So first off I don't think you can say he is bad or good for the internet. He is a content creator trying to find the best way to get paid for his work. This is neither good nor bad. People got to eat.

I believe Jason Calacanis has already spoke on this topic. He believes Rupert's plan has merit and will work.

I think this will be a fantastic experiment. I have a feeling that it will simply go to prove just how powerful the internet has become. I expect initially the plan will make some positive cash flow.

But soon unless his content is far superior to other AP(I know he's part of the board but he doesn't control all papers/news outlets of the group or Reuters or fill in other news agency, he will shrink his market getting less and less eyeballs to his papers. I think the problem with his plan is he doesn't control all the news/articles. Because of this as soon as his news becomes exclusive(you have to pay for it) he has produce a far superior product. For instance everybody thought nobody would pay for TV like HBO. Year in and year out tho they produce a superior product that gets people to pay for it. On the other hand so far people are unwilling to pay for radio. XM and Sirius are not doing well. Even without commercials, exclusives like Howard Stern, and superior coverage and sound(HD radio has closed the sound gap in some locations) they are failing to compete.

Good Luck.

Yes Rupert Murdoch is bad for the internet and society, he is only a small speed bump however. He is so used to getting his way as one of the richest most powerful guys in the country that he is really freaking out right now because the game has changed and he is still stuck in the 1950's. The internet does not wait for old-rich-white-men-who-think-they-are-all-powerful to catch up with the modern age. His advisors told him many years ago that he needed to embrace the internet and make some changes he brushed them off and said that the internet was basically a fad the couldn't touch him. He is now scrambling to figure out what to do. It is no surprise that he is confused...he comes from a philosophy that couldn't be further from what the internet stands for. That is the free exchange of information. It is a level playing field where finanial status has no sway, where who-you-know has no power, a wild west place where everyone with access has a voice, TV and Newspapers never had to deal with it's readers and watchers talking back...pretty scary when you have to actually deal with real humans. he will fade away into obscurity and will be a very small footnote when people ask their grandparents..."grandma, how did people get there information before the internet?" One man controlling the flow of information...that day is long over. The people will now control the information that is exchanged. A person in tibet can upload a video from their phone of soldiers beating the people and change the way the world gets its news, rather than the information never actually making it to the news as was the case with that particular incident. The game has changed and the old stubborn man is still pretending it is 1950 and that people are actually going to pay for his biased information.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/rupert-murdoch.jpg

In a way, Yes, because he wants to charge for the contents of his works on the Internet:

However, that is a pretty bizarre idea in itself since nobody is really going to pay to read the online edition newspapers and magazines on the internet. He is walking himself towards a dead end.

Therefore what he does would probably have little effect, since people will just switch to another source for information.

Is he bad for the Internet, no. As CEO of News Corp. he's attempting to do what he thinks is will bring his shareholders value by cutting off Google's search spiders from his on line properties and attempting to charge people for accessing his online properties i.e. the on-line editions of his newspapers.

However, in my opinion, this will fail to create any additional shareholder value. People have become accustom to reading the news for free on the Internet. So, they will just find other free sources for the news. Thus his online editions will suffer the same fate as the printed versions.

The only exception to this model is the Wall Street Journal. The Journal began charging people for access to its on-line edition from the beginning. The Journal has a narrow, specialized reader base who expect to pay for access to that paper.

He is neither good nor bad for the internet; in fact he is irrelevant to the internet. Now to those who rely on his news and information and will not look elsewhere no matter what then I say if they are willing to pay let them pay. All others not willing to pay will simply find their news on the internet elsewhere. The internet is HUGE, there are other places and venues for reliable news!

I also say his idea to charge for news is irrelevant to most people who use the internet to get their news fix. Unless there is some angle or proprietary aspect to what he is selling or wants to charge for who is going to pay for something they can get elsewhere for free.

But, all in all he is neither good nor bad for the internet.