Content on net shouldn't be free

reply to post by Retrovertigo


True enough - Murdoch has been saying this for some time.

Here is kind of the flaw in it that I see. Much of what passes for news these days is same regardless of where you get it from. In other words, is pretty much a copy & paste from another source or straight from one of the wire services.

So, why would you pay for news source A when you can still get basically the same info from news sources B, C, D, etc for free?

There isn't much "investigative journalism" by any of them these days that generates enough big stories to justify paying for a subscription (IMO).

What does set the media outlets apart is slant, opinion and commentary. That's really the only difference between them. Would enough people be willing to pay to hear the views of Hannity (Fox) or Maddow (MSNBC)? I wouldn't - but I can't answer for everyone.

Originally posted by belial259

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.

Right...I can see what you mean now....In a word, FreeView...

Yes, I agree...When FreeView started I sort of went "So what...an extra 4 or 5 channels...Didnt they promise us like 20 or something ?" It all makes sense now...nobbling FreeView in order to protect his pay-tv interests in Australia, namely Foxtel...

Thanks for that Belial, that info has filled in a big missing piece of the puzzle for me

Originally posted by Maxmars
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.

How is the cost of maintaining a news service beside the point? News agencies aren't trying to own news events, they're trying to report the news, or their version of the news, for a profit. If a news agency can command a user fee, then more power to them. As competitive as the market is right now, it remains unclear if such a fee will work, but if it does, then what is wrong with that?

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by Retrovertigo

 

True enough - Murdoch has been saying this for some time.

Here is kind of the flaw in it that I see. Much of what passes for news these days is same regardless of where you get it from. In other words, is pretty much a copy & paste from another source or straight from one of the wire services.

So, why would you pay for news source A when you can still get basically the same info from news sources B, C, D, etc for free?

There isn't much "investigative journalism" by any of them these days that generates enough big stories to justify paying for a subscription (IMO).

What does set the media outlets apart is slant, opinion and commentary. That's really the only difference between them. Would enough people be willing to pay to hear the views of Hannity (Fox) or Maddow (MSNBC)? I wouldn't - but I can't answer for everyone.

That's on the money, Frogs...

Most of it is a re-hash provided by Reuters, AFP or AP, and yes, the main thing that sets them apart is things like editorial comment and so forth...

The other thing a lot of newspapers in Australia are relying on now is content provided by the public, particularly in the way of "breaking news"..They openly solicit on their websites for photos and eyewitness accounts of newsworthy happenings...

So as you said, more and more a lot of what we read in their papers or on their websites isn't even their own material...That's probably a sign of the times tho...

I mean, who wants to pay dollars to an investigative journo who may well find something big, but may take months and months to do so all the while being paid a salary ? Again, its that trend toward "whats making news right now", even if it is trivial, over something that may really be news-worthy...

reply to post by anonymousproxy

So, here it is, more suggestions of prolong censorship of the net

I don't know if making someone pay for content is really censorship. After all, you could just pay the fee to get access (kinda like with a physical newspaper).

If making someone pay for access to your content is censorship, then I guess paying for books, magazines, and anything else you have to pay for to see is censorship also.

Originally posted by Retrovertigo

The other thing a lot of newspapers in Australia are relying on now is content provided by the public, particularly in the way of "breaking news"..They openly solicit on their websites for photos and eyewitness accounts of newsworthy happenings...

So as you said, more and more a lot of what we read in their papers or on their websites isn't even their own material...That's probably a sign of the times tho...

I mean, who wants to pay dollars to an investigative journo who may well find something big, but may take months and months to do so all the while being paid a salary ? Again, its that trend toward "whats making news right now", even if it is trivial, over something that may really be news-worthy...

Yes - the "public as reporters" thing is happening here as well. Many of our local stations have a means for the public to submit a story, cell phone vid or what-have-you. If its good enough it gets on the local news, if its big enough the national picks it.

Heck - even Drudge has a section at the bottom to submit a story.

The thing is, once the cat is out of the bag (so to speak) its pretty much everywhere.

However, it does bring up an interesting point, the blurring of news and social media. Even our local news will often encourage users to sign on to their face book page, twitter account, and "talk to us", "Let us know what you think", etc..

Reminds me of something I read where Bill Gates argued that software should not be free and should be paid for wayyy back then.. if this is going in the direction like Bill Gates did then news everywhere would cost money

reply to post by Retrovertigo


And you can bet he'd do the same thing to the internet if he could. This paid content would be his little cash cow and the free internet be damned.

I've no doubt in my mind he's using all the power at his disposal to assert control over the internet. Thankfully he doesn't seem to have enough... yet.

reply to post by Frogs


Oh yes, the line between news and social media is indeed becoming blurry...And the thing is, newspaper websites are getting this content for free whilst earning advertising revenue from their sites...

And now they want to charge us for access to said sites...

That's typical of those who control the media...Driven by nothing but greed and the power that comes with controlling information...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

How is the cost of maintaining a news service beside the point? News agencies aren't trying to own news events, they're trying to report the news, or their version of the news, for a profit. If a news agency can command a user fee, then more power to them. As competitive as the market is right now, it remains unclear if such a fee will work, but if it does, then what is wrong with that?

Nothing, as long as your news is worth paying for. That being the case, people will WANT to pay.

However this effort is tantamount to criminalizing the dissemination of said news. They want to return to the days when people depended on them for news. Much like the music business industry with their "product", they want to control the 'news' even AFTER it has been reported. There IS something wrong with that.

If you produce a news piece which is the fruit of your organization's labor, then by all means charge for access to the vehicle which delivers it.... Unfortunately the MBA business paradigm of increasing profits cannot support itself in a world where information can be shared as information.

Consider their objection slightly and you can see that the problem is that they cannot 'compete.' They want the freedom from competition to be protected by legal means. In a world where a handful of moguls own ALL the mainstream media AND mediums, this is not a 'good thing.'

Once again, I propose that there is a distinct difference between 'content' and 'information.' Controlling one should not be equivalent to controlling the other... but in their minds it is the only way to save a "News" industry which I presume many will become convinced is 'too big to fail.'

Originally posted by belial259
reply to post by Retrovertigo

 

And you can bet he'd do the same thing to the internet if he could. This paid content would be his little cash cow and the free internet be damned.

I've no doubt in my mind he's using all the power at his disposal to assert control over the internet. Thankfully he doesn't seem to have enough... yet.

For sure...

I wonder if Foxtel will offer internet access over fibre in capital cities and regionals in particular if the NBN ever gets built ? They could do it now for those few customers still accessing Foxtel by fibre..

Or will News Corp buy up ISP's and exert control in a not so direct way ?

Like you said, he can't quite snooker the Interwebz itself....yet

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Retrovertigo]

I stopped watching the news on T.V. for about a month a couple of months back, and when I started watching it again I realized that I didn't miss anything. It was the some old same old.

Murdoch may be a powerful person in the news business, but he doesn't own everything. If he starts charging peole to see the news on forums that he owns, I'll simply view the news on a different forum. It's pretty much all the same regardless of where you get your news from anyway.

I'm not going to PAY to see the same old same old. Screw that.



Peace