You may think of them as “stupid” and “foolish”, but what company would want to live in a world where content is available for free? Better to go down valiantly fighting this horrible new world, than to meekly acquiesce to it and give up everything you believe in
Well, perhaps they don't want to 'live in a world where content is free'. But others will offer it; so they can close their doors or compete. No one says they have to stay in business, the world will continue to exist without them.
For many years content was 'free' on over the air TV and radio. Perhaps; consumers had to listen to advertisements, but the net cost to them in terms of cash was zero.
So in the 80's we get Cable TV, that at first starts with just a fee for advertisement free (mostly) TV - as time passes, we see the same charge from the cable company; but now again with advertisements.
So is it such a 'new' thing or is it just that the 'golden years' of being able to rake people for content over the 80's and 90's have passed?
Time is still available for free at your local library and doctor's office, I do believe. Internet or no internet.
The funny thing about this whole business of newspapers and magazines is that in every other 'business venture' you hear the zealots and others going on about how we have to 'save the environment' and 'conserve resources' - but oddly; in this particular industry the push is to keep paper rolling instead of doing it all online. Which; I'm not personally opposed to at all.
I read my local newspaper daily on the web; yet each day Mon-Fri; I still buy a paper to read over lunch. Would I pay for their web-site online? Maybe - because they offer what others do not - local news. Any company who did "global" news are the ones with massive amounts of competition now.
Perhaps Time should only post a limited number of articles on the web and then you'll get more if you subscribe or buy the magazine. I suspect there are a vast number of ways out there to make even more profit than ever - like other companies have done.
But in Time's specific example it's not just the ability to get the content online - but the content itself. Most of it was really more or less subjective opinions on the news. Overall; anyway. Now you get that on any blog; including here and are able to have your say as well. A feature Time never had in the past. If they do now; I wouldn't know, because I've long since found other sites I prefer to read.
But perhaps; the problem is resistance to change - moreso than anything. In Time's case, It wouldn't personally matter to me. They can lock down the whole site and I won't pay for it; but I was never interested in paying for the magazine either.
I think it comes down to this: some of these media companies are going to go down - period. There's too much information out there now. Too much to absorb. Even if they find a customer base, I doubt it would be very big.
I don't think the Model HAS to be the Model(s) Mike suggests... I agree there. But it's funny a company with all those college degrees sitting in offices that they demanded before hiring them can't come up with any ideas....
The funny thing to sum it up is that now; when I see a link to an article on one of these sites you have to pay for or sign up for, I skip it and find another - because I'm just looking for news in a hassle free manner. If not on the web, then Radio's fine. And you know what - I don't pay for that either.
Of course, the idea that this video could somehow create a direct negative impact to the sales of Fleetwood Mac songs is simply absurd.
Right now the main thing impacting the sales of various songs is in fact the RIAA and it's HATE on consumers.
Maybe it's silly, trivial or absurd - but many people will buy or not buy on principle.
Seriously - they are trying to tax radio stations to play their crap now. They are more or less stating to the public "if you use our stuff, we will bleed you for every cent we can".
And as far as that goes... I can find other things to do. Most of the music I like, I own now. However; there's still a lot I would like to get - but if it means the RIAA gets a cut - forget it. I'll not help fund their crusade against consumers.
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Well, perhaps they don't want to 'live in a world where content is free'. But others will offer it; so they can close their doors or compete. No one says they have to stay in business, the world will continue to exist without them.
For many years content was 'free' on over the air TV and radio. Perhaps; consumers had to listen to advertisements, but the net cost to them in terms of cash was zero.
So in the 80's we get Cable TV, that at first starts with just a fee for advertisement free (mostly) TV - as time passes, we see the same charge from the cable company; but now again with advertisements.
So is it such a 'new' thing or is it just that the 'golden years' of being able to rake people for content over the 80's and 90's have passed?
Time is still available for free at your local library and doctor's office, I do believe. Internet or no internet.
The funny thing about this whole business of newspapers and magazines is that in every other 'business venture' you hear the zealots and others going on about how we have to 'save the environment' and 'conserve resources' - but oddly; in this particular industry the push is to keep paper rolling instead of doing it all online. Which; I'm not personally opposed to at all.
I read my local newspaper daily on the web; yet each day Mon-Fri; I still buy a paper to read over lunch. Would I pay for their web-site online? Maybe - because they offer what others do not - local news. Any company who did "global" news are the ones with massive amounts of competition now.
Perhaps Time should only post a limited number of articles on the web and then you'll get more if you subscribe or buy the magazine. I suspect there are a vast number of ways out there to make even more profit than ever - like other companies have done.
But in Time's specific example it's not just the ability to get the content online - but the content itself. Most of it was really more or less subjective opinions on the news. Overall; anyway. Now you get that on any blog; including here and are able to have your say as well. A feature Time never had in the past. If they do now; I wouldn't know, because I've long since found other sites I prefer to read.
But perhaps; the problem is resistance to change - moreso than anything. In Time's case, It wouldn't personally matter to me. They can lock down the whole site and I won't pay for it; but I was never interested in paying for the magazine either.
I think it comes down to this: some of these media companies are going to go down - period. There's too much information out there now. Too much to absorb. Even if they find a customer base, I doubt it would be very big.
I don't think the Model HAS to be the Model(s) Mike suggests... I agree there. But it's funny a company with all those college degrees sitting in offices that they demanded before hiring them can't come up with any ideas....
The funny thing to sum it up is that now; when I see a link to an article on one of these sites you have to pay for or sign up for, I skip it and find another - because I'm just looking for news in a hassle free manner. If not on the web, then Radio's fine. And you know what - I don't pay for that either.
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
But the news you find in Time, you can find 100,000 other places on the web half the time.
Maybe I'm just biased, but even at the doctor's office; I don't read much of it :)
On the post: Cable Companies Aren't Immune From The Economy As More People Go Online-Only For TV
Although; if I get a new PC and convert the old one to a media PC, that may be a thing of the past too.
On the post: Guy Sues Guinness For Naming Him The Most Litigious Person In The World
That or it could be that the legal system just sucks....
On the post: Newspapers Gather In Secret (With An Antitrust Lawyer) To Collude Over Paywalls
On the post: Technology Again Causes American Idol Controversy, Fingers Pointed At AT&T
On the post: Will The RIAA Shut Down Public School Kids From Singing Pop Songs On YouTube?
Right now the main thing impacting the sales of various songs is in fact the RIAA and it's HATE on consumers.
Maybe it's silly, trivial or absurd - but many people will buy or not buy on principle.
Seriously - they are trying to tax radio stations to play their crap now. They are more or less stating to the public "if you use our stuff, we will bleed you for every cent we can".
And as far as that goes... I can find other things to do. Most of the music I like, I own now. However; there's still a lot I would like to get - but if it means the RIAA gets a cut - forget it. I'll not help fund their crusade against consumers.
Next >>