back to article Murdoch slams White House over SOPA in Twitter row

Rupert Murdoch has posted a series of rants on Twitter, accusing the White House of bowing to lobbying pressure over its lack of support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). “So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery,” he posted on his …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Microphage

    use the Robots.txt file

    "Murdoch, who is currently under investigation in the UK over phone hacking by his newspapers, is a longtime critic of what he sees as Google's role in enabling piracy"

    If he don't want to show up on Google, then why don't he just use the robots.txt file on his sites?

    1. Stuart Moore

      I assume...

      I assume he's primarily referring to youtube

    2. Ru

      How do punters find stolen content?

      Why, they search for it. Using a search engine such as google, presumably. Keeping Google from spidering your own stuff is trivial; keeping it from spidering copies thereof on servers you do not control less so. Hence the demand for SOPA; its one bit 'we don't understand and we don't know what to do'.

  2. g e

    bowing to lobbying pressure

    Which as he knows damn well, is how SOPA got as far as it did in the first place.

    Duplicitous, conniving, self-interested, inethical (not a typo), geriatric, oxygen-stealing bastard.

    He got out-lobbied and he's crying like a little girl who didn't get the dolly she wanted for Xmas.

    Fail. Cos his heart needs to.

    1. Efros


      Not on your Christmas card list then?

      1. g e

        Xmas cards

        Haha. No.

        Does it show?

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Why yes!

          Present consists in pieces of coal accelerated to several hundred meters per second for good measure.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        No but

        ...he did leave a voicemail ;-)

    2. Arctic fox

      @g e RE: "bowing to lobbying pressure". The Dirty Digger really is a spectacularly....

      .......hypocritical and dishonest shite. The Daily Tech posted this on 10th Jan.

      "According to extensive research, anti-streaming lobbyists have engaged in a sweeping bribery scheme that paid for approximately 10 percent of all active Senators' total combined election costs."

      The pro-SOPA lobbyist's activities have been even more shamelessly corrupt than is usual and the old saw about the best politicians that money can buy is highly apposite here.

      1. Arctic fox

        I should just like to add the following: What is the core of the industry that the.......

        ........SOPA-political-palm-greasers are attacking? The *internet* self-evidently. Only the most extraordinary and comprehensive *information* gathering, processing and distribution technology invented in the whole of human history. What did those slimeballs expect when said industry struck back at that vile piece of lobby fodder? They are getting hosed and they are all upset? They can't understand how its happening? They really do not get the tech that they are attacking. They thought that this was just business as usual and they could slide this through without there being significant political consequences - what a bunch of planks.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Are you really suggesting he should die?

      That is a deplorable sentiment if you are.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "That is a deplorable sentiment if you are."

        In what way? There are some people the world would just be better off without.

      2. N000dles


        quote: "Are you really suggesting he should die? That is a deplorable sentiment if you are."

        I would suggest something more like he should F**k off and die would be more appropriate.

        Did Myspace ever host any copyright material? Did Vint Cerf, Paul Vixie and Tony Li hold us all to ransom and ass rape us over the years to become billionaires? If ever there was a freetard making a fortune out of someone else's intellect it is News Corp. I'm sure Sky never paid a penny to the engineers that gave Murdoch the ability to sprout his crap over the internet. Phone hacking, Murdoch, Morality (pick the word that doesn't belong)

      3. John F***ing Stepp

        I personally just think we should burn his damn sled.

        (Probably keeps his soul in it.)

    4. Miek

      "He got out-lobbied and he's crying like a little girl who didn't get the dolly she wanted for Xmas."

      Yep, and if a crook like Murdoch is all-for SOPA, then I am all-against this act.

    5. kissingthecarpet
      Thumb Up

      That is a huge

      number of thumbs up. Don't know if it's a record, but it's rare on the Reg to see that much agreement. Murdoch & his companies have wronged or offended so many people over the years, & none of them have forgotten....

  3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Opening should be...

    A boot licking lackey of Mr Murdoch has posted some of this thoughts on Twitter slamming those who have come out against SOPA.

    Mr Murdoch who may or may not have posted on twitter himself has through his 'NewCorp' shareholding and positon on the board owns 'Fox News' and '20th Century Fox Studios'.

