Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

Web Content: Would You Pay for It? - AppleNova Forums

The past couple of years have been tough ones for those in publishing and broadcasting, such as newspapers, magazines, TV networks.

With declining circulation/viewership and declining ad revenues, some outlets are losing plenty of money;

Some have already closed.

We are even talking about huge, established players here: the New York Times is very financially vulnerable and there have been rumours it might eventually close (as have, already, a few U.S.

Newspapers); a major Canadian newspaper chain has declared bankruptcy, although it is still publishing. The recession is, of course, part of the issue, but not all of it.

Part of it is almost certainly that much content that that otherwise would be paid for by traditional subscriptions or traditional ad revenue is now available ‘free’ on the Net.

While I still subscribe to a morning newspaper (Globe and Mail), and personally enjoy doing so, the fact is that almost everything in that newspaper is also available ‘free’ online, which I also consult.

Most people I know, especially younger people, do not subscribe to a print edition of any newspaper or magazine and, when asked by me about that, have specifically questioned the purpose in doing so.

The same thing could be said about many other forms of media for which the equivalent content is available ‘free’ on the Web. Further, it is not clear to me that content providers/creators, for the most part, have as yet found a way to directly make adequate money from Web content to support the creation and distribution their content over the long term.

I have seen recent stories that Web advertising has, in the last few years, started to become considerably more lucrative, but it is far from clear that it ever will be able to pay the full shot.

Meanwhile, direct payment for access to content, with some exceptions, does not appear to be the main Internet model.

I have the impression that in most circumstances efforts to implement such a model have failed.

Even in respect of something as successful as iTunes, where many people do directly pay for content, there remain underlying questions whether the model is directly profitable for Apple (as opposed to being a loss-leader for the sale of iPods), not to mention whether it adequately compensates the individual artists and labels. Where are we heading in all of this? Are we inevitably eventually heading toward an Internet where more and more content, of many different types, will be available only through direct payment?

If so, will this not fundamentally undermine the Internet, since part of its attraction and underlying value is having so much easily and freely available at your fingertips?

If you have to pay, even just the hassle factor (not to mention the individual financial cost) of obtaining access to site after site is going to be a big problem.

And how would we move toward a pay-for-content approach?

As has already been the case in many instances, an outlet that tries to adopt such a model will be undermined by movement away from that site toward other outlets who continue to offer content for free. Or will payment for content never be the main Internet model, even as media outlets’ other sources of revenues decline?

If so, how will content be subsidized?

Content, especially good content, does not come free, or even cheap.

Those who put their hearts, their time, and their careers into creating, editing and distributing it deserve to be paid.

In many cases, they are already under-compensated.

Will the quality of content inevitably decline as traditional sources of revenues that support it decline?

What will we be left with – neither traditional media, nor an Internet of any great value? Or is there some other way to do all of this that we just have not yet managed to put in place? I am putting this partially in poll form, though I recognize that not all of the issues can be captured in the poll itself;

Choose the response that is closest to your views.

In any event, I am more interested in your comments. Are You Willing / Will You Be Willing to Pay Directly for Web Content? 1) I expect that this direct payment will eventually be the main model and I will be paying. 2) I expect that direct payment may well eventually be the main model, but I personally will not pay. 3) For some types of content, payment makes sense and I will pay.

Generally, however, content will remain free on the Internet, regardless of the consequences for content providers and creators as traditional revenue sources decline.

The decline in traditional sources may be offset, to some degree, by Internet ad revenue and by the payment for some types of content. 4) Content basically will remain free on the Internet, regardless of the consequences for content providers and creators as traditional revenue sources decline.

I won’t be paying and nobody else will either.

Maybe Internet ad revenue can make up at least part of the shortfall. 5) None of the above.

Eventually we will move toward a different model – not reflected in any of the options above – as the Internet matures.

Sorry, the poll did not take , due to too many characters in some of my options.

An Admin will have to fix this, since it will not allow me back in to correct this.

Whoa, those are some long poll options.

I had to trim them down even more than you suggested in that PM.

This poll needs a sixth option.

Voted.

Come on, be nice on his birthday

I'd pay for top-notch journalism in a well-presented format, if I had to.

But probably not when it's competing with free top-notch news services from the BBC and ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission). I don't really see any other viable business model unfortunately .

Quote: : This poll needs a sixth option.

