US newspaper owners are 'mad as hell'

Apr 08, 2009 by Chris Lefkow
News Corporation founder Rupert Murdoch. US newspaper owners, their advertising revenue evaporating, their circulation declining and their readership going online to get news for free, are fighting mad

US newspaper owners, their advertising revenue evaporating, their circulation declining and their readership going online to get news for free, are fighting mad.

The enemy? Websites that use their stories without paying for them.

"We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more," said the chairman of the Associated Press, a cooperative of over 1,400 US newspapers, borrowing a line from the anchorman character in the 1976 movie "Network."

"We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," Dean Singleton said at a meeting this week of the Association of America (NAA) in San Diego, California.

Singleton's battle cry came just a few days after News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch launched a broadside against Internet giant Google, whose Google News website is one of the most popular news aggregators on the Internet.

"Should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyrights?" asked Murdoch, the owner of newspapers in Australia, Britain and the United States, where his holdings include The and New York Post.

"Thanks, but no thanks," the News Corp. chairman said.

Robert Thomson, the managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, used even harsher language than his boss in describing the situation.

"There is no doubt that certain websites are best described as parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the Internet," Thomson said in an interview with the newspaper The Australian.

"It's certainly true that readers have been socialized -- wrongly I believe -- that much content should be free," he said. "And there is no doubt that's in the interest of aggregators like Google who have profited from that mistaken perception."

The salvos by Singleton, Murdoch and Thomson appear to have been uncoordinated but they reflect rising anger among an industry facing a deepening crisis.

Two newspapers, the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, Colorado, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, have shut down in recent weeks and several big newspaper groups have declared bankruptcy, including the Tribune Co., publisher of the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and other dailies.

Hearst Corp., owner of the San Francisco Chronicle, has threatened to shut down the paper unless unions agree to major staff cuts and The New York Times Co. has threatened to close the Boston Globe unless unions there do the same.

According to the NAA, last year was the worst ever for the US newspaper industry with print falling 17.7 percent and even online advertising revenue dropping -- by 1.8 percent.

The decline in print advertising revenue has been exacerbated by the global recession but the more fundamental problem according to media analysts is that the business model that has sustained the industry for decades is broken.

The counter-attack by US newspaper owners has met with a mixed reaction from analysts, with some saying it's about time they went on the legal offensive to defend copyright and others saying they're wasting their time.

"What the AP is doing now, like many newspapers, is too little too late in recognizing the threat of the Internet," said Tom McPhail, professor of media studies at the University of Missouri, St. Louis.

"The court system is too slow for their needs and purposes," McPhail told AFP. "They need a short term victory and that isn't going to happen."

Peter Kafka, writing on his blog MediaMemo, derided the efforts.

"AP shakes fist at Google. Tells Internet to get off its damn lawn," read the headline on a post Kafka wrote about the AP threat to go after websites that use its content or that of its member newspaper without permission.

A Google lawyer, Alexander Macgillivray, on Tuesday defended the practice of linking to newspaper articles from Google News, saying it was driving traffic to newspaper websites and providing them with advertising revenue.

Google chief executive Eric Schmidt walked into the lion's den himself on Tuesday, appearing before the assembled newspaper executives in San Diego just a day after the AP chairman issued his rallying cry.

Schmidt said the reality is the "vast majority" of readers are going to opt for news for free and that newspapers should see Google as a partner and not as a rival as they try to increase their online advertising revenue.

"We have to embrace what users want together and by doing that I think we can win big," he said.


Join PhysOrg.com on Facebook!
Follow PhysOrg.com on Twitter!

(c) 2009 AFP

Explore further: Twitpic to stay alive with new owner

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

AP to take on Web piracy, cut rates

Apr 06, 2009

The US news agency the Associated Press announced plans on Monday to take legal action against websites that publish stories from the AP or its member newspapers without permission.

Grim US newspaper ad revenue figures released

Mar 27, 2009

Last year was the worst ever for the US newspaper industry with both print and online advertising revenue posting declines, according to Newspaper Association of America (NAA) figures.

