Print 62 comment(s) - last by Penti.. on Apr 15 at 6:30 PM

Murdoch bites the hand that feeds, accusing Google of stealing his copyright

Ad revenues are down at a bad time for print magazines and newspapers as costs are going up. The cost to print newspapers and magazines as well as the delivery of the publications is soaring meaning that some are closing up shop or moving to all-digital formats.

Long running print publication PC World stopped its print publication and went to a completely digital format in January 2009. Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp, has said that people reading the websites of newspapers should be paying. According to Murdoch, the ad revenues that many publishers expect to offset the costs of its digital operations will not cover their costs.

Reuters quotes Murdoch saying, "People reading news for free on the Web, that's got to change." According to Murdoch, the website of The New York Times is the most popular paper website in the U.S. yet it is unable to cover the costs of running the website with ad revenue. Murdoch's company owns NYT rival The Wall Street Journal, which is one of the few large papers in the U.S. charging online readers to access its content.

Among the newspapers Murdoch owns are the New York Post and the Times of London. Murdoch says that the Times of London holds a semi-public debate on changing its current “free to read” website to a “charge to read” site. However, the publication has not yet begun to charge for online content.

One interesting item that Murdoch talked about at the Cable Show conference is that News Corp and its partners are investing in a digital reader for newspapers similar to the Amazon Kindle, but with a larger screen optimized for reading papers. The device is reportedly being built by Plastic Logic and set to launch in early 2010.

Murdoch also says that by linking to newspaper content and making the stories easier for readers to find, Google is taking ad dollars out of its pockets. Murdoch said, "The question is, should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyright... not steal, but take. Not just them but Yahoo."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Alphafox78 on 4/6/2009 12:21:22 PM , Rating: 5
If he charges for people to read the news then that will be the final nail in the coffin for newspapers. I understand where hes coming from but people expect the news to be free online. there are ads there arent there?

RE: Coffin
By spread on 4/6/2009 12:21:39 PM , Rating: 5
Just a nail in the coffin for his 'news' sites.

RE: Coffin
By mridion on 4/6/2009 6:59:02 PM , Rating: 5
Well if NYT needs to start charging, its readers could always turn to instead

RE: Coffin
By 460cidpower on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Coffin
By Rob94hawk on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Coffin
By Hiawa23 on 4/7/2009 8:50:31 AM , Rating: 2
Just a nail in the coffin for his 'news' sites.

I agree & apparently newspaper companies are having issues competing with the internet, ads are down, revenue down, everything is down especially given the financial crisis, but I am not sure this is the answer. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but there is noway I would pay to read the newspaper online & I have to figure alot of perople wouldn't do this either. Newpaper companies are already struggling & this could be the final nail.

RE: Coffin
By Domicinator on 4/6/2009 12:27:57 PM , Rating: 5
Yep--this won't work. If you charge for news content, people will just find their news elsewhere. There will always be free sources for this kind of stuff. You can't change the way people use the internet. The internet, essentially, is a product of its own users, what they want it to be, and what they want it to do.

Google has figured out how to do it. Pretty much every amazing product that Google offers is free for use on computers and mobile phones. Their money is made on advertising. If Google can figure out a way, then the large newspapers can too.

RE: Coffin
By drycrust on 4/6/2009 12:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The only way I know about this story is because of iGoogle. What Murdoch seems to have forgotten is that from a news perspective, a newspaper's website looks just like a radio station's news website, which looks just like a TV station's news website. The point being is the world has changed.
While I think a newspaper does a better job than the others, it is only a matter of time before the printed version will become a "commercial product" i.e. mostly bought by those in business.
One could even argue that the role of a newspaper will become a newswebsite with a printed edition (or without as the case maybe) ... and doing a "news features" on TV and radio.

RE: Coffin
By ipay on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Coffin
By MrPeabody on 4/6/2009 2:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
Google has figured out one way to do it. Just because Google has a successful business model doesn't mean that it's the only business model that can be successful.

Charging for internet content isn't automatically a complete write-off. If an online newspaper can provide enough useful, unique content at a low enough cost, success is not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

RE: Coffin
By TO on 4/6/2009 2:43:23 PM , Rating: 5
Your completely right, maybe they should stop paying fat bonuses to CEO's and manager their money properly instead of overspending like theirs no tomorrow. Looks like the board of directors are going to have to give up their Bentleys. Ahh GM's got good deals now...

RE: Coffin
By segerstein on 4/7/2009 4:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
Anyhow, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times both charge for most of its online content. As well as The Economist. On WSJ you even have to pay for articles you had access to as a subscriber, but are older than 90 days (pay-per-view).