You know, I can't help but think that's reflective of having information at fingertips;

It makes one imprevious to reading a substantial content... WRT OP....

Frankly, I'm always amazed that someone is paying for adverts online.

I can't think of an instance where I bought a product based on an site's advert, and then I think about how many people are willing to block the ads, well, it seems to be a losing proposition, frankly.

Then consider Experts' Exchange.

They want people to pay to post their questions there, yet they depend on displaying the contents to the spiders so they can show up in a google result (how otherwise would people know about EE?) so it's usually a catch-22. Applenova was quite fortunate to have found (!) a means of paying for itself via Amazon's affiliate link (but that's only first year...

Too premature to definitely say it's the solution, but darned, it's a good one.

I also then think about how bloggers have, for better or worse have had more influence than traditional media has had and there has been cases of media following bloggers' lead.

I, for one, think that the notion that information on internet is 'free' is too deeply ingrained that paying for content will not work on a general scale.

It may work for a specialized scope, but I suspect the successful model will be something similar to Amazon's affiliate links or targeted advert (in the sense that the site owner has control over ads and personally endorse those products to the readers rather than merely serving the ads and crossing fingers they'll click on it). The traditional media will have to adapt somehow.

Maybe depend less than a reporter and more on an aggregrator who then can process information into a good read, something that many bloggers already do.

Quote: : Whoa, those are some long poll options.

I had to trim them down even more than you suggested in that PM.

Thanks Luca. Option 3, as edited, needs a couple of small adjustments to make sense.

I'd suggest: Quote: : Payment makes sense for some content.

However, it will mostly remain free, regardless of the consequences for content providers and creators as traditional revenue sources decline.

I suppose, though, with the addition of the sixth option, it doesn't really matter.

I'm incredibly torn on this issue.

On the one hand, I know we need to compensate people for the hard, expensive work that is journalism and on the other, I'm very against restricting information to those who can pay.

The internet has been an amazing source of information for everyone and if we start restricting access, it'll be like the old days when we had to look up articles on microfiche in dark university libraries.

I hate that I can't easily get access to scholarly journals since I'm not in academia anymore.

It's ridiculous that if I want to read peer-reviewed work, I need to schlep myself to the university library and use their computers (somewhat against their TOS) or use my wife's login info to get access to the e-journals (also somewhat against their TOS). I haven't thought about it too much, but I wonder if there's a way that the press could be publicly supported without becoming a mouthpiece of government.

What's it like at the BBC?

Is that part of some governmental agency?

Is it possible for a news organization to be government funded yet independent and critical of said government? In my mind, that's the only way out.

I see all this web advertising money as a flash in the pan.

And if it's not, our source of information can't be solely supported by advertisers.

As corporations get bigger, I think we'd be more likely to see news bias with an ad-supported model than we would with a government-supported one.

Sure, we can *hope* that companies wouldn't threaten to pull ad money from news outlets that weren't positive about them or their subsidiaries, but I don't think that relying on the beneficence of a corporation is wise. So the alternatives I see are these: a "capitalist" model wherein news outlets and organizations remain private but supported largely through advertising revenue.

Or a "socialist" model wherein the government provides news organizations with public funding.

It'd be like a recapitulation of healthcare reform only with much more danger and validity in the opposition.

While I can grant that PBS & BBC makes for generally better news, I wouldn't be surprised to see bloggers & non-journalists become more prominent in reporting the initial reports (being on the ground zero) while the news media become more of an aggregator. As for being able to biting the hand that feeds, I don't think it's possible to be critical, at least not completely.

Look at Mad for example.

It was able to lampoon many things and did so without any regards because it wasn't supported by advertising and didn't have to worry about pissing off a subsidiary.

Then when it starts running adverts, it wasn't just the same, it was just Mad but without the bite.

I don't think it'll be any different with the government sponsorship.

Then when I think about PBS's programs, they cover many very informative programs but are not as controversial as mainstream programs, which is sort of the currency of criticism, for better or worse. However, I do totally agree that it can't be supported by advertisers.

However, it's really weird when you look at US magazines...

They're almost identical to web content and thus not as appealing.

If they had much more substance and explored into dark corners and nooks, they may have a model, but that didn't happen.

How could it anyway when people aren't really interested in an 10 page article carefully scrutixzing a controversial issue when they can listen to a raging flamepot on radio or TV for 10 minutes and proclaimed themselves informed?

