Content on net shouldn't be free

Content on net shouldn't be free

www.thesun.co.uk

THE price of your daily newspaper is cheaper now in real terms than at any time in history.

Major papers including The Sun and The Times currently give away much of their content free on the internet.

Veteran broadcaster JOHN HUMPHRYS, host of Mastermind and Radio 4's Today programme, is among our avid readers.

But here he argues that reading newspapers for free online cannot, and should not, last forever.

Read more: www.thesun.co.uk...

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
ww w.telegraph.co.uk

So, here it is, more suggestions of prolong censorship of the net. More suggestions were capitalist can get their hand on anything that is popular is money worth it.

Everything is slowly becoming totalitarian rule, there finding everything to hold freedom.
Facebook cause's sexually transmitted disease, face book stops mothers from spending more time with their children, smoking ban here, there.

Slowly, making the slaves be totally to the law and rule of land, slowly controlling how we live, and eat, just like a computer game.

www.thesun.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 26-3-2010 by anonymousproxy]

This is highly disturbing and I am from America. I don't like how things are going for my friends in the UK and fear the US will follow suite. Isn't there anything anyone can do??

Given The Sun is owned by News Corp, I'm hardly surprised Murdoch has one of his monkeys arguing news on the Interwebz shouldn't be free...

Murdoch has been saying the same thing himself quite publicly for the last 12 mths or so...News Corp had a well publicised spat with Google over its apparent "skimming" (read: stealing) from News Corp websites thru its Google News service...

News Corp currently has several pay for news websites including the Wall Street Journal online...Personally speaking, given the claptrap most of News Corps newspapers print, there's no way in the world I'd pay for any of their sites on the Interwebz...

And unless the publication in question occupies a particular "niche" in the market (such as the Wall Street Journal), I'm not sure changing ordinary newspaper websites to a pay to view model will be financially successful...

reply to post by anonymousproxy


Good catch - S&F.

But there's a helluva lot more to this story. FYI - print is dead. Along with Free Speech and the Free Press. Our best hope right now is to NOT use ad-blockers, and pray that alternate websites like ATS will survive. But it's not looking good...

Check this out:

Complete ACTA text leaked online - at last

reply to post by anonymousproxy


Nothing provided on the internet is free.

On many sites, you and I are the end-users and are provided the service for free because of revenue lines we do not normally see. Advertisement being the largest one and high end users paying for subscriptions the other.

So I am not sure how you are equating this to censorship...

As an exercise, I challenge you to start up a large news organization, staff writers, pay for the rights of stories, pay for the networks (and personnel) to put up your web site to provide your content, advertising, marketing, and on and on....

Because you think you should be given something free and a site is not going to provide that anymore, you have somehow been convoluted into thinking you are owed it.

But continue your envy and ignorance into how a business is ran and what it takes to provide you with even a site like this...

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
Given The Sun is owned by News Corp, I'm hardly surprised Murdoch has one of his monkeys arguing news on the Interwebz shouldn't be free...

Quite true.

You really have to watch anything Murdochs networks say. Here in Australia he was well known for interfering in what his networks or papers published. I actually saw him pull a live show off Television once with 45 minutes left to go.

This guy almost single handedly destroyed digital TV in Australia.

i spent almost 70 dollars last month to get online. ive paid for content.

reply to post by Agent_Denali


No, you paid to be able to connect to a Service Provider. They are providing you with bandwidth with their assets. So you did not pay for any content other than a possible homepage provided by whatever provider you are subscribed to.

Originally posted by belial259

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
Given The Sun is owned by News Corp, I'm hardly surprised Murdoch has one of his monkeys arguing news on the Interwebz shouldn't be free...

Quite true.

You really have to watch anything Murdochs networks say. Here in Australia he was well known for interfering in what his networks or papers published. I actually saw him pull a live show off Television once with 45 minutes left to go.

This guy almost single handedly destroyed digital TV in Australia.

Yep you're right Belial...

One only has to look at The Australian as an example, which is merely a mouthpiece for Murdoch's neo-con view of the world...Oh, and a mouthpiece of the right wing of the Liberal Party of Australia...

Which show was that ?

Can you elaborate on how he almost destroyed digital TV in Australia ? A curious mind like mine needs to know these things

well i WILL NOT be buying content online.

i dont pay for porn, im certainly not paying for news.

guess we know which route the pay-per-view internet content will be going. im pretty sure its somewhere with the dinosaurs.

good luck making me pay when i can keep looking for free stuff.

"The Times" UK newspaper,also owned by the murdoch group will begin charging for its website in June this year.
So it said on BBC news this morning.
All other murdoch papers/websites will follow no doubt.
This is murdoch attempting to regain control of the flow of information IMO.
As a pure propaganist for the elite scum,murdoch always hated the idea of freely flowing news/information.