    All in the aim of getting the facts right....

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Isn't it just heartwarming?

    A muck-raking billionaire who made his fortune stealing personal/private data and buying up public events with the proceeds and then charging people for access now spits his dummy out because a government won't grant him the ultimate power to decide who gets to see what.

    The world is so finished with you, Rupert.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, but...

      May I remind you that for him and his progeny The World Is Not Enough. If there are no suitable news, news shall be fabricated to ensure that the ratings stay and the print editions circulation does not fall.

      1. br0die

        That was "Tomorrow Never Dies", not "The World Is Not Enough"....

        /coat, etc.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Althought it is eay to mistake the two

          As they were both shite...

          1. Fuzz

            Theme song

            The world is not enough had a better theme song

  5. Mikel
    Thumb Up

    The legislation is turning toxic

    Over here in the US the sentiment against these bills is turning so harsh that killing the bills may not be enough. To have ever supported them may be a career ender.

    1. Neil Greatorex

      Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you

      I fear that in the old US money talks loudest.

      For what other reason would the octogenarian twat become a USian.

      1. gilstrac



    2. Someone Else Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Mikel - I do hope you are right

      But I'm not one myself to bet on the side of an enlightened American populace. (Call me cynical, but...)

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge


      "To have ever supported them may be a career ender."

      Perhaps time to start a little list...

      Seriously watch a few a videos of Senate and Congress committees. Between voter apathy and a solid list of donors who know how to "thank" their local politician at election time for seeing their PoV most of these jokers are in for multiple terms by default.

      I don't think there are many "marginal" Senate or Congress seats where the incumbent only lasts a term.

      The senior coffin dodger from South Carolina made it to a 100 without being deposed. There is *no* age limit for either house.

      But note that with *so* much apathy a small(ish) determined group could cease control of local parties and push a covert agenda while wearing the face of one of the mainstream parties.

      Oh wait, the Tea Party already did that...

      "Take back your government" is not just a slogan.

  6. William Boyle

    Murdock, the burdock (a spiny weed)

    Murdock is an Australian (he may be a naturalized US citizen, but so are a bunch of Al Queda terrorists), so what does he have to say about freedom of speech in the USA? Nothing that I want to hear, for sure, and I was BORN here!

    1. LaeMing

      Serves you right!

      Think you can dump subsidised produce on our markets without comeback? We sent you Murdoch as comeback! We're laughing now, Yanks!!

    2. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      "Murdock is an Australian (he may be a naturalized US citizen, but so are a bunch of Al Queda terrorists), so what does he have to say about freedom of speech in the USA? Nothing that I want to hear, for sure, and I was BORN here!"

      Ah, but I'll bet your antecedents were immigrants. So does that mean you have to listen to what Murdoch's descendants say if they were born in the US?

      Or do you think that there's some sort of system that the further back your family history goes in the US then your word counts for more? If so why do native Americans not get more say than you?

      In short Murdoch is a complete cock, but you, Sir, are the female equivalent.

  7. gilstrac

    a rare case of failed cronyism

    The govt is for the people by the people but rarely seems enact laws with this in mind.

    I wish this was the norm and not the exception.

    We would see a lot more Murdochs whining.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Soon to be doing a Maxwell

    As much as I detest the NDAA, I think it's use would be perfect in your case Murdoch, I'd even subscribe to SKY and your papers just to see you at Gitmo.

    The lady doth protest too much methinks,

    Obviously a geriatric, old fart like Murdoch would have trouble remembering the Wapping dispute, I haven't bloody forgotten.

    btw Rupert I can feel your butthurt from blighty,go cry me a river you twat.

    NDAA=Anon for me

  9. Patrick 8

    Bloody old fart

    see title

  10. Boy Wonder

    Wow, what a shameless bunch of ad hominems

    Can anybody be bothered to make an informed case against these Acts?

    No, thought not. It's far easier sport to attack Murdoch instead.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Can anybody be bothered defending Murdoch

      > It's far easier sport to attack Murdoch instead., Boy Wonder

      Can anybody be bothered defending Murdoch? ...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        With any luck some of m'learned friends will soon be paid spectacularly well to do just that.

