as profitable as expected.

As long as they don't get as greedy as the Wall Street giants, I won't begrudge them a reasonable subscription price - IF they do a good job.

A major statewide newspaper here tried requiring subscriptions (free) to read entire ariticles - it didn't last long.

While capitalism can be good, I believe the primary objective of businesses should be to serve the needs of society. After meeting that objective, if they do a good job they'll be profitable. I do not concur with the primary objective being to return profits to shareholders - even if it hurts people.

If good reporters could be assured of making a decent wage, maybe the quality of news reports would improve.

.

gsgs · Dec 2, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

some newspapers will limit access, some not.

Some searchengines will hopefully emerge to only list
eyword hits from unlimited access newspapers, from articles
where the keywords can actually be found.

Same for excessive advertising : some searchengines will
hopefully measure the time that it needs to load the page
and allow using this as filter in the search.

Or they make text-only copies for the cache.
Newpapers who don't allow this will just be not read
by many people then.
Or only read as 2nd choice.

"no Copyright on news" was the rule.
Is it still valid ?
Are they going to change it ?

I'm waiting for a second,free internet where copyrighted or otherwise
restricted stuff just doesn't appear.
(and where there is no censorship, yes)

Snowy Owl · Dec 2, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

When Robert Murdoch talks about limiting access to information should be considered seriously by us diseases trackers and here is one example why.

Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation Europe and Asia and chairman of BSkyB, starts in the ?75,000-a-year post on 20 May.
He will serve as a member of GSK's corporate responsibility committee, where he will help to review "external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group's business and reputation".
"I am delighted to welcome James to the board of GSK," said chairman Sir Christopher Gent, the former Vodafone chief executive. "His experience of global business, marketing and communications will bring a unique and alternative perspective to the board.
"He will also be an excellent addition to the board's corporate responsibility committee, an area where he has shown particular leadership at BSkyB and News Corporation."
Murdoch's fellow directors will include the outgoing Reed Elsevier chief executive Sir Crispin Davis and Sir Robert Wilson, the non-executive chairman of the Economist group.
Murdoch, the son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, also sits on the boards of Yankee Global Enterprises, the parent company of the New York Yankees baseball club, and the US student magazine the Harvard Lampoon.
He is on the leadership council of the Climate Group, an independent organisation focused on tackling on climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/02/james-murdoch-in-glaxosmithcline-role

tropical · Dec 2, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

#1: "Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google, the company has announced."

"Computer clouding" ...

The stage was setlled several months prior (FT posts exists).
The decision was already made with an 1 year "grace" period.

If the same will be pushed for all the main web digital news harvesters/ publishers, that will be a kind of modern information filtering - the main hubs web news holders will pick the wanted species of wide published news.

That way, without additional payings, other non widely local free released news, if not picked (or disposable free unlimited) by the hubs, could be only particularly submitted to the web collectors sites.

The nail on free range learning, and the continuation of the pharm ...

marcovth · Dec 2, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

There are easy ways to kill google cookies.

AlaskaDenise · Dec 2, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

marcovth said:
There are easy ways to kill google cookies.

I believe they were going to tabulate uses by IP.

.

Niko · Dec 3, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

AlaskaDenise said:
I believe they were going to tabulate uses by IP.

.

I use scroogle whenever possible. It doesn't have all of the neat little categories for searches, but it is it is sufficient for most of my use.
http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html

tropical · Dec 4, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

#12:...

As Denise said.

If the corp/estab want to restrict the copyrighted/published news free docs retrieving from the main news hubs, they will arrange with the corps globaly, and enforce tecnicaly the solutions.

As already for the structured digitized copyrighted docs: no money, no honey - but few grabs for free substract watching, if.

The next will be the breathing air ...

JJackson · Dec 4, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype> I have to admit my ignorance about this specific problem as I have not been using a search engine for news stories. It is however a manifestation of a much larger problem which I wrote on a couple of years ago and although I am fairly sure I posted here I can not now find it, so here is a resume.
<o

> </o

>
The internet has not yet found a viable business model or at least it is still in the process of doing so. The potential was fairly obvious from the outset and everyone knew they had to be a part of it. News papers wanted a web presence, just like everyone else, but failed to think the problem through to its logical conclusions - the recording industry were quicker to understand the problem as they had had an analogous lesson with the invention of the cassette tape. In the nascent Internet print media thought they could increase readership by making their product available online - without effecting news paper sales - and if this new Internet thingy really took off then online advertising would support it in the same way as on commercial television. Their problem is their news paper sales have plummeted, and with it their advertising rates, and while the internet side has increased the total news readership it has not provided a commensurate income stream. To cut costs they have all been closing their overseas and regional bureau, and staff, shifting to regurgitated wire stories. Even I – who am usually just a parasite on the hard work of the sites news gathers – haven’t been able to escape the fact that trying to add detail to a story normally just leads to reading the same thing again and again in different papers and even within the same paper different ‘swine flu’ – or anything else - stories are basically recycling the same stock paragraphs with one of two story specific additions.
<o

