"Goodbye."
Go ahead. It’ll be the final nail in the coffin of the newspapers.
No problem we’ll all just get assigned to buying subscriptions to various news sources then we’ll just pool them...”somewhere.”
I already pay to get content. I subscribe to the WSJ. I would pay for foxnews.com. I doubt I would pay for the NYT. Despite what others have posted here, content costs SOMEBODY to create. Whether its news, movies, music, or books the creation of the content is not done from the good will of one’s heart - it is generally done to earn a living.
There is no entitlement to the news that somebody writes, no constitutional grant of access to free movie downloads, or free music. Just because it’s the Internet doesn’t make it free.
When you bought your computer do you think Microsoft GAVE you the operating system? No - you paid for it.
I bet those who think that everything on the web should be free pay for People magazine, probably drop a couple bucks each month for sports illustrated too.
The reason most of the content on the web now is junk is because it’s free. You want good content then pay for it.
Murdoch should stick to “When Celebrities Attack.”
"Goodbye."
“Murdoch leads charge to get readers to pay online”
More power to you Murdoch.
I believe it will backfire since the web is full of alternatives to paid sites, but go ahead and try. We’ll all be waiting anxiously to see what happens.
I remember the early days of the net, and that's how alot of these sites did it, and it didn't last long. I even remember ESPN being an all-pay site for a short while until they realized they were getting their lunch taken away by the Yahoo folks and others who would do it for free.
good luck with all that
I don’t and won’t pay to read ‘’newspaper’’ on-line. Stick it NYT.