    2. Chris 3
      Black Helicopters

      Here's a decent summary

      A lot of arguments against SOPA/PIPA tend to begin with the axiom "Piracy isn't actually a problem" which I really don't think will sway its supporters. The article above is quite informative.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        The arguments against SOPA start with "Punishment on allegations alone is illegal"

        And several other such fundamentals of common law.

        They continue with "An Internet that works is a good thing".

        The Yahoo summary Chris 3 linked to is a pretty good one.

        Of course, if the SOPA & PIPA concepts did pass into law then the most likely and fairly rapid result would be to cut the US off from the Internet, rather than the other way around. This would be fatal to a lot of companies, most of the in the US but many elsewhere who rely on US customers.

        Except of course that it cannot possibly pass, because the first time it gets used will end up going all the way to the Supreme court, who will then eject the whole legislation as the unconstitutional turd it clearly is. Microsoft (Bing!) and Google have deeper pockets than the MPAA and RIAA put together - and they would both be badly affected by it.

        1. Paul 172
          Thumb Up

          Exactly right Robert, I agree.

          Except that maybe "Punishment on allegations alone is unlawful" - not illegal :) Theres a serious difference.

    3. Sensi
      Thumb Up

      Speaking of ad hominem attacks, I am digressing but Murdoch -his gutter level, xenophobic and Goebbelsian "press"- is one of the few public figures I am impatiently awaiting the -natural- death. That day it will be champagne.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      1. Murdoch is the subject of this article, not SOPA, so it's natural for criticisms to target him, not the proposed law.

      2. Most of the attacks are, in fact, accurate.

      3. If you want an informed case against SOPA, that has been done eloquently and at length already. Check the previous articles and links, for starters.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      He's a form of the lowest, gutter-dwelling dirtbag.

      How many people's lives have been wrecked by him and his shitty media corps? Dredging up the merest hint of a story, dressing it up fact and flogging it to the sub 70 IQ, Sun reading masses, only to be slapped on the wrist and told not to lie again when it was pointed that it was all fabricated.

      Media corps like his simply want to sell "copy", they don't give a rat's arse about anything but making money selling 100%, A-grade horseshit. If they lie, well so what! Pay the person off who they lied about and move on. They make $1 million from a story and pay the offended party a token couple of grand. How about we sanction you the entire days takings every time you fuck up Murdoch, you might think twice about raking the shit. Sadly your papers would have around 2 pages of news if it had to be all verified fact!

      He has made a living by selling lies and fabrications, bought and bullied his way through life and now he can't understand why people are angry at him at his playground, bully-boy tactics. While I don't wish him any physical harm, he needs to simply fuck off to retirement and leave the world to those that can move with the times and understand the present.

    6. MJI Silver badge

      It is fun and deserved

      That is what Murdoch is for.

      The sooner his empire collapses the better.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Boy Wonder

      "Can anybody be bothered to make an informed case against these Acts?"

      The short answer is that it will make legal use of the Internet for searching impractical or impossible.

      Under the new laws it's illegal to link to a site that contains material that breaches copyright; this includes search results, so Google and all other search engines would either have to shut down, or limit search results to sites that are known to be 100% free of infringing material.

      You'd also be breaking the law if you posted a link to your Facebook page and anyone else on Facebook has uploaded a copyrighted file without permission; so individuals could also be targeted.


  11. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Re boy wonder

    Murdoch own 20th Century Fox.

    Fox is part of Hollywood.

    Hollywood as a whole are the main force behind SOPA.

    So attacking him is one way us on the RH side of the Atlantic can attack SOPA. Remember Murdoch had form here in the UK.

    IMHO, Only the Chavs like him.

    normal people either go 'bleh' or don't like him.

  12. Paul RND*1000
    Thumb Up

    Aww is wittle Wupert upset?

    Anything which Murdoch thinks is good is worth opposing. With any necessary force, even if that does mean being in bed with Google.

  13. Leo Maxwell

    If we stopped piracy tommorrow, I don't see DVD sales rising

    The nonsense that each downloaded file is a lost sale is just so lame.

    If you believe the Media industry figures, everyone on the planet would have bought every DVD and CD if they didn't download.

    While there is a problem with piracy, it is far far less than the media people would have us believe.