I wouldn't regard NYT as a competitor to WSJ, at least not a direct one. But hey, why pay for NYT online, when you have DailyKos?

RE: Coffin
By borowki2 on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Coffin
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 1:28:15 PM , Rating: 3
when I bail out of the stockmarket upon early signs of the housing market's weakening. Meanwhile, the cheapskates who wouldn't pay $100 a year are the ones holding the bag.

You needed to pay someone to tell you that a rampent upswing in mortgages that don't even require you to pay down the principle was going to turn out badly?

Sorry, but there has been little to no news in the WSJ that you couldn't get for free at other online news outlets. CNNMoney, Kiplingers, Morningstar, Moody's, Bankrate, Fortune, Forbes, Washinton Post, Reuters, etc., etc....

RE: Coffin
By Dianoda on 4/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: Coffin
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 3:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
Take it down a notch there skippy.

My comments had more to do with that guy inferring that he wouldn’t have seen the market crash coming if he hadn’t paid for the WSJ. Not the notion that paying for the WSJ is a waste of time.

But in any case, if you want to put your money where your mouth is, feel free to post a summary of any news article, and the date of its posting, that was run in the WSJ or on its website, and I bet you I could find similar info in the archives of at least two or three free news websites that ran at a similar time period…


RE: Coffin
By wifiwolf on 4/6/2009 4:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
We have a good example that is digitimes. They have both paid and free articles. I like the concept. You get all around information and exclusive information for some money.
I remember some years ago on my university, I went to buy some RAM in a local store and the seller told me he didn't see the prices climbing, it just did so sudenly. I told him I knew it for ome months and just was buying it because it was for someone else that needed it at that time. I already knew some month before that wouldn't be a good time for buying RAM.
Of course there was nothing in the news saying "Don't buy RAM" but we sometimes have to read between the lines.

RE: Coffin
By borowki2 on 4/6/2009 4:09:01 PM , Rating: 1
Ummm, analyses you can get everywhere for free is otherwise known as conventional wisdom...

RE: Coffin
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 4:36:58 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmm… Paying for analysis that is available everywhere for free is called being a sucker.


RE: Coffin
By omnicronx on 4/6/2009 4:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
I understand where hes coming from but people expect the news to be free online
If the NY times cannot make a profit online, then perhaps this expectation is not realistic. His point was that with rising costs of physical product, many newspapers are going to go out of business as it is really hard to make a profit from an online newspaper. They were orginally free to gain readership, not to be used as a complete alternative.

Furthermore I can't say I have ever clicked on one of the adds on one of these sites, have you?

I don't mind paying a few cents per day if it means better access. Why everyone thinks they deserve to get something for free is beyond me. Not that I'm surprised, the entitlement bug has been going around the past few years.

RE: Coffin
By omnicronx on 4/6/2009 4:54:43 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Coffin
By rs1 on 4/6/2009 5:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
The entitlement bug cuts both ways though. Murdoch's position is that news companies are entitled to be able to turn a profit on information that they make available online. That is really no different from an Internet user saying that they are entitled to the information for free. In fact, it's worse really, because that market landscape heavily favors the Internet user in this case, as its far simpler to make information on the Internet freely accessible than it is to control the access to it reliably.

Regardless, companies aren't entitled to profits any more than individuals are entitled to random free crap. They have to *earn* their profits by providing a compelling/useful product/service. If they cannot do that then they do not deserve any profits for their business. And in a world where the distribution of information is instantaneous and free, you just can't base a viable business around the idea of charging for access to information anymore. Business owners need to just stop fighting and accept that fact, and then start looking for new ways to capitalize on the changing market landscape.

Having these people trying to desperately cling to their old ways of making money, while simultaneously campaigning against the new, does nobody any good. The sooner they can get with the program, the better off we'll all be.

RE: Coffin
By omnicronx on 4/6/2009 5:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
The entitlement bug cuts both ways though. Murdoch's position is that news companies are entitled to be able to turn a profit on information that they make available online. That is really no different from an Internet user saying that they are entitled to the information for free. In fact, it's worse really, because that market landscape heavily favors the Internet user in this case, as its far simpler to make information on the Internet freely accessible than it is to control the access to it reliably.
Although I somewhat agree with you, this is not what he is saying. If you read between the lines he is saying if physical copies of Newspapers are no longer profitable, the majority will not be able to pick up the slack with online editions.

