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?
Thread beginning with comment 433163
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by t3RRa
by WorknMan on Sun 11th Jul 2010 21:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by t3RRa"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Actually, people pay for the internet connection, and if they want to view something on the internet they need to pay additional cost for those contents then people would not understand and won't use internet as much as nowadays.


Or else they'll start pirating content, just like they pirate movies, music, and apps now. Then you'll see the publishing/news industries trying to control copy/paste in order to combat 'content piracy'.

The real question is, do we still need the news media? I mean, if there's a huge earthquake in California (or whatever), it's going to be all over the internet in a very short time.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by t3RRa
by t3RRa on Mon 12th Jul 2010 02:09 in reply to "RE: Comment by t3RRa"
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

I think you got a good point. And i think that in this way; Are the contents on the news media thought by people worthy to pay for view? I don't really know. Maybe not as much as the content providers think. :p

But In regard to your example, I don't think internet gossip would contain trustworthy information on how strong it was, how much damage was occurred and etc compared to that of news media. Yes in my humble opinion, we DO still need news media. Some people would still prefer it over internet gossips. Some people would want to know more in-depth information on the happenings. We need both! ;)

Edited 2010-07-12 02:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by t3RRa
by mkone on Mon 12th Jul 2010 18:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by t3RRa"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

I think you got a good point. And i think that in this way; Are the contents on the news media thought by people worthy to pay for view? I don't really know. Maybe not as much as the content providers think. :p


The question is pointless when one can get the content for free. It's a more relevant if one can't get their content any other way. If you asked me right now, I would say I wouldn't pay for content. But that's because I can get it elsewhere for free. But if the only way to get content was to pay for it, I might find out that i am willing to pay more than I think.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by t3RRa
by ssa2204 on Mon 12th Jul 2010 03:18 in reply to "RE: Comment by t3RRa"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"Actually, people pay for the internet connection, and if they want to view something on the internet they need to pay additional cost for those contents then people would not understand and won't use internet as much as nowadays.


Or else they'll start pirating content, just like they pirate movies, music, and apps now. Then you'll see the publishing/news industries trying to control copy/paste in order to combat 'content piracy'.

The real question is, do we still need the news media? I mean, if there's a huge earthquake in California (or whatever), it's going to be all over the internet in a very short time.
"

It will be all over the internet, because actual news organizations are there on the scene reporting it. Sorry but you have this the other way around. It is the media leeches, the bloggers and such that could simply disappear without notice.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by t3RRa
by righard on Mon 12th Jul 2010 12:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by t3RRa"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Not true, first on the scene will be the disaster tourist that live near it, texting, mailing and twittering away.

For example there was a forest fire near me in the Netherlands, I could see a huge smoke cloud out of my window (a actually started that last woird capital w..:S )
I looked at all the dutch news websites but there was nothing there, I looked at twitter and there everybody knew where the fire was, people went there and took pictures. A long time later there started coming articles in on the news sites, but it only contained information they garthered from Twitter and all the pictures where submitted by there audiences.

The old rules have changed, now journalist get ther einformation from the people instead of the other way around.
That's why today's "journalist" are spending most of there time Twittering. Lois & Clark are dying or death.

Edited 2010-07-12 12:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by t3RRa
by t3RRa on Mon 12th Jul 2010 13:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by t3RRa"
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

No you are wrong. People could always interpret situations within the boundary of their own knowledge, and people are also very subjective mostly on the things they do not know or do not understand fully. Therefore, I prefer news media for information regarding such happenings much more than tweets or blogs of non technical people.

Reply Parent Score: 1