    Especially as large chunks of Murdochs IP is already stolen from others.

  14. Someone Else Silver badge

    No, Rupert, once again you got it all wrong

    “So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery,”

    No, Rupert. It's more like Obama has thrown his lot with those who believe the Constitution applies to everyone (even you, dipshit), and that private vigilante self-appointed police forces like the MPAssA and RiAssA should not have the power of law or American citizens.

  15. Gannon (J.) Dick

    Ruperts Underwear

    Seeing Rupert's underwear in a twist is a large bonus, or perhaps even priceless.

    Having read the US Reports, The White House said expressly (the European) "Freedom of Expression" and not (the American) "Freedom of Speech". They are exactly the same concept for the "exporter" or source of data, but the "importer" or data user is quite a different matter.

    Except in matters of National Security and for specific goods, exports have never had routine legal scrutiny to determine destination. Imports have always had scrutiny to determine origin. Americans have only had 230 years experience with this, but the process seems to work.

    Now Hollywood wants a look at every "export" too, to make sure there's none of their stuff in there. They never mention that this is a change in a process 230 years old. Google is not to be trusted, but Hollywood is wrong to say this is an "innovation" because it is clearly a change in direction.

  16. fzz

    Shocked, shocked that companies lobby congress

    When can I expect News Corp papers and Fox News to break the headline that money influences US politicians? Or that companies spend big bucks lobbying politicians in the US?

    I'm sure the saintly Murdoch has never sullied his hands with such base efforts. No, only the high road for him!

  17. Mikel

    An old quote

    "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

    - Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

    1. IPatentedItSoIOwnIt

      Nice quote

      I'm having that.... but wait! When did the person you're quoting die? If it was 1943 or after then this persons creative work my still be copyrighted (on death +70 years)... So by you quoting some dead dude you are effectively going to get El Reg removed from the internet.

      That's SOPA at work right there. The copyright laws are already over the top for what is effectively as bad a crime as littering or Jaywalking.

  18. b166er

    What a douche!

  19. admiraljkb

    I have one thing to say about Rupert's reactions on this

    <see icon>

    Murdoch is clearly out of his element in the modern world. Time to retire.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rupert invests in China's biggest pirate, xunlei

    What a hypocrite, disappointed that he couldn't make millions from the IPO of China's largest piracy site, Xunlei, so he goes after Google?! Who is the real pirate and thief here?

  21. Twilight

    Murdoch doesn't like it? Must be the right thing then

    As far as I'm concerned if Murdoch doesn't like something, then it is the absolutely right thing to do. Murdoch (and his corporate empire) are *evil*.

  22. Alaska

    Murdoch is SCUM

    This man is responsible for the travesty that is the Fox "News" Channel. It is a bastion of bigots where greed is worshiped, and lies and innuendo are put forth as the "Truth".

    Please follow this link to the article published by them on January 14th and browse through the comments regarding the Martin Luther King memorial.

    I am deeply ashamed these "people" represent a significant percentage of my fellow Americans. Many of you will have heard of the incident where some of our troops filmed themselves pissing on the corpses of killed Afghanis. I would like to emulate that event over Murdochs still warm body.

    1. DF118


      I'm almost tempted to sign up for a twitter account just to have a go at the old git. Almost.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What a cesspit that site is

      After reading some of those comments I am truly ashamed to be a member of the human race. It's really no wonder any passing aliens only land in remote places to place with the arseholes of the sort of people who write on the FoxNews website, perhaps they think enough electro-shock treatment up the backside is the quickest way to the brain of these people!

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Goodbye "walnut face"

    Title says it.

    Reminds me of an old saying : Those whom gods wish to destroy , get them drunk with power". May this come true to this evil piece of turd.

  24. Grease Monkey Silver badge

    “Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying.”

    That's got fuck all to do with Murdoch Objecting to piracy. It's clear that Murdoch has always had a problem with any form of broadcast which is free to the viewer even when it's funded by advertising. Murdoch wants the viewer to pay and for them to be bombarded with advertising. Anybody who doesn't use both revenue streams is obviously more attractive to the viewer and Murdoch thinks he should be allowed to drive them out of business.

