I disagree both that charging is acceptable and that it’s an attack on the free market. I’m simply saying that it’s a moronic move to think it’s viable. Period. If consumers demand to look at your ads without also paying a subscription price, that’s the right of the consumers. An attack on the free market it’s not.

If any news organization wants to charge, then they deserve the oblivion they’ll be cast into. That was hardly the point of my post, although I have no problem arguing the merits of new models for news organizations survival. I have a little experience in trying to figure that out. Basically, nobody knows, and with all that’s free, you’d be a moron (seriously) to start charging now. Good luck if that’s the road you take.

Now, the real question is ASSUMING the internet is a human right (kind of like roads, the airwaves, and lawyers to defend you), isn’t it irresponsible for news organizations to charge for the information that will make those people better citizens? For some crazy reason, though, I think I already know your answer.

There have been two issues at debate over this thing: should we charge to gain access to the internet, and should news agencies charge for their content … the answer to both is yes. Perhaps you were intending to go in a different direction with your post than you did, but you wrote what you wrote. It ultimately is up to the news agency to charge or not. Some will survive … some won’t.

There should be no forcible restriction to access beyond the ability of the customer to pay. If that was your intended argument … we agree. However, under no circumstance should free internet access be given to anyone unless the private company decides that’s the service they wish to provide. Same goes for news agencies. Especially since all people in the US have free access to the internet via the library system.

If banner ads generate enough revenue for online newspapers, that’s great. Traffic will be determined by the perceived value of content. This is the same for real newspapers, right?

If I owned an online paper and wanted to generate revenue beyond physical subscriptions I would offer pay accounts oniine $0.25 per logon (good until 3am). Another option would be to charge from $0.01 t0 $0.05 per article.

There are many possibilities in a FREE MARKET world.

I can can the web editions of various newspapers without paying for a subscription to those papers, but I’m certainly paying an Internet Service Provider.

Another angle too little discussed is whether information is proportional to knowledge. I have my doubts. The founding fathers were well-read, and Thomas Paine was one of many pamphleteers, but the MSN and Yahoo portals probably publish more in a week than many people in the 18th century would have read in a lifetime. Which is not to say that we’re better-educated than our forebears were, because in many respects, we’re not.

Information gathering requires time and resources. Time and resources are not free. When people talk about the “free exchange of ideas,” it’s not in an eonomic sense– they just mean discourse unfettered by legal or political pressure to conform to any given point of view. That kind of freedom is great, but necessarily limited.

Casey, did you read what I wrote? Because if you did you should have been able to see that I am not insisting that newspapers make their hard work available for free because of any mandate, other than that of the market. You say that these journalists, newspapers, magazines and whatever should be compensated for their hard work. Blah blah. This is stuff that, if you’re paying attention, you could see is happening WITHOUT newspapaers and magazines every single day. Welcome to the internet.

And therein lies my point. News happens with or without papers. I’m not advocating, in any way shape or form, that the government step in and demand news organizations to make their wares available for free. But the people of society should. There is a difference. If the news organizations can’t figure out a way to make the rent, then it’s not my problem. I invest my time in covering the few things I cover annually and make nothing from it. So do countless others across the world. If you want to take an even that is part of the public domain (a city council meeting, for instance) and put it behind a paid firewall, I happen to think you’re evil.

A greater missed point is that this was an exercise in thought. The post that Casey didn’t read was based on a lot of assumptions, and was not intended to turn into a debate on the merits of paying for news. That one is being debated all over the place (hint: it’s not going to work–ever). I spent my time debating that and thinking of new models and it’s not for me. The real point was to think over whether IF the internet was ever declared a human right and IF news organizations were able to make it by charging for their freely-available-elsewhere content, then was that a RESPONSIBLE position for news organizations to hold. Is it?

Take Matt Drudge as an example. He started a news gathering site and offered it for free. This eventually led to a book, a TV show, and a radio show before he chose to retire. His site is still free with no annoying pop-ups. He used his site as a form of advertising.

The only problem newspapers have is their inability to see what is happening. Is it our problem that their product is obsolete? I don’t think so.

Far from being anti-individualism, a free internet promotes individual thought. As for anti-capitalist, what could be more capitalist than adapt or die.

Capitalism mandates that the individual which produces goods, ideas, and services from his own effort and labor has the RIGHT to enjoy the fruit of it and it is up to him to determine the method of trade he will accept.

It is immoral to ask him to share these prodcuts for the sake of an ambiguous, intangible ’society’ that contributes nothing in exchange. What is it that ’society’ has provided to these online news publishers that justifies their claim to the result? Nothing.

It is tribalism and herd mentalities that leads to this call for the ’social good’ and ’social need’ and it is contrary to individualism and freedom.