RE: Coffin
By Penti on 4/7/2009 12:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
If a site starts to charge most people would just read it through google news any way. Obviously the people buying ads profit by you knowing they exist. It's not like you can click on the ads in the paper. And the news agencies are excellent for news itself. I really don't need to read a paper to read the telegrams and that's just retarded to be force to do in this era. If they have no unique content I won't read them. Things like local papers are really needed because they actually have reporting others don't. Here in Sweden those papers do just fine. Where not getting stuff for free just because it's ad supported... Making access hard is going to effect your readership however.

RE: Coffin
By rs1 on 4/6/2009 4:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. You simply cannot expect to be able to charge money for information in a world where any piece of information can be duplicated an essentially infinite number of times and shipped around the globe nearly instantly at what is basically zero cost.

Murdoch is approaching this issue from an archaic perspective that the duplication and distribution of information is a valuable service in and of itself. The problem is, in a digital world, that assertion no longer holds. Duplication and distribution are trivial operations that anyone is able to do at very little cost.

RE: Coffin
By myocardia on 4/6/2009 9:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
The dictionary definition of Rupert Murdoch: 1)The most useless piece of trash ever to inhabit our planet.

Why exactly would we care about what this moron thinks?

RE: Coffin
By tmouse on 4/7/2009 8:05:25 AM , Rating: 2
I agree; Rupert Murdoch is to journalism what General William Sherman was to real estate development....Actually Sherman was possibly better.

RE: Coffin
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 4:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure, I would consider paying for news if I thought was a reputable and decent source. Although, maybe not uncle Rupert's work :)

The problem we have now (in the UK at least) is that the majority of "news" papers and sites are little more than a collection of press releases from political parties and celebrity's agents. There is very little investigative work any more and little is asked as they all seem quite happy to be drip fed information as they are now lazy, cheap and fear being cut off.

As with most things, there is a price that you pay one way or another.

RE: Coffin
By Penti on 4/7/2009 12:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
Most large papers in Britain is owned by Murdoch... There you got a man interfering with your internal politics.

The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times, News of the World (lol?), Sky television & Sky News - It's all him. The man who thinks conservatives should take over the world.

RE: Coffin
By jconan on 4/7/2009 10:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
if ads weren't so intrusive and scary like those pop up blockers, readers wouldn't block the ads and ad revenue would go up. unfortunately ads have been seen as malicious and potentially destructive with hidden worms, viruses, or trojans.

And this, folks...
By Lightnix on 4/6/2009 12:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Is more desirable than ads?

RE: And this, folks...
By Spivonious on 4/6/2009 12:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well....If the newspaper website subscription meant zero ads, then I'd pay the price of a print subscription. So for my local paper that means about $10/month.

RE: And this, folks...
By 16nm on 4/6/2009 12:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly the future for print is dead, which is bad for local news. How will citizens hear about local government corruption? I doubt it will be through the 20 minutes of local TV news coverage.

RE: And this, folks...
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 1:35:57 PM , Rating: 3
So local news coverage was better when everyone had a stack of papers dropped on their drivway and a small group of people had control over what goes into it, than it is now when a person could make information available to everyone in their local region by putting it up on a server for a fraction of the amount it would cost to print and distribute it?

Sorry, but in my area, the only things that ever get printed is page after endless page of liberal betching and moaning because the local paper is far left leaning. If you want to get info on anything that isn't part of the paper's agenda, you have to go online to get it.

Further, I don't need to pay money to get 5 pages worth of editorials where people write in to endlessly complain about this or that, I can go to web forums and get that for free...


RE: And this, folks...
By GodisanAtheist on 4/6/2009 2:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
I pay for the LA Times in print format, and the damn thing is chock to the brim with Ads. Why would it be ANY different in an electronic format... ever?

By DarkElfa on 4/6/2009 12:34:53 PM , Rating: 5
Rupert Murdoch can go F*** himself and die.

...and take Fox News with him when he goes. What he needs to do is shut up and retire with his billions.

RE: Ha!
By AntiM on 4/6/2009 2:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, one of the richest people in the world complaining about losing money! If you can't adapt, then you die. That's the law of nature, that's the law of business.
How does he think he can "force" people to pay for anything?

And how the heck is Google stealing simply by linking to the content of a site? HUH?? Most sites would be happy to have the traffic.

If his product is worth paying for, then people will pay for it. Otherwise, they won't. If he can't make money in the "news" business, then maybe he should choose another career.

RE: Ha!
By segerstein on 4/7/2009 4:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
And how the heck is Google stealing simply by linking to the content of a site? HUH?? Most sites would be happy to have the traffic.

The likes of Google make a handsome profit out of others intellectual property. That's the problem.

