Rupert Murdoch is threatening to pull his content from Google. Is this a bluff?
(Credit: Dan Farber/CNET)Rupert Murdoch, the media tycoon who has long accused Google of ripping off content from his newspapers, says his sites may soon disappear from the search engine's listings.
Murdoch is chairman of News Corp., the newspaper, TV, and Internet empire that includes The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, 20th Century Fox, Fox News, and Hulu. He made the comments in an interview late last week with Sky News Australia. (See video below.)
After Murdoch accused Google, Microsoft, and others of "stealing" his company's content, he was asked why he just doesn't pull his Web sites from Google's search results.
"I think we will," Murdoch responded. "But that's when we start charging."
Murdoch and other News Corp. execs have said that they intend to charge readers and viewers. In the past, the company's sites have relied on advertising revenue.
Murdoch made it clear he's no fan of the ad-supported model. "There are no news sites or blog sites making any serious money," he said.
"What's the point of having someone come occasionally who likes a headline they see in Google," Murdoch continued. "The fact is there isn't enough advertising in the world to go around to make all the Web sites profitable. We'd rather have fewer people coming to our Web sites but paying."
When asked why he would buck the trend of offering free content, Murdoch said: "(The public) shouldn't have had it free. I think we've been asleep."
Google has said that it feels obligated to help media companies because it needs their content. That hasn't stopped Murdoch and his staff from continuing to make hostile comments about the search engine. What News Corp. hasn't done much of is follow up with action.
Is News Corp. trying to scare Google into making more concessions? Or is it just afraid to pull the trigger?
Note to readers: If you're having problems seeing your comments below the story, so are we. We're working on it and apologize.
One major obstacle seems to have been settled in Comcast's quest to buy NBC Universal from General Electric--how much to pay for it.
Both companies have reportedly agreed on a price of $30 billion for GE's movie and TV unit, according to sources cited Monday by Reuters and The Wall Street Journal (subscription required for full story).
The agreement on the worth of NBC Universal (NBCU) is a major step toward paving the way to create a new, privately held company that would combine NBC's TV stations and Universal Studios with Comcast's TV and cable stations. NBCU's Web properties include iVillage and the online video site Hulu, in which it is a co-owner along with News Corp. and Walt Disney Co.
Under the terms of the proposed deal, Comcast would own a majority 51 percent slice of the new entity, with GE owning the remaining 49 percent.
Further, the two companies have discussed an option whereby GE would sell off all or most of its ownership of the new company to Comcast over the next seven years, according to sources cited previously. Recent reports say that GE and Comcast have now decided how to price the new entity after the deal goes into effect so that GE faces no problems selling off its remaining stake.
The valuation of NBC Universal was seen as a major challenge in advancing the deal, according to sources. Comcast naturally was intent on maximizing the value of its own networks and minimizing the value of NBCU to limit the amount of up-front cash it would need to invest in the new firm. Latest reports say that Comcast would inject anywhere from $4 billion to $6 billion into the new entity.
However, both companies have reportedly agreed to base Comcast's final cash payment on NBCU's financial performance before any finalized deal closes. If its performance tanks, Comcast could end up paying less.
Other challenges remain, too. French media giant Vivendi owns 20 percent of NBCU. Vivendi has reportedly told GE that it wants to sell its stake but has yet to voice approval on any deal of its own. A valuation of the company's 20 percent ownership is currently being discussed, said the source cited by Reuters.
Of course, even if Vivendi agrees to a deal and all looks good, regulatory approval would be required, especially since Comcast would own a huge chunk of national and local media outlets. The Journal said that people close to the talks believe regulatory approval could take at least eight to 12 months.
Comcast's bid for a majority stake in NBC Universal was first revealed in early October.
Requests for confirmation to GE and Comcast were not immediately returned.
The Nook
(Credit: Barnes & Noble)Demand is so strong for the Nook that Barnes & Noble has begun telling new customers not to expect delivery of the soon-to-be-released e-reader until the second week of December.