Quote: : Is it possible for a news organization to be government funded yet independent and critical of said government?

The BBC and, in Australia, the ABC, are probably two of the best news services going around.

The ABC is never afraid to be critical of the government.

There's only so much tampering the government can do with one of these services (in terms of appointing different directors and so forth) before it becomes way to controversial to go near.

Appointments to the board are often scrutinised in a similar way to which appointments to the judicial system might be scrutinised (not exactly the same).

Despite a lot of claims of 'bias' very few are ever upheld.

In fact, media owned by moguls like Rupert Murdoch are much more likely to be biased because they're only accountable to the moguls, not the people.

Moreover, since they're commercial-free, they're not ratings-focused but journalism focused. And I tell you what, there's nothing quite like a good, free, broadcasting service with no commercials. The only problem is that it's not really healthy for a society to have only a single news service, ideally there should be a few.

I suppose a government could sponsor multiple independent news services though.

I'm sorry Chimney, but I had to edit your poll options down again to be simple and to-the-point.

I wanted the poll to be shorter than the post. As I understand it, your options are basically a combination of two questions: "Will you have to pay?" and "Are you willing to pay?"

Quote: : However, I do totally agree that it can't be supported by advertisers.

Question: Why not?

I'm sure an equilibrium will be reached with regard to DRM and pricing. Current prices are too high, $2 for a show you'll likely watch only once maybe twice.

This makes circumventing DRM an attractive proposition for some who then enable the rest of us. Other forms of content, well $1 for a song is reasonable enough for me and plenty of others too.

Ebooks, the price will really have to come down I think.

There are pros and cons for both paper books and ebooks but I think most people find more value in the hard copy. For the non-mainstream stuff that's already been mentioned (scholarly journals etc) they're niche enough not to have to worry about people going through the trouble of circumventing their DRM so they could probably use a subscription model. I don't think the subscription model will ever materialize for news, editorials etc.

For these media micropayments are definitely an option if they can get the payment options and profit sharing done correctly. What I would like to see happen, is a world wide smart card system that allows for very strong DRM (leaving only the analog holes) and convenient micropayments.

I don't if any of you have ever used smart card authentication but it's super convenient.

You leave the smart card in the reader while you're using the computer (if you take the card out the screen locks) and if you need to authenticate anything it just pops a window for your PIN. Rock solid, convenient DRM, tied to a token so you can access your content anywhere (you can even leave it in the cloud if you want), coupled with an appropriate pricing structure (to make the analog hole less attractive) is what's really needed to enable a pay for content model.

AsLan^: What do you think would be a reasonable price for a new ebook, if $9.99 isn't?

Or were you talking about hardware? I don't think micropayments will ever take off, sorry.

Even if we're only paying fractions of cents, there will still be a perceived cost, since we'd have to put in a PIN for each site.

And since the cost of serving up each page will continue to drop with time, micropayments will continue to make less sense as time goes on. Would you develop and market a micropayment system like you describe, knowing that it will become even less relevant by the time you market it (as I describe)? Which brings me back to my question on ads.

I'd also be interested in any insights regarding how much, say, Engadget pays their writers, versus how much thy have to pay to host the site.

The amount they pay to host the site will continue to drop (for each view), but the amout they pay their writers hopefully won't - so that's the theoretical baseline.

If ads can support that, and the cost of serving up the site will eventually be almost nothing, what do we need micropayments for?

Quote: : I'm sorry Chimney, but I had to edit your poll options down again to be simple and to-the-point.

I wanted the poll to be shorter than the post. As I understand it, your options are basically a combination of two questions: "Will you have to pay?" and "Are you willing to pay?" Thanks.

Not exactly, but as I said, it really doesn't matter.

If you like, you could ditch the poll and put this back to being an ordinary thread.

I was more interested in the comments in any event.

Reading the comments, I am not sure that I agree that free blogs (and other content provided freely by those that create it), can make up the gap that would be left by the absence of professionally-created, paid content.

Bloggers and other free content providers have their role, but I really think that we would be a lot poorer without professional content.

In any event, bloggers themselves feed a lot on professional content, commenting on it, using it for support, etc.

Somebody is going to have to be doing the heavy hauling, and I don't think that it is realistic to think that it will be done for free, or at least not done well. I suppose that it is arguable, however, that the "tl/dr" idea may have some indirect relevance.