> </o

>
All of this is a major problem because as good as we are, collectively, at collating and interpreting the available news our worsening problem is we are drinking form a shrinking pool. It may be wider, as it is fed by more first hand accounts, but it lacks depth. The Times’ man in <st1:city><st1

lace>Lagos</st1

lace></st1:city> (or whatever) has – or rather had - the contacts, local knowledge & understanding and time to added a layer we can’t. Even the wire service man in <st1:city><st1

lace>Lagos</st1

lace></st1:city> is probably also covering most of the rest of continent. We need these people, I do not know the best way to fund them but we do need them. I have tried to get people to talk to me from companies, and other organisation, when trying to verify a news story but without being ‘credentialed’ press they usually don’t feel obliged to reply. As the ‘real’ credentialed press are each covering more ground there are less of them who really understand the subjects they are reporting upon and so don’t know the questions to ask and cannot interpret the answers anyway.
The Newspapers shot themselves in the foot when they started posting their content for free but now they have done so the public are not going to accept them taking it away again. As noted above when it has been tried readers just went elsewhere and given the homogeneity of their output the reader looses little by doing so. I am very much in favour of a system of lots of readers paying a little each rather than the type of arrangement we have in Scientific journals where a very few readers are being charged for one article more than the cost of buying a copy of every national daily. This is a model that could never survive if those reading were the same as those doing the paying.

AlaskaDenise · Dec 4, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

All of this is a major problem because as good as we are, collectively, at collating and interpreting the available news our worsening problem is we are drinking form a shrinking pool. It may be wider, as it is fed by more first hand accounts, but it lacks depth

I do find that a few online news sources are consistently good. When I want in-depth reports I go to Bloomberg, Christian Science Monitor, etc. The Monitor quit printing most of it's paper issues in the recent past, but they have an online storefront marketing interesting merchandise. So how do the few good sources stay profitable?

.

tropical · Dec 4, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

#14:...

I see it as an pre-wide-internet-time business hand out come back attempt.

Do not forget that at old times, docs were possible free photocopied/faxed only, or it must be purchased/payed.

A revival of such paycard-TV models, will detract from watching all the non-payed future digitized picked docs.

And the unsolicited publicity scam stil be capable to mainly remain as "marketing" business.

JJackson · Dec 4, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice:smarttags" name="stockticker"></o:smarttagtype> It occurs to me that I was rather gloomy in my earlier post. For those of us lucky enough to have access and who are willing to put in the required time and effort the Internet world is infinitely better than the pre-Internet world. Most people who bought a paper usually bought the same one and were subject to editorial bias. If your interests were a little more esoteric – like zoonotic disease emergence – you were unlikely to get more than one or two articles a year in the non-tabloids and none - unless it was Ebola – from a tabloid. Outside academia any kind of journal access was almost impossible, unless required for your job. Very few of us would know more than a few percent of what we know today, about the topics covered on this site, and would never have ‘found’ each other to pool our knowledge. The changes that have occurred are very much to the good it is just they could have been even better if they had been achieved without the loss of so many dedicated – in many senses of the word – journalists. I worry that we will not continue to have the benefits the old system could provide, in addition to the new, if we do not quickly find a mechanism to keep the old viable <st1:stockticker>AND</st1:stockticker> independent.

AlaskaDenise · Dec 4, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

I worry that we will not continue to have the benefits the old system could provide, in addition to the new, if we do not quickly find a mechanism to keep the old viable AND independent.

I can envision a small subscription price allowing access to a "group" of news sources, similar to cable TV - where there are different bundles of channels available for purchase. Perhaps we'd have an option to choose 20 out of 200 news sources for inclusion a subscription bundle. But it would be difficult to stop the "cut and paste" artists.

.

tropical · Dec 4, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

why to pay anything, if things goes well as it is now

100 years ago, water was free of charge ...

AlaskaDenise · Dec 4, 2009

Re: Google to limit free news access

tropical said:
why to pay anything, if things goes well as it is now

100 years ago, water was free of charge ...

If keeping news free means that good reporters and quality bureaus go out of business, is it worth it? News may be headed the way of other products - we get exactly what we pay for.

.

Google to limit free news access

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

Well-known member

Moderator

Editor, Senior Moderator

In Memoriam

Registered User

Retired in 2010, In Memoriam

Well-known member

Resident

In Memoriam

Editor, Senior Moderator

Well-known member

In Memoriam - Senior Moderator

In Memoriam

Well-known member

In Memoriam - Senior Moderator

In Memoriam

Well-known member

In Memoriam