  25. Grease Monkey Silver badge

    What's that Roop? The Whitehouse gives in to lobbyists? Hold the front page! That hasn't happened before has it?

    Oh FFS man. Why is it that every time things don't go your way you cry foul? Start behaving like an adult rather than a spoiled six year old.

  26. MJI Silver badge

    Obvious why Google is supported

    They are the future. Unlike Murdoch.

    More money in Google as well.

    Why piss off the big future companies just to help a dinosaur.

    I am no fan of Murdoch - even got into trouble on a forum I like for mentioning alternatives to Sky for live F1 (RTL ect) this year.

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      The difference between Google and Murdoch's companies?

      Google's business model is that everything should be free to the consumer, but funded by advertising. It matters not to them if the advertising is legal or ethical just so long as they make money out of it.

      Murdoch's business model is that everything should be sold to the consumer and funded by advertising. It matters not to him if the advertising is legal or ethical just so long as he agrees with it and makes money out of it.

      In short neither care a fuck for their customers just their income streams. Neither are at all ethical or moral and I don't support either. Nor do I see why either should have the ear of any government. Any political system that actively encourages big business to fund lobbying or to fund political parties is inherently corrupt.

      1. MJI Silver badge

        And the Fox Obama thing

        Not a good idea to pick on the person in charge.

        Insult them then ask them to do something - I would turn it down in same circumstance.

        Anyway anything from wallnut head is best ignored - his meteor is about to strike. (Or was it a custard pie).

        Even then WH showed he is an arse by not laughing it off.

    2. Drew V.

      I am with you on the dinosaurs but..."why piss off the big future companies"? Not sure I want to live in your future where politicians are afraid to piss off ANY big companies.

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Pissing off

        Would you rather piss off Google Microsoft ect




        News International



        Huge computer companies, one of which is the go to search engine, or a slowly fading media company.

  27. Magnus_Pym

    What is there to pirate?

    Maybe if Hollywood made some decent films then piracy might be a real problem in stead of an theoretical one.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Hollywood films

      Just going through my recent purchase pile.

      Are Pixar Hollywood? (Was best US stuff)

      French or South African are not. (Just buy District 9 OK)

      Studio Ghibli?

      How about my BD of Blade Runner?

      Found one Gran Torino by Clint Eastwood. It is isn't it?

  28. Drew V.

    This is rich: Murdoch accusing someone else of buying political influence.

    Go back to your lair, Gollum. You have not lost your precioussssss newspapers and TV channels. Not yet.

  29. (AMPC) Anonymous and mostly paranoid coward
    Thumb Up

    @Mikel and the rest of ye buckeroos

    In my humble opinion, this old fart's senile tweeting must surely be the kiss of death for SOPA: Hopefully,it will smother ugly sister PIPA, as well. And if we are really lucky, we might even add the careers of a few technically illiterate legislators to the funeral pyre or force them back into school. Pass the matches and RFCs, please......

    Seriously tho, if this latest show of support doesn't bury the SOPA manure six feet under and fast, then we are truly done for. The "Old media" dinosaurs must either get wih the program and learn how to use digital tech properly and ethically or get out of the media business completely and follow Rupert into the yawning tarpit of irrelevance. The world has changed guys, its time to move on. And Hollywood, I don't think your little stealth operation in Congress is gonna raise DVD sales, either. ...Tell all your friends... Rupert Murdoch loves SOPA !!!!!!!!

  30. That Steve Guy

    How the mighty have fallen.

    Nobody in the halls of power listens to Murdoch any more.

  31. Winkypop Silver badge

    How disgusting....democracy at work

    How did that happen, Rupe?

    Better stamp it out, NOW.

    It might catch on.

    1. bobbles31

      Not so much Democracy in action, more like under new management.

  32. Derek Currie

    I care what Rupert Murdoch has to say because WHY?

    I care what Rupert Murdoch has to say because WHY? Murdoch is one of the most offensive members of The Corporate Oligarchy who seek to overthrow and thwart CITIZEN rights so they can overlord We The People instead. He belongs in jail, not in the public dialog. Of course this rectal pore of humanity is siding with the RIAA, MPAA and Chamber of Commerce! THEY are the "paymasters" who are perpetrating SOPA and PIPA with an order of magnitude more lobbying MONEY than the sum total of Silicon Valley companies.