How will this affect ATS I wonder?
Will we still be able to reprint links etc,without paying?

Whoooa Nelly !

i'm already Paying for internet content.... every month to ISP

now if a newspaer/ now communications provider wants to recieve
a revenue stream to look at their content, then they need to hold
their hands out to the ISP which are making outlandish profits

don't come picking my pocket to pay for your domain

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
"The Times" UK newspaper,also owned by the murdoch group will begin charging for its website in June this year.
So it said on BBC news this morning.
All other murdoch papers/websites will follow no doubt.
This is murdoch attempting to regain control of the flow of information IMO.
As a pure propaganist for the elite scum,murdoch always hated the idea of freely flowing news/information.

How will this affect ATS I wonder?
Will we still be able to reprint links etc,without paying?

Given News Corps' huge "reach" in world-wide media, I can definitely see this as News Corp (Murdoch) attempting to control the free flow of news/info as much as it possible...

That's a really good question Silicone...Given ATS gains revenue from advertising, tho granted nowhere near on a scale as large as Google, I'd imagine ATS would have restrictions placed on it with regard to "skimming" news articles and other content from News Corp sites...

That was their major beef with Google...That Google was displaying News Corp content on its own sites without paying for it, and collecting advertising revenue by visitors to Google's sites viewing said News Corp content,...

reply to post by St Udio


No you are not paying for content. You are paying the ISP to be able to access their networks and use a portion of their bandwidth.

ISP's don't own the content. They are the means to the end.

The internet isn't structured like television.

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
Which show was that ?

I am really struggling to remember. It was hosted by a fat guy with long blond hair.

It was on channel 9

Can you elaborate on how he almost destroyed digital TV in Australia ? A curious mind like mine needs to know these things

Well from my understand when we were putting in legislation for the new spectrum he was able to exert incredible influence on the government not only by lobbying and having mates in office. But by a concerted media campaign.

Instead of getting many channels with interactive content we only got a few with simple guides and no new content. Australia was basically not allowed to develop digital TV because of Rupert Murdoch. He has a controlling stake in Foxtel one of the only cable pay tv providers in Australia and did not want free to air to compete with his service, which although it is paid also carries advertising.

Of the free to air networks only the government controlled ABC has managed to make much use of the digital spectrum.

This issue transcends national borders, so at the risk of offending my foreign friends I would like to ask you consider an American's take on this matter.

The very first aspect of the problem as I see it is the acceptance of the term 'content' as if information can only be a 'product.'

They have 'produced' news for so long that they refuse to accept the idea that it is information.

If you see an event happening, and you wish to tell people about it, does that mean you own the account of the event? That is their goal. To have the 'news' be 'property'.

We can dance around all day about the costs of maintaining a news service, and all of it is beside the point.

Is information 'property'?

If so, does that mean that 'knowing something' makes you 'own' the information of that truth?

I am afraid that many don't recognize that this is about control of information dissemination and the removal of competitive pressures to be 'preferred' among providers by a captive consumer audience.

This group of modern-day robber barons were too complacent and succumbed to hubris when the internet became accessible to the public. They scrambled to seize ownership and control of the medium; eliminating broadcast television (which they called 'going digital' ), regulating ISP provisions and infiltrating the international communities ad-hoc management of internet growth. But it failed in gaining control over the information - which was the true 'gold currency standard' of the internet.

Now they have batteries of legal minds finding new contrivances to ensure they can maintain control... and the people who are 'those served' by the information are meant to sit idly by and watch while they do it.

Well.. that's my irreverent view.... thanks for listening.

I wonder if they will allow you to quote their "news" and the source free of charge. Lets say I see an article in the print news and provide a quote in my website that acknowledges the source like AP or UPI, to my knowledge (I could be wrong here) that is not a copyright infringement as I'm not claiming to have written it myself. However, what if I charged for my article that includes the quote, would that be an infringement? I wouldn't want any copyrighted material of my own to be sold without royalty payments. Of course, I cannot afford to police my own copyrights like a big corporation can. I guess we will find out when the court cases come to trial.

If i am not mistaken the very first second a baby is born it actually owes the country its been born at an estimated 23,000 $. So i kind of take the content issue lightly.

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
I wonder if they will allow you to quote their "news" and the source free of charge.

Well lets say they get this ACTA thing in.

Imagine you get take a redirect around the sign in to read FOXNEWS and then decide to cut/paste it somewhere else.

And then two days later Feds kick in your door and seize your computer for violation of intellectual copyright.

Not saying that will happen ofcourse. But maybe it could.