Re: Week10 - Topic #1 - R17 by Coyle/She's Wrong -- 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: 06:37:04 04/06/04 Tue
Author: Clare Tumulty
Subject: Re: Week10 - Topic #1 - R17 by Coyle/She's Wrong
In reply to: John Murray 's message, "Re: Week10 - Topic #1 - R17 by Coyle/She's Wrong" on 17:34:57 04/04/04 Sun

I understand why websites charge money to access certain information but I wonder how many people are willing to pay for these services. I personally have never paid money to access information off the internet. I usually find other sources such as the library where I can get the information for free.
>Though it may be unfortuate, it is understandable that
>the Washington Post.com will charge a fee to view
>archived material.
>
>It is a common misconception that the Internet hosts
>an infinite amount of information with ease. That all
>this information is just floating around waiting to be
>viewed.
>
>However, the opposite is true. It costs time, money,
>and space to properly maintain a website. Charging
>for archived material make seem unfair to most,
>however, without these fees the online newspaper would
>be unable to house the archived information in the
>first place. Archiving articles online is similar to
>if a person devoted their entire basement or attic to
>housing every edition of the Washington Post ever
>created. The only difference is instead of taking up
>physical space, online archived material takes up hard
>drive space.
>
>Users really can't complain because the Post is saving
>them a lot of time and effort by housing these
>articles, which, otherwise would be impossible to view.
>
>People need to stop thinking of the Internet as a
>synonym for a freeflow of complimentary information.

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