    Tonight the nasty Mr. Murdoch was sitting in the audience at the Golden Globe Awards. Why? His company News Corp owns Fox who had films up for awards. Fox is a member of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) who are one of the lobbyist corporate organizations shoving the SOPA & PIPA atrocities down the throats of We The People, the actual citizens of the USA, whom the Congress are elected to represent. Corporations ≠ people ≠ citizens.

  33. Frankcoins

    How Murdoch smears Obama

    If any UK people are not familiar with how Murdoch's Fox News portrayed President

    Obama from DAY ONE of his presidency...

  34. M.A

    what next?

    I just wonder what next better watch out Obama your famous blackberry may be hacked.

  35. Sp1tf1r3

    What the hell is a "favor"?

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge


      It's 'favour' written by the US office.


  36. John Smith 19 Gold badge

    A fine photograph

    Pity Spitting Image are not still in business.

    That forehead. The nose.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Putting me off my walnuts

      And have you noticed he is not red diamond stamped.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Murdoch issues

    The problem Murdoch has with Google is simple.

    1) Google do not care about Murdoch.

    2) Google is lot more successful on Internet then Murdoch has ever been able to be.

    3) There is no way Murdoch will ever own Google.

    4) Google is cash rich. (Banks can not the removal line of credit for not playing ball)

    5) Google dares to have different view from Murdoch.

    6) The writing on the wall about broadcast TV and IP-TV. (see point 2)

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      And don't forget that Murdoch just doesn't get the way most of the internet operates. For example Murdoch just can't understand why everybody doesn't get their news from his sites, but would rather go to a free source. He likes to rant about the BBC news being licence fee funded and not a a level playing field with, say, The Times. There are, however, plenty of other free news sites out there other than the BBC. Murdoch just doesn't understand that people like free content from the net and don't mind how it's funded. Lets be fair most of us ignore online advertising so advertising funding is not an issue. And most UK citizens have a TV licence so TV licence funding for the BBC site is not an issue anyway - we already paid for it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Grease Monkey: Rupert only operates one way... and his toy is now broken.

        I'd be more inclined to say that Rupert doesn't understand how normal human beings or basic economics work, (news for free - or pay for news? gee... that's a toughie). Sites with good news content (sometimes protected by a full or partial paywall) often see their stories passed on, quoted or simply linked to. It's not really a scoop unless it was published less than 15 minutes ago.

        There are very few news sites I would even consider paying money to read (NYT or Wall Street Journal maybe). But good papers which continue to do quality journalism should thrive on the inter-webs too. It's all about quality, really, unlike the Murdoch empire. And I still buy newspapers I like, once in a while.

        I also like the BBC publicly funded model, even if I don't always get my news from their site (or pay for it, because I don't live in the UK). But you wonder how much sense any pay news-site will make when everyone gets all or most of their news from the internet. One thing is for sure, Rupert and his legions will not be leading the way forward, which is just fine by me.

        The trouble with Murdoch and his ilk is they just can't accept that the genie is out and won't get back into the bottle, no matter how hard they try. But that is precisely why Murdoch supports freedom-friendly initiatives like SOPA. Let's just hope that any future Murdoch support for US legislation becomes as welcome in Washington as a fart in a ski-suit.

        1. Someone Else Silver badge

          Just a note: The Wall Street Urinal is a Murdoch product.

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It all about citizenship

    Who dare people like Larry Page who both BORN and true USA citizens lobby USA system.

    Ow I forgot that Murdoch was from Australia only became a USA citizens to be able to own a USA TV channel (Fox).

  39. Peter Christy

    Anyone who manages to p**s off Murdoch must be doing something right!

  40. Chika


    Consider that the good folks at Spitting Image had the right of this moron back in the 1980s when he was attempting to fleece the UK press with the support of HM Gubbermint of the day. All that you need to do here is substitute a few names. In this case, however, he doesn't have the unequivocal support of the US because, unlike the UK, the US actually have a written constitution. Griping about it won't change that.

