Rupert Murdoch to Mark Zuckerberg... Shut Up, Pay Me

We’re left with one of those rare occasions where we root for both sides to lose BIGLY!!!

And worst outcome for us bystanders is that at least one of them will fail.
So whatever happens, we will likely be able to celebrate.


However on the face of it, I’d still have to side with Suckerberg in this one.

www.google.co.uk...
My sincere apologies to ATS for the Vanity Fair link.
It will have to do, for now.

How do you stop Facebook and Google from taking over the digital media universe? If you’re News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch, the answer is simple: make big tech companies pay news outlets for the content that has made them billions. “If Facebook wants to recognize ‘trusted’ publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies,” Murdoch wrote in a statement Monday. “The publishers are obviously enhancing the value and integrity of Facebook through their news and content, but are not being adequately rewarded for those services.”

Murdoch’s lame ass argument is that Facebook makes a sh*tload of money from MSM presence on Tracebook...
So he wants another pie to put his grubby fingers in...


The only problem I see with that is the fact that Fox (and all the others) have a completely free platform to brainwash people...
So I’m truly at a loss in understanding how this greedy old bastard thinks he is owed money from such a venture.

He tried it in the past with Google as well..
I do believe he failed in threatening to vacate the mega search engine completely and allow Bing to be his host.

Host...
A lifeform that is invaded by a parasitic creature.


Yes. That is definitely what Rupert Murdoch is.




How giddy I become when the elite try to hold each other hostage.
If ever there was a sign of their total greediness in the open, these moments suffice.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Let the War of the Corporations begin! Pretty soon they'll be fighting each other with drones, AI, leverage from cryptocurrencies. Cray cray

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Let the War of the Corporations begin! Pretty soon they'll be fighting each other with drones, AI, leverage from cryptocurrencies. Cray cray

Funny you should say that, because two weeks ago Murdoch wouldn’t have stood a chance in such a war with FB...

That $52 billion Disney sale came at a very convenient time for him to suddenly grow a pair of balls.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

So I’m truly at a loss in understanding how this greedy old bastard thinks he is owed money from such a venture.

Because Facebook is a company that used information from another company. They should pay for it.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Let the War of the Corporations begin! Pretty soon they'll be fighting each other with drones, AI, leverage from cryptocurrencies. Cray cray

With any degree of luck they destroy themselves in the process.

Most of these companies would go belly up without the continual subsidies from the fed and millions of ignorant 'investors'.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

well he does own a 5% share in Disney now and control multiple publishing ventures with his son

they are truly part of the elite, I think when you team up with Disney you have pretty much become a made man

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Hazardous1408

So I’m truly at a loss in understanding how this greedy old bastard thinks he is owed money from such a venture.

Because Facebook is a company that used information from another company. They should pay for it.

FB should pay corps that utilise FB’s free platform in which they’re broadcast (for free) to over a billion potential viewers?

I couldn’t disagree more to be honest.
The corps profits from such an outlet to freely air their product is immense already, and certainly enough compensation for their efforts.

This Murdoch demand is like a Bat-signal for greed, in my opinion.

Which information are you referring to, exactly?
I’m definitely open minded enough to reconsider my position.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

FB should pay corps that utilise FB’s free platform in which they’re broadcast (for free) to over a billion potential viewers?

I thought ads did pay FB?

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Hazardous1408

FB should pay corps that utilise FB’s free platform in which they’re broadcast (for free) to over a billion potential viewers?

I thought ads did pay FB?

Yeah, it can work like that.

They’re called “Sponsored posts”...
Basically anyone on FB can pay a set amount to broadcast their product/post to a set amount of people...

Like £1 for a space on 10 random people’s pages...
And so on.



What needs to be considered in this case is that Fox do not need to do that at all.
Their news and posts will be shared by a large amount of their followers on a daily basis without them having to spend a single cent for the promotional value it provides them.

And if they did/do want Sponsored posts, not only is that a choice, but even the largest promotional option available would be peanuts in dollars to them.


Honestly, if I thought Suck was fleecing the MSM, I’d have no problem saying so, but this specific case just screams greed to me.

a reply to: Hazardous1408
What is your opinion then on the idea that no news is allowed to have a facebook account, and facebook is required to filter it all out?? Do you consider the current situation a fair trade then??

I think it could be seen as a fair trade I suppose. If you Hazardous, produced media that was so amazing MSM companies wanted the rights to use it, and then they earn revenue from traffic due to your production, would you expect some compensation, or allow it as free use??

Not saying news is amazing production, I am going for an example here. Where does it become ok to expect compensation for ones production when other using it are themselves making revenue from it?

Or as I asked, would you consider it a fair trade as it would promote you as long as you are credited? Facebook and the News both have to make money from advertisers. If people only consume the production and never visit the producer, than the only party catching ad revenue would be facebook in this instant right?

I think I may be behind Murdoch on this one.

Well, Fbook is still a fly by nighter company. Could fail at any time when the Next Big thing comes along.

Didnt the Berger steal the idea off his "Friends" anyway?
How that twerp has become a billionaire still boggles the mind.....One day he might get a real job.

At least the Murdoch organisation employs 10s of 1000s of people Worldwide, adding to economies of the World, for the last 80 years or so.