Recently, in my area, there has been a proliferation of 'free' commuter newspapers, where the average length of even a major story is just a few one-sentence paragraphs.

If people's patience, desire or ability to read is limited, and a few 'lite' paragraphs are all that is needed, then arguably you don't require a legion of talented professionals.

There is a limit to that argument though.

I really think that there still is a market for long, considered, well-edited and researched written content.

Further, even among those who don't care to read that sort of content, there is a market for other forms of content that require talent, energy, and money to produce (this thread is about more than just the written word).

But how do we subsidize this when the Internet model, so far, is 'free'? Web advertising, micropayment, and government support – suggested individually above – may well all help.

It might be that there is not a single solution, and that we must gradually feel our way toward a new model.

I don't think, however, that the long-term solution can just be that 'everything is free'.

This is a tough subject.

Off the bat, I can immediately see some real, tangible benefits of paying for more content on the internet.

In all likelihood, it would improve content wholesale.

Not everything, but, sites like hulu or youtube would ostensibly provide a much more full featured service, and/or no advertising to paid users.

Another thing that comes to mind is that the 'Eternal September' quality of the internet would effectively end.

If more areas of the internet were 'sectioned off' to paying customers, the incidences of 4chan culture muckraking around on your site would likely diminish.

Perhaps it would lead to a stronger 'link' between internet and meatspace, where the overall exchange of information would be more considered, more valued and more worthwhile. But, just as immediately, the questions of how to pay, who to pay, when to pay, for what do you pay, and how much do you pay weigh down the discussion quite a lot. The funny thing, of course, is the fact that we already *do* pay to access the internet.

We pay ISPs, and although they are not content providers necessarily, people often spend $40-$100 or more just to *access* the internet, and when considering that against the 'Internet must be free!" hivespeak, it is kind of incongruous. For the most part though, I do believe that the Internet should be free, or at least, fundamentally free, but, I can't deny that I see some advantages to paid content.

The primary obstacle, for me, isn't so much whether or not I have to pay to access a certain 'area' of the internet, it's that who would I be paying?

And why do they deserve it?

Quote: : Question: Why not?

Sorry, it was missing an important qualifier: It can't be supported by ads alone . I've already cited Mad as an example.

It wasn't just the same when it had to make sure it did piss off a company that happens to be a subsidiary to the parent company paying for the advertisements even if subject they're lampooning and the advertisements have nothing in relations to each other.

I'm sure they have had said they wouldn't do that but 1) it may just happen in the backroom anyway, 2) it may not happen in backroom but in minds of publishers, and sometime that's enough to make the different, as you can certainly see a subtle difference between the Mad before and after.

The content is practically same;

They're lampooning things but it's not 'rip their heart out lampooning' but 'yuk-yuk lampooning' without the bite. When we look at the traditional media, the newspaper would be some nominal fee to subscribe while the rest of operating costs would be covered by ads.

Even so, the readership in all major newspapers have been declining and as Chinney already noted, there are more papers that distills a complex and deep issue to a single paragraph.

Lame, I think, but that's the reality nowadays and I can't see mainstream media keeping this up.

This also ties into rises of bigots, I think.

Let's be frank, they're more fun to listen (for general masses, not for myself) to than to follow an astute and serious discussion along the panel of experts (anyone remember that?

It used to be a regular occurrence on PBS in another decade.) Now it's just a bigot roasting hapless guests and proclaiming themselves right and everyone should know that!

This kind of trend really irk me and make me mad but it's a natural response to shortening attention span, I'm afraid.

The last biggest problem is that almost none of the mainstream media has their independent content.

More than likely, they'll be re-printing Associated Press or Deuters, so it doesn't matter a damn whether you read Newspaper A or Newspaper B, and same can be said of television news.

Right now, newspapers probably have more ads than content and that kinds of factor into the problem.

Quote: : Reading the comments, I am not sure that I agree that free blogs (and other content provided freely by those that create it), can make up the gap that would be left by the absence of professionally-created, paid content.

Bloggers and other free content providers have their role, but I really think that we would be a lot poorer without professional content.

In any event, bloggers themselves feed a lot on professional content, commenting on it, using it for support, etc.

Somebody is going to have to be doing the heavy hauling, and I don't think that it is realistic to think that it will be done for free, or at least not done well.

