I can understand why
Mark Cuban said newspapers should keep "
blood-sucking vampires" like Google from indexing their content. But his argument falls short in a few key ways, I believe.
Cuban said newspapers have to understand that there is real value in what they do best, which is to "go out and find news and create good content." "Aggregators and search engines think there is no value to that," the Internet entrepreneur,
HDNet co-founder and owner of the Dallas Maverick basketball team said at the
OnMedia conference in New York last week. "They think there's an unending supply of necks."
If publications shut off their sites to the Google spiders, Cuban said, people who can't find that content via Google search or Google News might simply type "Forbes.com" or "NYTimes.com" in their Web browsers. He implied that if the great news brands refuse to be indexed without compensation, aggregators eventually would have to pay them to get their material.
One problem with Cuban's argument, though: There is a nearly unending supply of "necks," to use his analogy, for aggregators and search engines. Even if newspapers close off their sites to Google, their content will be found elsewhere, on other sites that pick it up under fair use...
Thanks for the questions. Some answers @Christie: I didn't say...