When the nation's largest bookseller unveiled the device in October, customers placing early preorders were told they could expect the Nook to ship by the end of November; customers placing preorders now are being told they can expect shipment by December 11. The new shipping date was first reported by Brighthand.com.
A Barnes & Noble representative confirmed the December 11 shipping date but disputed the characterization of the new shipping date as a delay.
"Like with any hot, new consumer device, the sooner you order it, the sooner you receive it," said Mary Ellen Keating, senior vice president of corporate communications and public affairs. "We had high expectations for the Nook and couldn't be happier" with preorder sales. However, she declined to say how many of the e-readers had been preordered.
"We are working hard to meet demand for the holidays," she said.
Earlier this month, start-up Spring Design filed a lawsuit against Barnes & Noble, alleging the bookseller misappropriated its trade secrets in the design of the Nook. Spring Design had announced its Alex e-reader just days before Barnes & Noble formally unveiled the Nook. Both e-readers use the Android operating system and combine an e-ink screen with a color touch screen. It seeks both monetary damages and a halt to sales of the Nook.
The $259 Nook, a challenger to Amazon.com's Kindle, will join an expected boom in e-reader sales. In a report released last month, Forrester Research raised its 2009 forecast for e-reader sales in the United States to 3 million units from its previous prediction of 2 million sales. Forrester also expects Amazon's Kindle to command about 60 percent of the e-reader market in 2009, compared with 35 percent for Sony's Reader.
A court has hit pause on the sale of Beatles tunes from the Web site BlueBeat.
Judge John Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California late this week issued a temporary restraining order against BlueBeat after being petitioned Tuesday by the Capitol Records unit of music label EMI, which owns the Beatles' recordings.
The judge found BlueBeat's arguments "lacking in clarity" and wrote that the defendants failed to offer reliable evidence to support "their claim that they 'independently developed their own original sounds'."
As Matt Rosoff wrote this week for CNET, BlueBeat's claims have a good likelihood of being laughed out of court. The company's defense includes the assertion that it didn't post the exact Beatles recordings, but rather "psychoacoustic simulations" to which it added some video content, thus creating a new audiovisual work.
BlueBeat was offering Beatles songs and albums for purchase or download for 25 cents per track, in addition to offering free streaming.
"Given that the Beatles catalog, including the remastered Beatles recordings, has never been released by Plaintiffs for digital download or licensed for on-demand streaming, every day that Defendants offer the Beatles catalog for digital download or licensed for on-demand streaming irreparably harms Plaintiffs' exclusive right to control the use of its copyright materials," the judge wrote in his order.
EMI was not available for comment, nor was BlueBeat, whose Web site has been offline throughout the day Saturday. Offline as well were BlueBeat owner Media Rights Technologies and an affiliated company called BaseBeat, both of which also are listed as defendants, along with MRT founder Hank Risan.
Besides Capitol Records, the plaintiffs include Caroline Records, EMI Christian Music Group, and Virgin Records America.
The court set a hearing for November 20.
Record label EMI this week announced that it will begin selling on-the-spot recordings of concerts.
The name of the initiative, Abbey Road Live, is a bit misleading--it doesn't have anything to do with the Beatles album or the recording studio after which it was named.
Rather, EMI is using its Abbey Road brand to indicate that these aren't low-quality bootlegs but professional multitrack recordings, mixed and mastered on the spot, and sold on CDs, DVDs, or flash drives to fans at the venue. EMI also said on Wednesday that it plans to make the recordings available as streams or downloads, so fans can access them from home.
Instant concert recording isn't new: EMI sub-label Mute Records has had a similar program in place since 2004--according to the press release, 10 percent of fans at a recent Blur concert downloaded the show afterward--and Willie Nelson has been selling flash drives with on-the-spot concert recordings for several years.
But having a large record label like EMI on board legitimizes the practice. It's a no-brainer way for live acts to earn some extra cash--and great for fans as well. I can think of many concerts I've attended, after which I would gladly have paid another $20 for a recording. This should become standard operating practice in the next couple of years.
