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.
The other aspect of the issue is advertising. News web sites sell ad space. Free readership means more readers. More readers means site owners can charge more for their ad space, generating more revenue. I would imagine on a site like Drudge, with its millions of daily readers, ads cost a
pretty penney. If Drudge were to charge subscriptions, I would speculate readrship would drop quite a bit.
Well said.