• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Google’s new pet project: “Living Stories”

December 16, 2009 by Nathan Fan (IPilogue Editor)

Nathan Fan is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

What do Google, The Washington Post and The New York Times have in common? An eye for the future of news. Google’s most recent foray into the news business comes in the form of a collaboration with The Post and The Times. “Living Stories” is an online tool that attempts to amalgamate all the developments of specific stories into one accessible point – and all on one page. It differs from a regular online newspaper because it provides complete coverage of an on-going story. Each top story or topic is automatically updated as the information becomes available, creating a “living story” for users to follow. Further, each story is also streamlined – paragraphs of background information within each article (for readers of the daily paper edition that had not read the earlier stories) are removed. Google provides the technology platform, while journalists from The Times and The Post write and edit the stories.

According to Josh Cohen, senior business manager for Google News, the idea behind Living Stories is to move online news reporting away from the traditional structure of the newspaper. By taking advantage of internet technology, it presents the consumer with a new and more effective way of receiving the news.

So what’s in it for The Post and The Times? As consumers begin to use Living Stories and click on the story links, there is potential for these newspapers to boost their Google rankings, which would help push their pages to the top of the list when people Google search for that subject. While the Living Stories page is still a pilot project, the involved parties seem optimistic about its success as they make their refinements. Once the format gains traction, Google plans to offer the Living Stories service to any interested newspaper, magazine or website, free of charge.

As Google seems to be advancing the forefront of free news access to the masses and pushing the concept of news delivery in new and exciting ways, many are optimistic that Living Stories could be the news outlet of the future.  Others, however, have shown some disagreement with Google’s approach.

Rupert Murdoch, media mogul and head of News Corp., has decided to take on a different approach in his embrace of the internet news medium. In a recent interview with Sky News, Murdoch lays out some of his beliefs on the future of online news (click here for the interview).

While Murdoch still believes firmly in the need to communicate news to the masses, he believes that the subscription format is still the best business model for online news (at least for the next couple of decades). Having built a life based on developing newspaper companies, Murdoch thinks that paying a subscription fee for online news content would be just like paying for a newspaper in the mind of the consumer. Why wouldn’t people pay for quality reporting and analysis for online content? In fact, it may be cheaper than buying a newspaper as there are no printing or delivery charges.

Murdoch argues that it makes more business sense to have a few subscribed readers pay a reasonable fee, than to have many readers access content for free and resort to minimal advertising revenue. His business model is currently employed in the News Corp.’s Wall Street Journal, where visitors to the website may get a ‘taste’ of the first paragraph of the articles, but will have to subscribe to access the rest of the content.

Murdoch also claims that his business model will produce a superior news product. In order to provide the best news reporting and analysis, the best people have to be hired. In contrast, Murdoch specifically mentions the BBC, which has the subsidy of taxpayer money, yet according to Murdoch,  does not maintain a high degree of quality in their news reporting as they often rely on other sources for their news. The only way the BBC would be able to compete against a Wall Street Journal model would be to hire more of their own quality reporters and analysts. Murdoch sincerely believes that engaging in this kind of competitive market will be better for the news communication industry overall.

Murdoch also has shown some disdain for search engine sites like Google that have “stolen” News Corp.’s work. In the interview, Murdoch states that he is not afraid of using copyright law to enforce their rights to their content. Although he acknowledges problems of fair use in the courts, Murdoch is nonetheless assured that he is taking the better approach to the development of news.

While I am sure that both Google’s and Murdoch’s model will each have a place in the market in the near future, Murdoch’s view that his business model may survive for another 20 years is quite the prediction. The commercialization of the internet itself is only some 20 odd years old, and the explosion of free access to information has already ingrained itself as a concept into the DNA of its consumers. In another 20 years, who knows what the next generation of communication will entail for the news business.

Posted in Copyright, Innovation, Internet, Technology, Telecommunications

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Tuning In To The Consumer Of Digital Music | Privacy is too much work »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • James Wagner on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Ken Anderson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Courtney Doagoo on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • Denis Borges Barbosa on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • D Vaver on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Dr. Emir Crowne on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Adam Stevenson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Anonymous on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Aidan Hollis on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Kalen Lumsden on IP Osgoode Speaker Series: Robert Levine and Dr. Brett Danaher
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • One Step Closer: Bill C-11
  • Bergeron Entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (BEST) Program Launches at York
  • Whose Patent is It Anyway?: The Ongoing Legal Legacy Between Samsung and Apple
  • Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Luksan v. Van der Let, Or Rather, EU v. UrhG?
  • Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law
  • Sampling Questions Still Unsettled After Jay-Z/Kanye West Sampling Settlement
  • World Intellectual Property Day 2012
  • The Legal Implications of Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights
  • Announcement: Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law: the 2012 National Health Law Conference

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Announcements (2)
  • Blogs (4)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (6)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (59)
  • copyright reform (136)
  • defamation (15)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (4)
  • European Union (32)
  • events (75)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (126)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (145)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (138)
  • Internet (236)
  • IP (1041)
    • Copyright (522)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (64)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (28)
      • Fair Dealing (61)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (124)
      • Internet Sharing (92)
      • Literary Works (52)
      • Moral Rights (9)
      • Movies (47)
      • Music Industry (88)
      • Originality (29)
      • Ownership (81)
        • Licensees (31)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (19)
    • Patents (331)
      • Access to Medicines (12)
      • Cross Border Issues (48)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Patent Practice (18)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (97)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (65)
    • Trademarks (201)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (15)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Intensive (4)
  • IP Litigation Practice (15)
  • Jurisdiction (65)
    • Canada (24)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (25)
    • US (28)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (20)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (6)
  • Music Industry (72)
  • Open-Source (16)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (165)
    • Electronic Databases (36)
    • Human Rights Issues (26)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (2)
  • Smartphones (10)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (23)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (208)
  • Telecommunications (73)
  • Trade Secrets (3)
  • UK (10)
  • Uncategorized (82)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (9)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736