Bert and Ernie shared space on Google's home page on Friday with an ad for Motorola's Droid, the Verizon Wireless smartphone that went on sale on Friday.
(Credit: Screenshot by Ina Fried/CNET News)As the newsroom's biggest Sesame Street fan, I'd be remiss if I didn't highlight the tribute Google paid to the PBS show this week, on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.
On Wednesday, Big Bird's feet and lower body graced the home page, while Thursday saw Cookie Monster nibbling on the Google logo. On Friday, Bert and Ernie served as the O's in Google.
But Bert and Ernie had to share the home page on Friday, as Google also used a front-page link to tout the new Motorola Droid smartphone that went on sale at Verizon Wireless stores.
Although such promotional pitches aren't the norm for its homepage, Google has used them in the past to tout the Chrome browser as well as the first Android phone, T-Mobile's G1.
Big Bird's feet served as the "L" in the Google logo on Wednesday, as the search giant kicked off its tribute to Sesame Street.
(Credit: Google)As for the Sesame Street "doodles," Google Vice President Marissa Mayer noted that "many Googlers grew up on Sesame Street."
"We're delighted to have partnered with Sesame Street to create this special series of doodles, particularly since we share the same values of education, diversity, and accessibility," Mayer said in a blog posting.
Lest anyone doubt my devotion to the show, here's a video interview I did with Elmo Live, when that toy came out last year.
Jimmy Wales gives a keynote address at the 2009 Symbian Exchange and Exposition.
(Credit: Natasha Lomas/Silicon.com)If you've ever written something about Jimmy Wales and posted it online, chances are he's read it. He mentions a Twitter post I made, prior to our interview, asking whether people think he's a hero or villain.
With my tweet I'd been hoping to get a feel for opinion on the Wikipedia, Wikimedia and Wikia founder. Which is he then, I ask? Hero or villain?
"Oh I would say both," he replies with a smile. "Depends on who you are."
Read more of "Jimmy Wales on what's next for Wikipedia" at Silicon.com.
Online auction giant eBay announced Friday that its sale of a controlling interest in its Skype unit will proceed, following the settlement of litigation over the proposed transaction.
The settlement restructures the deal with an investor group led by Silver Lake and puts an end to a dispute with software maker Joltid over the licensing of software that underlies Skype's Internet telephony service.
In addition, the settlement brings Skype and Joltid founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, into the investor group. The duo will take a 14 percent stake in Skype in exchange for contributing Joltid software and a "significant capital investment."
Silver Lake and other investors will now hold 56 percent of Skype, and eBay will retain 30 percent. Those other investors include the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz--started by Marc Andreessen, the man behind the early Web browser Netscape--and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
Venture capital firm Index Ventures, which had been embroiled in the legal action, has withdrawn from participation in the investor group.
As in the initial agreement, eBay will receive approximately $1.9 billion in cash when the sale is completed, along with a note from the buyer in the principal amount of $125 million.
The deal, which eBay says puts Skype's value at $2.75 billion, is expected to close during the current quarter.
Under the settlement agreement, which involves the Silver Lake investor group, Joltid, and online video company Joost, Skype will have ownership over all software previously licensed from Joltid. All related litigation now pending against the investor group and eBay will cease at the closing of the acquisition.
Zennström and Friis had sold Skype to eBay for $2.6 billion in 2006, but they had also retained the rights to Skype's peer-to-peer technology via Joltid, a separate company that they had also founded. In its lawsuit filed in September of this year, Joltid raised charges of copyright infringement, alleging that Skype had acquired unauthorized versions of the source code, made unauthorized modifications, and disclosed the software to third persons.
Also in September, Joost--yet another company started by Zennström and Friis--filed a lawsuit against former Joost CEO Mike Volpi, who two months earlier had become partner at Index Ventures, which also was named in the lawsuit. Joost claimed that Volpi, who had done a stint on Skype's board of directors, had used confidential information as part of Index Ventures' participation in the Silver Lake-led effort to buy a majority share in Skype.