  41. (AMPC) Anonymous and mostly paranoid coward

    For those who would cross over to the dark see the light

    Well in the interest of fairness, I tuned into an interview with Senator Christopher Dodd (, who is now chairman of the MPAA. Although once a respected politician, he does seems to epitomize the clueless legions of big money moguls who think they know what is best and say "just get it done and screw the details".

    If Hollywood really needs to go after pirates to save their dwindling fortunes, let them at I say. But don't ask for even more restrictive ad useless legislation. There are already courts and lawyers aplenty where you can spend your profits. The WTO's 153 members have all agreed that copyright infringement is wrong. Of course it would be a whole lot cheaper if you could just control the inter-tubes like the airwaves, but it ain't gonna happen because your industry won't live long enough. I'm sure the horse and buggy manufacturers would have loved to stick it to Henry Ford via Congress, but it just won't work

    To Senator. Dodd, I would say the real challenge is to find some way to combat piracy which continues to "meet" all of the following criteria:

    1) Target real villians (like those who SELL stuff they don't own, as opposed to grandmas who just want to listen to those old show-tunes one last time and are much easier to catch and prosecute). I would lump product counterfeiters into this group as well. I suspect this actual group is relatively small (unless you include Google et al and their many wierd and wonderful links and the entire interweb population who use search engines). That is indeed a very big number. Perhaps the MPAA should target these people as customers instead of crinimal, free-loading scum. I'm sure we would all appreciate it (and you) a lot more.

    2) Puts and restricts the power to target truly bad folks (see above) into the hands of legally recognized bodies, i.e. courts, international law enforcement agencies, etc. This is sometimes done (and considered SOP) against real criminals such as drug lords and child pornographers. Such bodies need to be subject to review and face accountability for their actions. We should not use the same techniques against grandma / college students as those used against the billion dollar a year drug baron. No the punishment and enforcement should really fit the crime. Even during prohibition days, the Feds did not hose down the gin drinkers with lead bullets (unless they got in the way).

    I personally don't consider the chronic freetard file-sharers as criminals, they are more accurately just misguided (and probably poor). Much like jailing the addict, jailing the freetard will do little to counter the real cause of drug addiction/piracy. Lowering the price of entertainment media would be a more intelligent and creative approach.

    3) Allow any people who have been targeted by any cease and desist orders the time to contest and protest these actions, legally. Terms to be defined, oh wait, we already have laws like this. Are they going to be replaced by more anti-constitutional SOPA laws? Are the original laws not working? You mean people will still not take their family to the cinema anymore (which costs about 80 USD where I live). Does that mean we need more laws to change human nature (and econimic sense) and cause people to over-spend? The 1930's Depression was a boom time for the entertainment industry because it helped people forget their troubles. Maybe you should ask your accountants to explain why that isn't happening during this Depression.

    4) Definitely not perform "shotgun" censorship of linking sites, domain names etc, this is just criminally stupid. Maybe we do need to force some ISPs to take down some egregiously and outrageously infringing sites, going through the local courts where the ISP is domiciled (even though it will always be a waste of time and money). Yes, the infringers will move elsewhere. No you will never be fast enough to stop them all. So deal with it. Media companies do not need to control internet access any more then they do already, they just need to compete on the provebial level playng field. Sadly, competing inside a new paradigm can be very hard when you can't (or won't) understand it. That would require clear-headed and innovative thinking, something that is clearly in short supply in the media industry's head space.

    5) Stop basing bad legislation on bull-shit statistics. How in the hell can online piracy cost the ecomomy 100 billion a year? That's twice as much as people spend on drugs and probably a lot more than is spent on malaria prevention. Where is this money going? Who is getting it? Give us some facts, senator. Show me the money. Show me the freetards living in obscene opulence with their ill-gotten gains (I am not talking about your supporters). Show me why stopping people from getting free music is more important than investing money into better education, renewable power, better infra-structure or simply allowing online commerce to continue flourishing without governmental interference. Do (I am probably going out on a limb with this one) googles, ebays and youtubes ask the government to protect them from the nasty bullys on the playground who stole all their marbles ? No! Successful companies innovate, invest, invent and think about how to best harness one of the coolest things ever created by mankind: THE INTERNET. They then try to make some money with their new ideas. Sometimes they succeed. Why doesn't the MPAA promote that kind of thinking instead? Why do I have to spend so much money to see a film that might be complete garbage? How long do you think that will keep working as a business model?

