Linked by David Adams on Sun 11th Jul 2010 18:54 UTC
Internet & Networking There's an article today at abc.com that looks at recent trends around net-based pay-for services and the smattering of paywalls from News Corp to the NYT that are up or threatening to be put up, and speculating that this could be the beginning of a trend. Of course, a YouTube video rental site and a few large publishers putting up paywalls will make zero difference to the "free internet" on their own. But if they're successful, it could spark emulation. But could this be a trend that could snowball enough to change the nature of the net?
Permalink for comment 433206
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bravo, old media!
by earksiinni on Mon 12th Jul 2010 05:47 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

It's about time that WSJ and NYT started charging! It is a bold statement that pierces the unreality of an economy based on advertising, a statement that says "We stand by our goods with the only measure that means anything anymore: cash." I fully support this move, and I look forward to paying.

Lumping all media outlets that charge for content into one group isn't fair, and newspapers are not AOL. Groups that create content should not only have the right to charge, but they have an ethical imperative to do so. Bravo for getting some spine.

And for the record, it's really sad that we talk about newspapers or anyone else as "content providers". Such a life-sucking, soulless, corporate-bland term should only be reserved for the likes of Yahoo et al. Or that we judge the media by such absurd metrics as "value for money". I mean, what does that even mean? Was 50 cents the right price for Deep Throat? Are Tarantino and Antonioni to be judged by $8 ballot stubs, $10 with popcorn? The media gives us life, and we owe it our own life-force, which is, again, our money.

Edited 2010-07-12 05:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2