If you use Google News, then you just check an article, and don't spend much time on the actual news site. This kind of traffic is a bad traffic, since users don't visit the front page.

By DASQ on 4/6/2009 12:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ruper Murdoch says: Suck it, your free lunch is over

He can go ahead and try to charge for it, but I'll simply stop visiting sites that charge for it. He's just feeling the same squeeze that gaming magazines have felt for years, and it's only a problem now because he feels it in his pocketbook.

RE: Also...
By jabber on 4/6/2009 1:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
I only use the BBC website for my World News, I rarely read papers, especially mogul owned.

You know what's next, right?
By joex444 on 4/6/2009 1:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
OK, so we pay for newspapers, obviously. It makes sense, they have a legitimate expense associated with delivering that physical object to you.

So, ignore newspapers where do you get news? Internet -- he's attacking that, only logical (from a corporate greed point of view). Can't really attack cable news, because well, he's Rupert Murdoch, and second cable subscribers fund that.

You know whats next. Over the air news programs. He'll want to ban those. If you don't use the free Internet news, the paid Internet news, the paid Newspapers, or the paid cable programs you're only left with free OTA news. And this is the last refuge citizens will have. So, in the interest of maximizing profits, we must all band together and denounce these free OTA broadcasts. Force them to turn their transmitters off during news broadcasts; only cable subscribers will get the feeds from these stations.

Please, remove the nightly news programs from ABC, NBC and CBS, as well as the local news. The viewers are simply cheap and do not want to pay. This freeloading can't sustain itself. It must be put to a stop. Also, we should monitor telephone calls. Someone may want to call someone to inform them personally of the news that they have paid for but their friend refuses to pay for. You see, its in the best interest of everyone.

RE: You know what's next, right?
By walk2k on 4/6/2009 1:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
God forbid there be any independent news sources where the stories aren't filtered through the corporate-controlled mainstream media machine, right?

Skipping to the end
By Muskrat Matt on 4/7/2009 12:20:47 AM , Rating: 4
Murdoch's trying to skip the pain. We'll get to paid sites eventually, but first it needs to go through the growing pains.

1. Readers flock to free Internet sites to get their news.

2. Newspapers, local TV news and radio fold from the resulting flight of advertisers. Journalists lose their jobs, and news Web sites resort to bare-bones repurposing of press releases.

3. The lack of real journalists in the field wakes people up to the fact that 90 percent of the "news" sites on the Internet are simply rewording and recycling the work of the real newshounds at the country's papers. "Watchdog" journalism ceases to exist, as does in-depth, critical reporting of issues.

4. Surviving Internet news outlets are partisan bloggers, a sort of electronic version of the days of the "St. James Democrat" or the "New Brighton Conservative Daily."

5. From the wreckage, a few journalists try once again to gather news, and they ask their readers to support their efforts with online subscriptions.

6. Journalism returns, and hopefully the country hasn't gone too far off the deep end in the process.

I disagree with the cost of ads
By pbgtec on 4/7/2009 1:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think what Rupie fails to understand is that we have already paid to access the newspapers. If he cant support the papers through the other media outlets he owns then oh well. I encourage all to check the list of things owned by NewsCorp. You'll see you paid for something in there already. If he got rid of the print versions of his papers... well he wouldn't have quite the overhead he has now. No printing presses.. no trucks.. 3/4 of the staff wouldnt be needed. It would be a newspaper with... wow... just reporters and photographers!!! And they could get paid more! Maybe even do some real investigative reporting based on facts!! Then the ad revenue would be gravy on the plate, instead of the whole meal.

By ioillusion on 4/7/2009 2:09:51 AM , Rating: 2
there are plans to work billing for various things similar to the way premium cable services work; ie: you'd be able to subscribe to premium news services as an additional fee in your ISP plan

In the UK we have the BBC
By Dribble on 4/7/2009 6:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
No paper can charge for on-line content here because the BBC is already bigger, better and free (well you have no choice but to pay for it).

RE: In the UK we have the BBC
By Penti on 4/7/2009 12:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Same here in Sweden pretty much but the state broadcasters are split into two - TV and radio. We don't got anything Rupert owned here thank flying spaghetti monster. But we got other players like Bonnier and Schibsted, and we got a Swedish news agency. Which pretty much supplies all with content. Any ways I'm happy that we got some media not controlled by politically motivated owners. Right-wing media is crazy.

I don't understand the anger.
By ctodd on 4/6/2009 1:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, we all like free stuff, and yes I would probably stop viewing the site if I had to pay for it, but there are a lot of hard working people who expect to get paid. I never really understood how a site could rely solely on ad revenues. I suppose it is totally possible but I still don't see how it can be done.