Apparently young people are already turning off Fbook......to the next big thing......Mr Miranda Kerr Speigelmaister's hobby horse.

Until My new invention comes on board, that is.....Brainsplode!!.....a USB port attached directly to your head and download wifi info straight to the source.......then you can send dreams to all other Brainsplode subscribers... only for $19.95 per month!! ( minimum payment $999.99 per annum, include free decal and temporary tatoo).....

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Fox News does have an account though, with 16m followers.

So I don’t understand your point.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Hazardous1408

So I’m truly at a loss in understanding how this greedy old bastard thinks he is owed money from such a venture.

Because Facebook is a company that used information from another company. They should pay for it.

Then these companies SHOULD make their content non-shareable, available ONLY by subscription.

Don't want people SHARING it? Don't package it and make it freely available to be shared.

This gets more and more interesting ... Murdock vs Boy Wonder.

How will Zucks Grandaddy take this, Rothchild isn't it?

a reply to: Hazardous1408
I asked if you consider it a fair trade? Or if it would be preferable that FB and the NEWS be separated through legislation action? Foxnews does not get ad revenue from their facebook account, because it is not fox siging deals with the advertisers on facebook, that would be facebook. That is the point. Fox gets ad revenue from ad clicks on Fox websites.

If I am on twitter under Fox news, and I see an ad in the feed, that is not Fox being paid. That is twitter. Do you understand now, and do you have any answers to the questions or propositions I posted?

Or am I incorrect and making assumptions? If I am please let me know. I cannot read minds and one line questions are not answers.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Ok now I get you.

I do not believe that any MSM outlet would give up the free platform and all promotional value it entails for a compensated amount.

And no legislation is needed for that idea.

FB could just outright reject any MSM they want on their platform...
They’re not obligated to host anybody.

Which is just another reason they have no reason to bow to such demands as Murdoch’s.

I never said Fox receive ad money on FB either.
What they do receive is a hell of a lot of free publicity which does lead to monetary gains in other ways.


That is without a doubt a fair trade.

a reply to: Hazardous1408
But publicity is irrelevant if the consumers do not visit that companies business and interact with their own ad revenue generation system.

The reason I asked about legislative action separating the entities permanently is because that is exactly where this kind of disagreement could lead to in the near future. Yes FB is a private company and also reserves the right to serve whatever customer it chooses. But at the same time, if it is deprived of all the free production (shared media) that keeps its other users glued to its own services through legislative action, the billions of members may not be as interested to stay with that platform if they can no longer consume what they wanted and have it delivered to them as a perk of keeping in touch with their friends and relatives.

When one has a discussion like this in regards to the rights to produced content , we have to analyze all the interactions and interconnections which have offered that model to be able to expand the way it has.

I personally believe that if legislative action separated the news and platform like facebook permanently , facebook would see a steep decline in growth, and likely even contract significantly from an exodus of customers who may seek a different platform. Perhaps lets say, one that has compromised and capitulated on sharing their revenue with the content producers as Murdoch is requesting.

Remember Metallica and Napster right? This is nearly the exact same thing. One could argue Metallica was getting free promotion for their content and that they would get increased sales from concerts and licensed merchandise. That was not the case though, they took legal recourse because it did in fact eat into their earnings, just like the movie and recording industry in general have also done with regard to backup copies being share globally for free online.

Now clearly, consumers who are used to and expect , no, demand everything they consume come with zero cost to themselves, almost always fall back on the defense that free promotion is good for the content producers bottom line. People have to participate in their money making model however in order for the producer to see growth from said promotion of their media.

As the years wore one, physical album sales have all but gone extinct in relation to the years prior to the digitization of content. But also, people watch the concert for free from those spectators who now also share those. Concert attendance goes down, album sales go down, even licensed merchandise sales go down as people can simply custom make their own products for a lower price.

Where this gets connected with the topic at hand is, those artists/content producers begin to take a big hit in revenue due to a lack of participation in their business model. When all of the content produced by news is being offered freely through an intermediary/promoter to consumers without the need to interact with their own business model, it will continue to lead to a decline in revenue for the producer, while at the same time the intermediary sees record growth year over year and increased revenue because everyone is now consuming the content through their platform for free, bypassing the producers own revenue generating business model.

This is why I see an inevitable conclusion in one of two directions. Either platforms like facebook and twitter will share their revenue with the content producers, almost like youtube does. Or after years of litigation some kind of legislative action will result in a permanent separation from platforms that refuse to compromise on the former. Honestly, we all know big companies like money, and clearly they will eventually decide to compromise on revenue sharing.

I know that was a lot, but I like to try and offer the entire perspective in one shot.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

The man is correct.
If we people as a populous
were able to solidify,
we would also be receiving a
small royalty from those who
have been capitalizing on our
private identities, opinions,
knowledge, behavior, purchasing
habits,photos,etc. for years now.

Intellectual Property Rights.

This man is smart enough to know
when he is being ripped off.

We would be wise as people
to follow suit.
SAAVY?
S&F

It seems to me that Murdoch has a pretty good point and one that could easily be legally argued. In the end I don’t use social media so if FB blew up I wouldn’t notice other than there would be people starring at their blank phone screens waiting for input.