I think this article may be focusing on the wrong meaning of the word "free."
The Internet should remain "free" in that the routers that comprise it are content agnostic and allow the free flow of information between parties, not that we don't have to pay for movies, music and reading material (which is hardly a revolutionary change).
I remember the internet before it became a corporate whorehouse and it was fine. Back when the newspapers didn't take it seriously and every little mom and pop shop didn't have a website. Before people felt the need to tweet every time they take a dump. Back when it was just people talking to people.
I say hey - if you can't make a buck and that's the only reason you're trying to communicate then just go away. I'm not logging on to spend money... go get a real job.
I kind of like mom-and-pop places having websites. Not necessarily the honest to god mom-and-pop's in the middle of nowhere, but it's handy that more than just the chains, franchises and giants have web pages.
Digital content and services are no different than real world content and services. You do not walk into a grocery store expecting everything to be free. Why would you expect all digital content to be free? Likewise, you have to pay for a copy of the New York Times at a newsstand, so why would you be surprised to find that you have to pay for the digital version of the same thing? The internet is not some strange medium that is outside the realm of profit-seeking capitalism; among other things, it is a convenient way to provide services and content, sometimes requiring payment, and I see no problem with that.
"Google, Times of London, New York Times Consider Paid Content Plans"
Google, Times of London, New York Times is not, however hard it is to snap out of that belief, the internet.
Another point totally oblivion to many authors of such articles is that the internet is a WORLD WIDE web. For many europeans for instance "internet" is still "free internet". Content is free. News is free. Information is free.
Personally I wouldn't say it's free per se though. Rather "publicly available". Still, in practice it's the same effect for the end user.
Headline should read;
"The end of Big Corporations providing free access to their content on the internet"
7 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 36.7 ms ] threadThe Internet should remain "free" in that the routers that comprise it are content agnostic and allow the free flow of information between parties, not that we don't have to pay for movies, music and reading material (which is hardly a revolutionary change).
I say hey - if you can't make a buck and that's the only reason you're trying to communicate then just go away. I'm not logging on to spend money... go get a real job.
Ah. Another one of these. I'm sure ABC will have an original take on the topic.
Google, Times of London, New York Times is not, however hard it is to snap out of that belief, the internet.
Another point totally oblivion to many authors of such articles is that the internet is a WORLD WIDE web. For many europeans for instance "internet" is still "free internet". Content is free. News is free. Information is free.
Personally I wouldn't say it's free per se though. Rather "publicly available". Still, in practice it's the same effect for the end user.
Headline should read;
"The end of Big Corporations providing free access to their content on the internet"