I do agree that there will be subjects that is best met by a professional.

However, the natural advantage bloggers is going to have is that they will be at the ground zero.

That's why I think if media moved into the role of aggregator, they can provide an useful service because I don't want to seek out bloggers who's expert in their subject or may not even know where to look.

The professional journalist can then collect information from bloggers and build an article on this.

I do agree, nonetheless, there are going to be heavy hauling and that has to be compensated.

How much of it is actually demanded, is an entirely another question. Quote: : I suppose that it is arguable, however, that the "tl/dr" idea may have some indirect relevance.

Recently, in my area, there has been a proliferation of 'free' commuter newspapers, where the average length of even a major story is just a few one-sentence paragraphs.

Looks like it is more common than I thought.

I had that distributed to everyone in my suburb.

I can't help but wonder who's paying for that distribution and the content...

Considering it's from the city, I wouldn't be surprised to see it coming from my water bill for example but that's quite strange way.

I don't know if readerships for those newspapers are any better than the traditional mainstream newspaper, though. Quote: : The funny thing, of course, is the fact that we already *do* pay to access the internet.

We pay ISPs, and although they are not content providers necessarily, people often spend $40-$100 or more just to *access* the internet, and when considering that against the 'Internet must be free!" hivespeak, it is kind of incongruous.

I know. It's quite bizarre.

Consider this as well: in early age of internet ISPs used to support newsgroups and everyone were able to get contents in their favorite subjects.

Nowadays, good luck finding an ISP that provides NNTP support.

ISPs definitely has moved away from being a content provider to being an access provider, dissociating the content on internet from paying for the access, which is probably the part of problem.

With traditional media, you at least had to pay 25 cents to get a copy of newspaper and read the contents within, and the publishing company got the 25 cents.

On internet, you pay ISP some amount of money to read an article on say, CNN, and CNN get $0 from the ISP for that.

It's quite weird when we think about it. As for the mantra, well, there's already subscribers-only area, so that already has happened.

However, as I pointed out WRT the Expert Exchange, they can't do it without some kind of public presence on the internet.

To be able to rank high on a Google search, they have to share the content, which is why they publish the website the way they do, obfuscating the answers to the question while actually showing the answers in plaintext on very bottom of the site for the spider to pick up and boost the indexing ranking.

This thread was actually put together by Brad posting as Chinney putting the feelers out for AppleNova's new pricing structure wasn't it? I think that so many people have ingrained in them the thought that 'If it's on the Internet, it's free'.

I don't know what will happen if free content does dry up, but someone somewhere will find a way to get around that. Personally, I wouldn't pay for web content.

I'll suffer ads if necessary, but there's literally nothing on the interwebs that's currently free that I'd pay to use if I was forced to.

I will pay for some kinds of web content, but not for others. News and Magazines: Absolutely.

I know that journalists and their editors need to get compensated.

I probably wouldn't pay for a crapton of different sources, but say Time Magazine and the local newspaper of where I'm living, maybe a Mac mag too, sure. Entertainment: I'm thinking here sites like Hulu.

I would totally pay for Hulu as long as it was a reasonable price.

I'm not gonna pay as much as my cable bill just for Hulu, though. Topic Sites: Here I'm thinking stuff like major gaming websites like IGN, or the websites/forums gaming companies run (like Bioware's forums and stuff).

I probably wouldn't pay for them. Social Sites: Stuff like web forums,Twitter and other social networking, etc.

I would absolutely not pay for.

I might pay for AN though.

Quote: : This thread was actually put together by Brad posting as Chinney putting the feelers out for AppleNova's new pricing structure wasn't it? [...] Damn.

You found me out. For you, that'll be $9.99.

I would only be willing to pay if paying gets rid of advertisement AND gives me full access to the content I purchased (so if it is a newspaper, that day's articles) indefinitely for all of time.

Quote: : AsLan^: What do you think would be a reasonable price for a new ebook, if $9.99 isn't?

Or were you talking about hardware?

$9.99 is very reasonable in some cases, but there are plenty of ebooks that are not $9.99 and cost as much as their paper counterparts.

These are the books we're going to see pirated in the future as the cost of the readers comes down and become more popular.

What I would like to see eventually is a system where you get both.