    This is not a Hollywood blockbuster plot line, boys, where shining hero wins against evil pirates with his magical legislative powers and influence. It is the future. And the future is leaving some people very, very far behind. Such a shame that these same people all seem to be concentrated in a few very distinct locations, such as Capitol Hill and the pockets of rich media and entertainment moguls. Good luck....

    By their fruits ye shall know them....

    Matthew 7: 16

    1. Charles 9

      One question.

      How do you do #1 and #2 if they're based in countries who don't respect American copyrights (China springs to mind)? And they don't respect American law enforcement. And they know how to get around any blocking tactic you can think of--probably by disguising their addresses as American ones. IOW, how do you play ball when there's a stubborn guy on the field who keeps stealing the balls and chucking them over the fence into the backward with the bulldog (and the house owners are his parents and encouraging him to do it, so there's no convincing him to stop, you get the picture).

  42. jtroop

    Murdoch is a horse's ass

    SOPA is an example of how bad a piece of US/UK legislation can be: a highly technical subject matter for an easily swayed and clueless legislature, created solely to give advantage for a single industry (one with huge pockets), that would muddy the waters between regulation and freedom on the Internet, and (in my opinion at least ) have the potential to render the Internet a controlled mouthpiece rather than an expression and tool of the free market and free peoples ......all packaged up with a deliberately deceiving title..... Sounds just like something Murdoch would support.

  43. SpaMster

    The bottom line is, if the SOPA act goes through, liturally half of youtube would need to be taken down over night. Like to watch some guys videos who makes reviews for computer games? well that wont be happening any more if they have anything to do with it. The whole things ridiculous, and dosnt help anybody in the slightest.

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Murdoch accuses Google of supporting piracy

    Oooh, look! I've just found some pirated films using Google's search system, which Murdoch thinks is a very bad thing and wants Google shut-down.

    Then I downloaded the films using a Sky connection to the Internet.

    OK, Rupert, when are you going to close down Sky as an ISP?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Like it

      Thats one reason I've switched from SKy Broadband and Phone line!

      Is there a list of Fox studio film archive, which I can download for free?

      Please link them here so that I can DL that NOW!

      1. MJI Silver badge


        I have had sales people try to pursuede me (a few years ago pre HD, early Freeview).

        They failed.

        Kept on about something called a Sky Plus, it can record TV programmes, but you had to pay money every month for it to work.

        They had internet there, they had a rather good look at the Pace site now they knew there were free to view PVRs.

        Now looking forwards to a call trying to sell HD then they can have a look at the Humax HDR site. However we are TPS registered.

  45. Mikel

    What this tantrum means

    It means his puppets in the House report back that they lack the wherewithal to pass his bill.

    In other news, Wikipedia will join in the protest on the 18th. The fire's not out until the ashes are cold and dead.

  46. gautam

    Poor Rupert

    Any other way I can really wind up Rupert and James? Please post links in The Register.

    BTW any latest figures on how his paywall is working with The Times? How many subscribers still left?

    Would be interesting reading.

    How about hacking it? Any procedures ?

  47. Dani Eder

    Murdoch is such a hypocrite

    Visit the File Sharing section of File Planet powered by IGN:

    notice how they have multiple pirating software for download?

    Notice how IGN Entertainment is a division of News Corp (Murdoch's company):

    Maybe he should clean his own house before complaining about this subject.

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What a surprise!

    Murdoch criticizing a liberal administration? I am shocked!!!!!

  49. chiller

    Murdoch is a role model for the devil, Rupert has suggested that he needs to work on his 'evilness' as he is coming across as caring and humane.

  50. Mikel
    Thumb Up

    Update: Wikipedia blackout is official.

    You can find out more at

  51. MJI Silver badge

    I have had a NI boycott for years

    Actually I have never bought the Sun nor NotW, had a free copy of Times, 2 were too rubbish, the other I found boring.

    Will not have Sky on principle (NI owners and I do not want to encourage pay TV).

    Stopped with Fox films due to the locked in piracy warnings and locked in trailers.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like