Chicago Sun-Times owner files for bankruptcy

Mar 31, 2009

The Sun-Times Media Group Inc., owner of the Chicago Sun-Times and other newspapers, filed for bankruptcy protection on Tuesday, the latest victim of the crisis gripping the US newspaper industry.

Seattle paper may have digital future

Mar 06, 2009

Time is running out for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, whose publisher, the Hearst Corp., plans to close the money-losing newspaper if a buyer is not found by next week.

Recommended for you

Facebook dressed down over 'real names' policy

Sep 17, 2014

Facebook says it temporarily restored hundreds of deleted profiles of self-described drag queens and others, but declined to change a policy requiring account holders to use their real names rather than drag names such as ...

Yelp to pay US fine for child privacy violation

Sep 17, 2014

Online ratings operator Yelp agreed to pay $450,000 to settle US charges that it illegally collected data on children, in violation of privacy laws, officials said Wednesday.

User comments : 40

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bob_Kob
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2009
Bawwwwww
ArtflDgr
4.1 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2009
maybe newspapers shouldnt skew and lie. perhaps its their inability to understand the difference between fiction or news.

if they serve the state they are useless to their customers, and businesses that are useless to their customers go out of business.

forgetting who you serve to butter your bread is the problem, not free news on the net. if newspapers did half as good a job reporting as bloggers do correcting, illustrating, providing validated information, showing where newspapers lie, then we would buy them.

however when we read newspapers from other countries and they tell us things that our news is not reporting, or is conveniently manipulating, they act as if they are the only line of information and so their lies are power.

well, besides people buying them for some coupons, and others wishing to hear what its like to put your head in a bottle and listen to the echo while you go la la la, and those who hate themselves and their homes, your customer base has found other venues and its not because those venues are free.

i watch the tv news and its just as irrelevent. see them prattle on about american idol pretending its news when its really just a 15 minute commercial. the show is mostly women, and they get side tracked gossiping and entertaining, so there is little news other than weather and traffic...

the only thing that locking things down will do is finish them off. if we are not paying to read them because they are not giving whole news, we certainly are not going to miss them when they clamp down and we dont see them not report to us.

they forgot why they exist, and whom do they serve, two points which have the same answer.
MGraser
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
ArtflDgr, I'm no fan of newspapers myself. However, it comes down again to who's paying for the content and who's using it. Let's say you pay for one of those inflatable bouncers for your kid's birthday party. You invite several of their friends. However, next thing you know the whole town shows up and tramples all over the bouncer that you paid for and you child hardly gets the enjoyment from it that was intended.

So, these guys are paying writers for stories to go in their papers, with the expectation that they will have a certain circulation of readers, which leads to a certain ad revenue. But, instead Google (and others) just take the content for their own site so that nobody goes onto the newspaper website. Google gets the story they didn't pay for AND the advertising revenue.
LariAnn
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2009
If I understand this correctly, AP and Reuters are newswires, which means they release news, which then may be picked up by any news outlet, including newspapers, television, etc. If Google subscribes to AP news service, they should be as free to provide this news to surfers as newspapers are to print it. The fact that newspapers have lagged behind and tried to act like the internet didn't exist is their problem and they have to deal with it. "Publish or Perish". End of story.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
Internet is free, newspapers are not. It's time for the printed word to go digital. If they can't cope and figure out a way to get a handle on the technology, then the technology will get a handle on them.
earls
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
There are many avenues available to prevent being aggregated, the newspapers currently to do take advantage of any of them.

This is because the core issue is not being aggregated and linked to, but that they have no way to force feeding people the advertisements that bankroll their operations.

Expect legislative action next.
ArtflDgr
3.1 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2009
by they way does anyone see the irony in this?

"It's certainly true that readers have been socialized -- wrongly I believe -- that much content should be free," he said. "And there is no doubt that's in the interest of aggregators like Google who have profited from that mistaken perception."

who turned them socialist from capitalist so that they think that no one should make money and that everything shoudl be free?

duh...

ArtflDgr
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2009
McGraser,
its not that way, since half the blog postings are actually showing where they are lying or they are off...

do they take the point that this is feedback? nope, they just keep trying to spin, cover, and lie...

what it amounts to is bawling that no one wants to buy their lies, and that others are making money redistributing them.

but the truth is that the others are very popular bcause they are showing the lies... why? because newspapers that lie are news.

all anyone has to do to see how bad it is is to take a highlighter and then mark off the place where they discover the party of the politician in question... (if rep and its a bad article, it will be in the first sentence, if its dem, and its a bad article, you may not see the D before their name in the whole thing). or how long it takes to find out the horrible father was a step father? or that all the spins are dads are bad?

how about the blogger that shows that canadian news edited the audio of obamas speeches?

hey, how about this mornings daily news spinning the love of obama, when you read the foreng press he is coming across as a idiot...

how can i tell the american people, that the news is reporting wrongly, if fair use cant be evoked to show it?

news is not entertainment, and so when news is entertainment, they are competing with all the other entertainers...

but when news is news, they go after the corrupt.. and are honest about it.. people buy them in droves... i liked byuing the paper and ahving something to read on the way to work... when it told me the truth.

but thy have NO PROOF that the internet is the reason... but statintg that and promoting that will pronmote state control of the internet, and they will be back in business again noce its censored..

so even this indignation is not valid...

because if they wanted to get my money in the morning again, they would onlyu have to tell me the truth...

and not leftist liberal stalinist revisioned history!!!

when several news places claimed that obama was picking something off the carpet and now bowing to the holy saudi, how can you tell me that i should be paying for that news?

when i buy news i want news...

if they dont give me news, then the news is the blogger showing me their lies.

the problem is that they ARE the news now, they are not reporting it. they are now like stalin, making history, not reacting to it.

heck the ny times advertising says "i like the times cause they tell me what to think"

again... they tell me the real facts, stop playing games that any one with a pen can reveal, then i might side with them.

but making a fraudulent product, and complaining that people are stealing the fraudulent product rather than [paying you for it. well, that makes no sense either.

of course, the newspapers are not investigating either, they are just buyig it from aggregators like ap...

well, the bloggters and stuff are going out and taking their own pictures, writring their own thing... and if the news lies, or that is different, then the news is the news, and the lying article is the news and open to use.

they dont see it like that, fine. get all statist hissy and turn the gun on the public and see what ahppens... until they are pravda, and that force is in place, they are better off serving their customers, not the state.

Ivan2
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
It's not one or two people who don't read news because they can't afford newspapers or, in general, any media.

They number in the *billions*.

Goodbye, old model. Goodbye. I am so sad I am busy making plans to cry over my beer in about 3 weeks...
earls
5 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2009
"But, instead Google (and others) just take the content for their own site so that nobody goes onto the newspaper website."

Flat out wrong.
Ivan2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2009
by they way does anyone see the irony in this?

(...)who turned them socialist from capitalist so that they think that no one should make money and that everything shoudl be free?

Media owners want to simultaneously set up a darwinian struggle and win it. They can't have it. Free is better.

The "socialism" talk is a scream for help. From *government*, not from the people that all media supposedly "serve". Bottom line: they want government money to survive. It already started in France, where the "new law" being considered is about lifting taxes from...

Guess...

Advertising income and/or expenses. I suppose the French will love to pay for the party.
slave_labor
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2009
Newspapers must realize the internet is just another marketplace. They need to adapt and use use it as an opportunity to sell subscriptions, not fight it. It is not going anywhere. If they have been slow to capitalize, whose fault is that?

Some papers have had some success online. The first thing they need to do is to get their readers to register to read the entire story. Maybe they should study the experience of magazines that went to the internet.

--TomS
Ivan2
2 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2009
Newspapers must realize the internet is just another marketplace. (...)If they have been slow to capitalize, whose fault is that?

ISP providers, Tom. That is 50 dollars a month right there. Then there is the telephone bill, another 80 dollars a month at least.

All over the world, the situation is the same.

That is the future-building money being trashed right there, in front of everybody's eyes.
neokortex
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2009
well if the mainstream media and news organizations wernt the propaganda arm of the left wing then maybe people would start listening to them again.

Ah yes, fcnotpdaaj, you must be referring to all those multi-billion $ Capitalist corporations that own 90% of the "mainstream media" outlets, especially News Corp and its rabidly left wing owner Rupert Murdoch.

http://www.cjr.or...ndex.php
Ivan2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2009
they have no way to force feeding people the advertisements that bankroll their operations.

Expect legislative action next.

I love that comment! It's true.

Media, all sorts of media, want legislation to compensate them -with public money- for the fact that billions of people simply DO NOT OWN enough money to spend on what they have visibly become: non-essential.

In short, they are Troy horses from now on.

Watch them. Or they will lobby for protective legislation for themselves.
Bob_B
4 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2009
Are "Troy horses" the equivalent of "Trojan Horses"?
Ivan2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2009
Are "Troy horses" the equivalent of "Trojan Horses"?

Yes, sorry! (Uh, that goes with language mixing department.)
vlam67
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2009
Just adding my 2 cents: If these newspapers want to keep making money, perhaps a bandwidth arrangements with ISPs. The headlines would be free, but when the readers click on the links, then the data download will be calculated and an agrreed portion of the data charge income will be forwarded from the ISP to the news source...but i guess then they will make a humongous pages with all the bells and whistles and...blah blah blah to maximize the income!
markcanwrite
1 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2009
As a writer, I find the "free is better" argument laughable. Wonder why gasoline, bread and condoms aren't free? Someone has to produce them, and that someone has to be paid for his efforts, or guess what? You won't be driving, eating or shtupping any more. The information that gets skimmed off by aggregators and bloggers is the product of someone's hard work, and has just as much value as what you produce at work each day. What would you say if your boss decided that your work should be free? Would you have any great incentive to stick around and toil for nothing?

Blogs and aggregators exist because there's a huge network of newsgathering organizations out there that do the legwork to find those interesting and compelling stories and bring them to your attention. Those news entities can do this because they have large, experienced teams of journalists, investigational and otherwise, who know how to get those stories - and are paid to do so. The news industry has evolved into a vital part of the country's system of checks and balances, exposing corrupt politicians, shady lawyers, extortion-happy employees and other slimeballs of every stripe. If papers disappear, who's going to fund that kind of public service - bloggers?

Without evidence-based, deeply researched information, a story is merely an opinion - and you know what they say about those.
Arikin
5 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2009
vlam67, sorry but it is not worth it to any ISP to track all the traffic of all their users. Do you realize how much overhead and storage you would need? Besides, there is the privacy issue with sniffing every packet...

Just use successful models already out there.

Ivan2, here in Japan we have flat rates for DSL. The dial-up charges you specified are as outdated as the 56K modem.

But, I do agree that this is a problem with newspapers not using the internet correctly and then complaining because they can't catch up.

Maybe, we should replace the AP with an aggregator of blogger sites? Oh well, let the newspapers cling to their old ways and die off.
fcnotpdaaj
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2009
well if the mainstream media and news organizations wernt the propaganda arm of the left wing then maybe people would start listening to them again.


Stats show that 90 % of reporters are leftist, when they report you can see their bias. Pro-life is always anti-abortionists, pro abortionist are alway pro-choice. Obama bows to a Muslim King, nothing in the news, Bush makes a mis-step it makes the headline. thousand of examples can be brought up, but who cares. Truth is the truth, you cant trust the mainstream media to tell the truth, just like you cant believe democrats or Obama

Ah yes, fcnotpdaaj, you must be referring to all those multi-billion $ Capitalist corporations that own 90% of the "mainstream media" outlets, especially News Corp and its rabidly left wing owner Rupert Murdoch.



http://www.cjr.or...ndex.php

SmartK8
3 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2009
This situation can and will be resolved in only two possible ways. First one the more capitalistic and also more darwinian. The newspapers will adapt either thru some electronic form or they'll go free making money elsewhere in the process. The second one which is IMO wrong and basically socialistic is passing a bill that will either compensate for the losses; paid by a government and thus forcing the newspapers to become inheritly dependent in the long run, as that government will basically becomes the customer. The other options is to make it part of the price of your ISP connection or even the electronic media as we've already seen when fighting the software pirates. So an electronic media (or an ISP) buyer will be assumed to be a 'free news' user (a thief, alright).
RAL
5 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2009
Yeah I come to Physics Org to read about some newspapers being unhappy. How about articles on physics? Or at least on science?
Soylent
5 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2009
Without evidence-based, deeply researched information, a story is merely an opinion - and you know what they say about those.


Perhaps if newspapers tried doing that people would read them?

Right now bloggers kick their arse in every significant way; this was extremely apparent in the FRA scandal here in Sweden recently. Blogs left no stone unturned due to the simple fact that having a thousand pairs of eyes go over a speculative lead quickly allows you to evaluate whether or not there's something to it(if there is, it spreads to other blogs and yet more digging is done). Blogs broke most of the significant news stories, the dinosaur media were left picking up their scraps a few days later.
murray
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2009
If only newspapers were purveyors of unbiased factual reporting. Instead almost every article now is an implicit opinion piece and the papers have alienated at least half of the readership. Further, what drove most newspaper sales was advertising, particularly classified ads. The rise of Internet-based auction sites, MLS and listings of apartment rentals has undermined that driver of print revenue. The Internet is simply a better product for sellers/landlords and buyers/renters. Also, for the environmentally conscientious, using reams of newsprint seems irresponsible--we cut loose our dead-tree subscriptions years ago for that reason alone.



The power of the Internet is aggregation of innumerable minor sources of information, achieving a self-organizing criticality. The news industry has failed to adapt to that model. When journalists from different competitors do cooperate, it seems more often to be uncritical groupthink than an aggregate product of critically independent thinkers. The news industry should develop stories analogously to WIkipedia. Instead, we get Reuters and AP.



The good news is that the old model is dysfunctional and will not last.
docknowledge
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2009
Sorry, somebody else's work isn't free. Unless you'd like to come over to my house and do some free housecleaning?

It's irrelevant that newpapers are poor, biased or out-of-touch. They are saying that they have a product and -- whatever the case was before with news feeds -- they are now going to make you pay for it.

And, in case anyone hadn't noticed, that would seem to include PhysOrg.



Don't like it? Don't pay. (Or continue to be a thief, and think up smug arguments that make it ok for YOU to steal, but not those running hedged investment funds.)
Doug_Huffman
3 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2009
Yes, work is not free.

Try an argument by analogy. The RIAA-P2P download controversy is due to the RIAA disagreeing with their market valuation of the RIAA product as worth only stealing.

The vast bulk of online content is worth so little that we install filters to minimize the valueless-to-the-consumer content right along with the outright offensive pornography-as-news 'eye candy'.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2009
Sorry, somebody else's work isn't free. Unless you'd like to come over to my house and do some free housecleaning?



You're in the wrong here.



AP is a news wire. Basically if I pay the subscription fee they send me the articles.



Google, and many other sites pay the subscription fee and publish the articles. Other sites go ahead and link to the articles with google's permission and by service level agreement, the Associated Press'es permission as they're not directly hosting content.



The AP is mad because they cannot control link back traffic.



The standard print newspapers are mad because they can't afford to compete with Google.



The solution is simple: Change the AP's SLA model. Change the Printed Newspapers Business model, or both can go the way of the dinosaur.
Ivan2
5 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2009
As a writer, I find the "free is better" argument laughable


Not good enough. If you are a writer, you are not writer in a vaccuum. You are a writer within a system. We all hate it, get it? It doesn't have anything to do with you, it's the system. No one in his right mind is going to miss the chance to right a system that takes more money than what it's worth.

Music? About 3 pennies or less go to the musician or band for every dollar generated. Books? Even less. Now, if the exceptions prove the rule, then I still don't think that that lady who wrote "Harry Potter" **deserves** to become one of the richest people in the UK, as I don't think that the guy who invented the milk package should become one of the richest people in the world. There simply isn't enough money to go around.

That was my point about telephone and ISP service, and that could easily extend into cable tv. The value isn't there, but the money requirements are, and only a fraction of the world's population has access to it.

Wonder why gasoline, bread and condoms aren't free? Someone has to produce them, and that someone has to be paid for his efforts

True, and there are people who don't eat, in fact. If there is a long inventory of product stuck to the shelves waiting to be sold to people who simply don't have enough money -not because *they* don't have it but simply it doesn't exist- then there is something seriously wrong. The requirement for money is there and the value is not. That is the situation with poor old Murdoch.

The far right lunatic Aussie, as well as his friends, will have to lower their tone of voice to speak to the world for as long as free is better than paying with money that doesn't exist to buy what they are peddling, and much less to pay for what is overvalued. They are going down and that is final.

Blogs and aggregators exist because there's a huge network of newsgathering organizations out there that do the legwork to find those interesting and compelling stories and bring them to your attention.

Granted. And we are, not only in the US but all over the world, presently watching them try to extract from it the *value* that they think their product has -which is nearly impossible as it's overvalued and belongs to the past.

It's fun to watch.
Ivan2
not rated yet Apr 09, 2009
Continuing on the same line of thought: I do hate the thought of using other people's works for free, and I only regularly use about 30, maybe 40 sites a month. Even if every one of them only charged 2 dollars I would pay 80 dollars a month for my use of, say, 40 sites, including physorg. IT'S NOT FEASIBLE! That's my haircut budget for the next 6 years -so I am rich after all- but that is a pricing structure that excludes just about more than 6 and a half billion people. At 1 dollar a site it would still exclude 6 billion people. Physorg deserves to be paid, it's not the first time I say that and it won't be the last. But the pricing structure all over the world, and not only here, simply doesn't sustain *itself*.

The price structure is all wrong because it excludes infinitely more than it includes. To make things worse, it's the opposite of what is happening, where people would just like to write their words or music, post them on the internet, and be read and heard by a few like-minded individuals.

"New Deal" now!
Velanarris
4.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2009
Ivan,



You have a very poor grasp of economics if you believe that value is determined by the producer and not the purchaser in all cases.

If I create a product, and over value it, no one buys it and I go out of business. If I create a product, and undervalue it, I go out of business.
If I create a producty, and allow the market to value it then I will either succeed or fail based on how I've constructed my business. That is capitalism.

What you're looking at it socialist price fixing. This system has been found to only provide one thing, cheaply constructed, over valued goods.
Ivan2
2 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2009
You have a very poor grasp of economics if you believe that value is determined by the producer and not the purchaser in all cases

(Factually wrong but I will return to it.) ANd that is followed by what is happening already:

If I create a product, and over value it, no one buys it and I go out of business. If I create a product, and undervalue it, I go out of business.

That is the situation and there is no "if" about it. It's already happening:

If I create a product, and allow the market to value it then I will either succeed or fail based on how I've constructed my business. That is capitalism.

That word won't work. The capitalist/socialist fight doesn't interest me in any way, shape, or form. When I said that people just wanted to write a few words or songs and be heard over the internet by a few like-minded individuals, I forgot to add the obvious: they are getting what they want.

That is why millions of people all over the world have abandoned tv watching cold-turkey, virtually overnight. And that is why people who could never afford newspapers all over the world have zero sympathy for their problems today.

Everything has changed. Tv and newspapers have finally become a great deal, only as long as they are free. The moment they start charging people will log onto myspace, which is free for anyone in the world. That is just a statement of fact, it is what is happening now. If "capitalism" or "socialism" are still fighting, that is their problem. One thing is certain: if things are not resolved pretty soon with the price structure, both are condemned.

As far as the price being set by the buyer and not by the seller, that is factually wrong because cable tv is no longer worth 60 dollars a month, and telephone service is no longer worth a hundred dollars a month, and CDs and DVDs and books are no longer worth the prices that are being charged for them, and much less are all of these items worth the **same** price **all over the world**.

That was done by lobbyists.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2009
As far as the price being set by the buyer and not by the seller, that is factually wrong because cable tv is no longer worth 60 dollars a month, and telephone service is no longer worth a hundred dollars a month, and CDs and DVDs and books are no longer worth the prices that are being charged for them, and much less are all of these items worth the **same** price **all over the world**.


