Re: Week10 - Topic #1 - R17 by Coyle -- Comm 435 at GMU

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:09:07 04/06/04 Tue
Author: Scott Bradford
Subject: Re: Week10 - Topic #1 - R17 by Coyle
In reply to: Stephanie Chapman 's message, "Re: Week10 - Topic #1 - R17 by Coyle" on 23:31:52 04/04/04 Sun

>I agree. I think that these industries are jsut trying
>to find new and innovative ways to earn $. And as
>sneaky and underhanded as it might seem it's going on
>all over the country and will continue.

I see two basic attitudes here in the forums -- some think that companies have a right to charge for their copyrighted material and that it makes perfect sense for The Washington Post, for example, to charge money for some of their web features. Others think that these companies are pursuing profit at the cost of a free flow of information.

Perhaps reality falls somewhere in-between. On one hand, the more people that can access Washington Post articles (continuing with my example) the more people have a wealth of information published in the Post every day. On the other hand, the Post has to make money to stay in business and keep publishing.

If everybody got all their Washington Post articles for free online, the company wouldn't sell any papers and would have to survive off of web advertising alone. In other words, it might well destroy the paper entirely. But on the other hand, the company cannot be too restrictive or they may limit potential readership.

What these companies have to do is strike a balance. Time magazine, for example, charges money to access archives older than a certain date -- but the current issue (and I think the last couple of issues) are accessible for free. I'm not saying that's necessarily the right balance, but it shows that companies are trying to get the best of both worlds -- and justifiably so.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]