This is awesome for reference material that sometimes you want to flick through and other times want to search. The DRM problem is tricky, if there is an incentive to circumvent the DRM then people will do it.

The reasons could range from not wanting to pay for expensive content, fear of lockout, or inconvenient DRM.

I personally think the smart card system is convenient enough that people wouldn't mind using it and actually even come to like it after a while.

All DOD systems use smart card authentication and after using it for a little while you come to appreciate never having to remember passwords or account names, just your card in the machine and your PIN. So, if people started using smart cards to access protected media, then smart cards could be tied to lines of credit and bank accounts also.

In this fashion, paying your micropayments to access content would be no different from accessing your protected media. Oh another thing about smart cards.

I'm pretty sure that a system could be devised that prevents you from being locked out of your media if the company you bought it from goes out of business.

Something along the lines of you receive a unique certificate with the media, that in conjunction with your private certificate allows you to access the media. So, assume for a minute that this DRM system has been implemented and everyone is happy.

The main vulnerability then comes from the pricing structure.

If it becomes worth somebody's time to remove the DRM on a piece of content, then it's likely that content will become available DRM free from a free source. Quote: : I don't think micropayments will ever take off, sorry.

Even if we're only paying fractions of cents, there will still be a perceived cost, since we'd have to put in a PIN for each site.

And since the cost of serving up each page will continue to drop with time, micropayments will continue to make less sense as time goes on. Would you develop and market a micropayment system like you describe, knowing that it will become even less relevant by the time you market it (as I describe)?

The system that I envisage would not just be for micropayments, it would be an all encompassing "digital passport" (bills, shopping, content, government).

I know, people have been talking about this for years but I think it will eventually become a reality, but we might end up seeing a digital divide, two internets, one for people who are willing to pay for professional content and at the same time give up their anonymity and another internet for people who don't want to pay.

I'm not sure what the implications of that other internet are, but likely along the lines of what we're seeing so far: less quality content and more rants, opinions, and advertising catering to the lowest common denominator.

Quote: : [...] The funny thing, of course, is the fact that we already *do* pay to access the internet.

We pay ISPs, and although they are not content providers necessarily, people often spend $40-$100 or more just to *access* the internet, and when considering that against the 'Internet must be free!" hivespeak, it is kind of incongruous. [...] Quote: : [...] I know.

It's quite bizarre.

Consider this as well: in early age of internet ISPs used to support newsgroups and everyone were able to get contents in their favorite subjects.

Nowadays, good luck finding an ISP that provides NNTP support.

ISPs definitely has moved away from being a content provider to being an access provider, dissociating the content on internet from paying for the access, which is probably the part of problem.

With traditional media, you at least had to pay 25 cents to get a copy of newspaper and read the contents within, and the publishing company got the 25 cents.

On internet, you pay ISP some amount of money to read an article on say, CNN, and CNN get $0 from the ISP for that.

It's quite weird when we think about it. [...] A closely analogous issue is playing itself out now in Canada between the (private) TV networks, on one hand, and cable/satellite providers on the other.

With the decline of their business model, TV networks are looking at the money trail for other sources of revenue.

In particular, they are looking at the cable and satellite companies (who, in many cases, also just happen also to be the major internet service providers), and seeing plenty of cash going there.

The TV networks are raising the argument that people are giving money to the cable/satellite companies for the content that the TV networks paid to create and distribute, and that there is something basically wrong about that.

They are asking for a slice from the cable/satellite providers. The cable and satellite companies are fighting back.

From their perspective, they invested in the hardware to better supply the feed to the people;

If anything, they argue, the TV networks should be grateful that the cable and satellite companies don't charge the networks for better distributing their product. There is a intensive lobbying effort and legal and political action going on right now in Canada, with each side paying for huge ads in various media to try to convince the public of their point of view.

I don't really watch a lot of TV, so I am sort of agnostic about the particular issue from a personal impact point of view.

That said, my instinctive sympathy is more on the side of the TV networks.

My money, however, is on the cable and satellite companies to prevail in this battle. In any event, perhaps the same argument that the TV networks are making should apply to the Internet: some of the large sums that we pay to internet service providers should perhaps being going in a fund to help subsidize content.

That would be difficult to achieve, of course, from a number of perspectives.

Discussion Title: Web Content: Would You Pay for It?
Title Keywords: Content:  Would  AppleNova  Forums 



Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet