Newsday to charge for Web access

[Frank_Ridgeway]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN2625853520090226?rpc=44

They don't have any real competition on Long Island, so why not?

 

[RickStain]

Well, at least three people will be paying for it while the rest get it from whatever source can figure out how to hit Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.

 

[Some Guy]

Well, at least three people will be paying for it while the rest get it from whatever source can figure out how to hit Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.

That's the thing about charging for content. You better be prepared to be viglilant about enforcing copyright law.

 

[Pilot]

Well, at least three people will be paying for it while the rest get it from whatever source can figure out how to hit Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.

Absolutely impossible for anything but a small trickle of only the most important news to be disseminated that way via e-mail.

If it shows up anywhere else -- major blogs or news collecting services -- take their ass to court.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Isn't there a way to make text non-copy-and-pastable?

 

[dooley_womack1]

There's a way to prevent c and v, but not a way to prevent a web page from being copied

 

[RickStain]

Well, at least three people will be paying for it while the rest get it from whatever source can figure out how to hit Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.

Absolutely impossible for anything but a small trickle of only the most important news to be disseminated that way via e-mail.

If it shows up anywhere else -- major blogs or news collecting services -- take their ass to court.

Have fun trying. You may not have noticed, but the content-thieves of the world tend to be a few technological steps ahead.

Not to mention the cost of policing will drive you out of business.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

Isn't there a way to make text non-copy-and-pastable?

You can disable right-clicking on sites, as well as highlighting text. Which makes it harder to use, but not impossible, because someone can type it out if need be.

Copyright is a bit of an issue because if someone rewrites it, how can you prove the writer didn't get the information him/herself? If they write a story about something you can prove was an exclusive that no other outlet had, or with quotes that wouldn't have been uttered outside a one-on-one interview with the Press-Urluck reporter, that'd be one thing. Otherwise, you'd have a hard time proving it.

I'm not a big fan of charging for access because I don't think enough people will sign on to counteract the possible damage to ad rates that take place when uniques and pageviews plummet. But it's also hard to judge without knowing exactly how they'll implement the plan (per-story charge? monthly charge? columnists only?). So I'm curious to see if they have something in mind that nobody's thought of yet.

 

[Pilot]

I don't know how to copy a newspaper's web page, and I don't have the time or desire to send the dozens and dozens of pages I'd have to copy to all my friends via e-mail.

Maybe some people do have the know how. Maybe some have the time. A hell of a lot of the world doesn't though, and they don't know many people who do. And they'll have to start paying to get the product that cost a lot to produce. Or they won't get ****.

Maybe they won't get ****. Maybe they'll all go elsewhere. I'm afraid one newspaper, even a big one, doing this will be a disaster. I wish I could see what happened if the top 50 papers all did, though.

 

[Pilot]

Well, at least three people will be paying for it while the rest get it from whatever source can figure out how to hit Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.

Absolutely impossible for anything but a small trickle of only the most important news to be disseminated that way via e-mail.

If it shows up anywhere else -- major blogs or news collecting services -- take their ass to court.

Have fun trying. You may not have noticed, but the content-thieves of the world tend to be a few technological steps ahead.

Not to mention the cost of policing will drive you out of business.

You don't take everyone court. You would go broke. You take the big dogs to court.

It's not Joe who steals your content for the eight readers of his blog that will kill you. It's the massive, well known sites that kill you. They're not shady. They're not hard to find. You can damn sure sue them.

Anyone big or good enough to attract a reasonable number of readers won't have the nads to test you if you slam one or two big names.

 

[RickStain]

Well, at least three people will be paying for it while the rest get it from whatever source can figure out how to hit Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.

Absolutely impossible for anything but a small trickle of only the most important news to be disseminated that way via e-mail.

If it shows up anywhere else -- major blogs or news collecting services -- take their ass to court.

Have fun trying. You may not have noticed, but the content-thieves of the world tend to be a few technological steps ahead.

Not to mention the cost of policing will drive you out of business.

You don't take everyone court. You would go broke. You take the big dogs to court.

It's not Joe who steals your content for the eight readers of his blog that will kill you. It's the massive, well known sites that kill you. They're not shady. They're not hard to find. You can damn sure sue them.

Anyone big or good enough to attract a reasonable number of readers won't have the nads to test you if you slam one or two big names.

This isn't true in music. It isn't true in TV, which more and more people are getting online. Why on earth will it be true with news?

It'd take me 30 minutes to set up a web site with ad revenue that you could never trace to me in 30 years. And if you get it shut down, I'll set up another one.

 

[Pilot]

Isn't there a way to make text non-copy-and-pastable?

Copyright is a bit of an issue because if someone rewrites it, how can you prove the writer didn't get the information him/herself? If they write a story about something you can prove was an exclusive that no other outlet had, or with quotes that wouldn't have been uttered outside a one-on-one interview with the Press-Urluck reporter, that'd be one thing. Otherwise, you'd have a hard time proving it.

That's a good point, and obviously the largest hurdle. But you're still adding an extra step -- a step that requires someone do some work.

 

[Pilot]

Well, at least three people will be paying for it while the rest get it from whatever source can figure out how to hit Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.

Absolutely impossible for anything but a small trickle of only the most important news to be disseminated that way via e-mail.

If it shows up anywhere else -- major blogs or news collecting services -- take their ass to court.

Have fun trying. You may not have noticed, but the content-thieves of the world tend to be a few technological steps ahead.

Not to mention the cost of policing will drive you out of business.

You don't take everyone court. You would go broke. You take the big dogs to court.

It's not Joe who steals your content for the eight readers of his blog that will kill you. It's the massive, well known sites that kill you. They're not shady. They're not hard to find. You can damn sure sue them.

Anyone big or good enough to attract a reasonable number of readers won't have the nads to test you if you slam one or two big names.

This isn't true in music. It isn't true in TV, which more and more people are getting online. Why on earth will it be true with news?

It'd take me 30 minutes to set up a web site with ad revenue that you could never trace to me in 30 years. And if you get it shut down, I'll set up another one.

Alright. Set up a new website every day to steal a few news stories.

Be sure to find a way to build an audience large enough to make it worth your while, and be sure they find you every time you change web sites.

By the time you get big enough to be anything but an annoyance, you'll be a hell of a lot easier to track.

----

It isn't true in music? Come on. The major avenues to stealing music get shut down constantly. Yeah someone's always a step ahead, there's always another way, but once that site gets too big, bam, they're gone too.

Just ask Apple and iTunes about the death of the music industry.

 

[RickStain]

I guess we'll have to wait and see. They certainly aren't the only newspaper that's going to try this, and it's probably the best shot the industry has. We'll see how well it works.

 

[Pilot]

I guess we'll have to wait and see. They certainly aren't the only newspaper that's going to try this, and it's probably the best shot the industry has. We'll see how well it works.

God I hope it works.

Like I said, I wish it was 50 papers doing it starting tomorrow instead of one. I'm afraid one might be doomed to fail.

 

[Hoo]

Just ask Apple and iTunes about the death of the music industry.

Yes, but note that the record companies who produce the music aren't the ones getting directly paid. Do media outlets need to find their own iTunes?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Like I said, I wish it was 50 papers doing it starting tomorrow instead of one. I'm afraid one might be doomed to fail.

They don't really have any competition, so it's a good test for other papers in that category and not a good test for, say, the dailies in NYC proper, or Chicago or Boston or Minneapolis/SP, etc. But if Newsday succeeds, why not Houston, Portland, Atlanta, Baltimore, San Diego, in fact most papers?

 

[BYH]

It's a good idea, but Cablevision will **** all over itself in the execution, thereby pushng Newsday one step closer to Little Jimmy Dolan's goal of turning it into a shopper. (props to Michael Gee for predicting that first)

 

[WaylonJennings]

Copy and pasters at small blogs, even emailers, are a tiny drop in the bucket. A gnat. They are no more a danger than people sharing what they read in today's paper around the water cooler of old.

 

[Pilot]

Like I said, I wish it was 50 papers doing it starting tomorrow instead of one. I'm afraid one might be doomed to fail.

They don't really have any competition, so it's a good test for other papers in that category and not a good test for, say, the dailies in NYC proper, or Chicago or Boston or Minneapolis/SP, etc. But if Newsday succeeds, why not Houston, Portland, Atlanta, Baltimore, San Diego, in fact most papers?

I'm not at all familiar with Newsday's market, so I'll trust you about that.

The reason I say 50 is to block out the papers that provide the nation's big news. Thinking now, maybe that's not the best plan because that news will always show up on CNN.com or some such national news service that's large and well established enough to prosper on the internet without charging for content.

But, it's not as if CNN.com staffs any of those national stories, especially anything that's breaking news. Ditto on ESPN.com. They run every game story but staff a tiny fraction of them.

Maybe you could dissolve the AP, or at least keep it from working with CNN or ESPN or any sites like that, then people would have to turn to newspaper sites for everything. Sure you could get the game score elsewhere, but want real content? You'll have to pay for it from some outlet that actually staffed the game, be that a newspaper, a blog or something else.

Maybe I'm dreaming a little much, but you'd have to find a way to force the hand of the readers. Maybe a lot of them would settle for less, settle for what they can pick up on ESPN.com. So you have to shut that off, too, except for what ESPN's writers create themselves.

It just seems to me the game has changed. Changed in every way. The print product costs readers money, but never enough to make much of a difference. It's never been about the price of a subscription on our end. It's been about the advertising. We can't make enough with internet advertising, so we have to change what our primary revenue stream is.