Then don't buy them. Easy as that. As long as the consumer is willing to pay, then the valuation is just. How can you ignore that? It goes directly in line with your inaccurate comment about people quitting watching TV. If you don't need it, and don't want to pay, it's simple, don't pay, and it won't be given to you.

It's not as though television, CDs, and DVDs are necessary to sustain life, thereby creating a NEED. So if you don't NEED them, yet you pay for them, you WANT them, and have determined that it's worth $60 a month to watch TV.



There were no lobbyists involved. Just you, me, and the corporate entity.



If you want to ignore capitalism vs socialism, which are both economic priciples, not governmental, then that's fine. But to ignore that discussion is to ignore economics at least in part.
Ivan2
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2009
Then don't buy them. Easy as that. As long as the consumer is willing to pay, then the valuation is just. How can you ignore that? It goes directly in line with your inaccurate comment about people quitting watching TV. If you don't need it, and don't want to pay, it's simple, don't pay, and it won't be given to you.

OMG!!!!!!

Hate to break this sort of tragic news but...


That

is

what

is

happening

at

a

global

level.

Hence, the article by Mr. Lefkow!
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2009
No, it's not happening at a global level. It's happening on a company by company level.

Companies that have evolved their infrastructure and adapted to the digital age are doing quite well, ie: Netflix, Verizon, Comcast, Dish Network
While companies that haven't are failing, ie: Clearchannel, Armstrong Communication, Cox Cable, RCN, and of course Mr. Murdoch's papers, the Globe and NY Times.
mtulloch
5 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2009
This discussion is an excellent example of why newspapers are failing. Thirty years ago while I was living in LA I was amazed to read in the LA paper a description of their readers: Upper 10% in income, college educated, mostly professionals, etc. Guess who stopped reading the paper as it became increasingly biased and thus both irrelevant and untrustworthy? The "First Rejectors" were their core audience. Bright, well educated folks interested in a specific topic would much rather read a discussion among bright well educated folks (like this discussion) than read a biased, manipulative, newspaper article written by a writer who has no special knowledge on the topic. I can learn all sorts of things here - I have to do a bit of filtering but y'all don't try to hide your points-of-view. This is a lot more interesting, fun, informative, and interactive than a newspaper!
docknowledge
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2009
...Companies that have evolved their infrastructure and adapted to the digital age are doing quite well, ie: Netflix, Verizon, Comcast, Dish Network...

That I know of, two of "The companies that are doing quite well" have been stealing content, but especially not discouraging their users from stealing content for years. I worked with Comcast. The company knew darn good and well that 90% of the information flowing over its network was pornography, illegal video and software downloads. Their attitude, conveniently, was "we're just providers". I.e., the law and business practice hadn't caught up with them, and they made hay while the sun shown. Netflix? Give me a break. What percent of users "rip" a copy of something they want to keep. And you can bet people producing movies 40 years ago had no idea there was even going to be possibility their movies could be rented out by companies that they had no business association with! Get a catalog of school films from 40 years ago -- those movies weren't free to show to classes. Again Netflix knows very well they're doing. They are making money until the law -- and business practice changes.
MorituriMax
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2009
it would have been hilarious if there had been a "AP - " tacked onto the beginning of this story..
jgelt
5 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2009
they want subsidies because the monopoly of copyright with FREE enforcement isn't enough, i guess?
gutenberg died, but newspapers are still great for potty training pets and starting log fires.
barkster
not rated yet Apr 13, 2009
Again Netflix knows very well they're doing. They are making money until the law -- and business practice changes.
Let me see if I got this right... what you're really saying is that Netflix (et al) are doing nothing illegal and might prosper with a successful business model providing consumer valued products until LEGISLATION drives them out of business?

(sarcasm on)
Well of course no one in OUR goverment would dare to write legislation that would shut down a profitable company that employs thousands of people. Why, that's just nonsense!
(sarcasm off)

That's a backwards argument if I ever heard one! If it's legal... it's legal. Free market rules. Companies with good/cheap products that people want will profit and last, and companies with crappy products that people don't need will die (or change the laws).