In the third quarter, Skype contributed $185 million in revenue to eBay, up nearly 30 percent from the year-earlier period. It has more than 520 million registered users.
Update at 8:10 a.m. PST: More details of the settlement have been added.
Although several artists have been depicted in music games like Guitar Hero in the past, Gwen Stefani's No Doubt is having some trouble with its own likeness in the newly released Band Hero game from Activision.
According to a court filing obtained by the Los Angeles Times, the band sued Activision over a feature in the title that provides gamers with the opportunity to have band members perform another artist's songs.
The lawsuit specifically takes issue with the ability for gamers to have No Doubt lead singer Gwen Stefani perform the Rolling Stones' Honky Tonk Women. The suit claims that it "results in an unauthorized performance by the Gwen Stefani avatar in a male voice boasting about having sex with prostitutes," the LA Times is reporting, citing documents filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday. The suit also claims that No Doubt objected to the "Character Manipulation Feature," but Activision refused to remove it.
For its part, Activision says that it's not at fault. The company wrote in a statement cited in several publications, that it has a "written agreement" with No Doubt that justifies the use of its likeness in various features in the game.
"Activision has a written agreement to use No Doubt in Band Hero--an agreement signed by No Doubt after extensive negotiations with its representatives, who collectively have decades of experience in the entertainment industry," the company said in a statement. "Pursuant to that agreement, Activision worked with No Doubt and the band's management in developing Band Hero. As a result, Activision believes it is within its legal rights with respect to the use and portrayal of the band members in the game and that this lawsuit is without merit.
"Activision is exploring its own legal options with respect to No Doubt's obligations under the agreement."
No Doubt is asking for unspecified damages, as well as "a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction against distribution of the game and for Activision to recall existing copies," the Times is reporting.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Last week, a music site called BlueBeat made headlines by offering Beatles songs as free streams and 25 cent downloads. The Beatles are known for not making their songs legally available on iTunes or any other online forum, so observers rightly asked "how are they doing this legally?"
EMI, the record label that owns The Beatles' recordings, has a simple response: they're not doing this legally. But here's where the story gets very strange.
The legal reasoning in this case is straight out of "Alice in Wonderland."
(Credit: Wikimedia Commons (public domain illustration))BlueBeat is owned by a company called Media Rights Technologies, which specializes in digital rights management technology. DRM is supposed to be used to prevent copyright infringement. But according to a 2007 blog post on HuffingtonPost.com by the company's founder, Hank Risan, MRT backed into this business after being--get this--targeted by the RIAA for copyright infringement.
As Risan explains in his post, he and a partner had posted a bunch of streaming-audio files to a Web site about the history of music. The RIAA issued a takedown notice, and the site took the streams down.
The streams had been protected by Windows Media DRM, but according to Risan, an update to the Media Player broke the DRM. In response to this flaw, Risan created MRT and built his own DRM system, which he claimed would be far more robust than the systems on the market at that time. Then, in 2007, MRT sent cease-and-desist letters to Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and RealNetworks, ordering them to use MRT's DRM technology instead of their own, on threat of legal action.
The legal reasoning was twisted--basically, MRT argued that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act should force these companies to use the most robust DRM technology available, even if that technology was created by somebody else. Predictably, nothing ever came of this demand.
MRT's legal reasoning is equally funny this time around, as Ars Technica reports. According to the report, MRT claims that it didn't post the exact Beatles recordings. Instead, it posted "psychoacoustic simulations," then added simple video content to them. This constitutes a new audiovisual work, and isn't covered by the existing copyrights, MRT argues. In fact, MRT even went so far as to apply for copyrights on the "new" works!
Perhaps this is all some kind of metacommentary on the frustrating inconsistency of U.S. copyright law, but I predict that MRT is going to be laughed out of court. In the meantime, if you want your Beatles music online, it's still available on BlueBeat as of the time I posted this. I didn't want to give the company a credit card to test the whether the downloads work, but the streams sound pretty close to perfect...especially considering that they're only psychoacoustic simulations.