What I think they should do is have different tiers of news and analysis. If you’re interested in reading opinion pieces or non-news pieces then you pay a subscription fee. If you just want general news that every news agency is privy to then it should be free. I believe other news outlets have used this method before.

Smart move
By djc208 on 4/6/2009 2:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
One interesting item that Murdoch talked about at the Cable Show conference is that News Corp and its partners are investing in a digital reader for newspapers similar to the Amazon Kindle, but with a larger screen optimized for reading papers. The device is reportedly being built by Plastic Logic and set to launch in early 2010.

I wondered when they would get around to something like this. With a cell phone style plan, i.e. $100 for the reader with a paid contract for the paper could really push readership. Then other papers and magazines can offer cheaper rates to subscribe if you already own a reader. Allow people to add memory cards and view their own documents (PDFs, Word files, etc.) plus access to free content and people would be lining up to subscribe to their local papers.

Only problem is I'm sure this will be some over-priced device with limited usability that won't make any sence either economically or from a usability standpoint and Murdoch will kill off a good idea because of poor implentation and greed.

Steal This, Murdoch
By SiliconJon on 4/6/2009 4:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, Google could make me so happy by agreeing with Rupie - and stop linking to any content he owns. I'd like to see what that does to his bottom line in 30 days. I'm already in love with Google, but if they took out News Corp Content I would so marry them.

By 460cidpower on 4/6/2009 7:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
People still read newspapers? I thought they went out of print 5 years ago... ;-)

revenue models
By ioillusion on 4/6/2009 9:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
News outlets understandably need a source of revenue and I don't think anyone wants to see them go away. Google's advertisement model works if you can aggregate large amounts of content at a relatively low cost, an option not available to companies moving paid content on-line.
The biggest problem stems from trying to move the content from one medium to another without utilizing any of the advantages of the new medium. While the content itself is less valuable on-line than it was in a printed form (in part because the on-line medium provides much of the core services inherently), there is still plenty of room to develop additional services suited to online content, that you couldn't have even provided before. Who knows exactly what they are, but it's clear that the technology needs to be developed; why the media companies thought they could just go online without investing in it – I don't know.

By BioRebel on 4/7/2009 10:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
I knew the right loved money, but damn...

By johnnyMon on 4/7/2009 1:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
PC Magazine went to digital-only as of February 2009. The article says PC World - did they also go digital-only?

Boo Hoo Murdoch
By mindless1 on 4/7/2009 11:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
You invested in businesses that technology is making obsolete, and resisted selling and moving on.

Hard to feel sorry for you, this has always historically been the case, don't you pay attention to the news you report?

You can try charging a fee, but the other obvious factor is value-added content people are willing to pay for. News alone won't work, information wants to be free, you will have to pimp something besides the news itself.

What an idiot
By Proteusza on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: What an idiot
By ShapeGSX on 4/6/2009 12:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
Are you certain that they won't go out of business?

I don't think that there is anything wrong with charging for the content that your business produces.

Make it like charging for a newspaper. 50 cents gets you 1 day of access, with longer term subscriptions at a far lower charge (per day).

RE: What an idiot
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 1:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Why not cut out the middle man and just develop personal licensing to news aggregators like Reuters or the Associated Press?

Why pay a national newspaper to just repost articles that have come from these aggregators when distribution is trivial to do on the internet? It makes sense that the AP is not looking to print and distribute papers nationally, but it would be a fraction of the cost to set up a web portal for distribution.


RE: What an idiot
By Penti on 4/7/2009 1:18:21 PM , Rating: 1
I pay those agencies buy reading there own site and googles hosted or linked content. All of which they get paid for.

And how would I pay for website access? Would I even be able to do it as a Swede? Will the payment solutions be some cumbersome bitch I don't want to have anything to do with? How about people under 18 with no credit/debit card? All people really needs to have access for it to work any way. Payment just discourage people reading the content. They will look for alternatives I do for payed content, you often don't even know what your really buying any way. Can google make hundreds of millions on youtubes advertisement I'm sure most of the important news sources will survive and adapt to a new climate. An organization like AP just got 4100 employees anyway. I'm sure they have large enough reach to make enough money even in the future.

RE: What an idiot
By FaaR on 4/6/2009 7:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
If you stop and think about how many websites you likely visit on a daily/weekly basis, you'll soon realize why charging for web access is infeasible. Nobody could be bothered to faff with subscriptions left and right, nor could most of us justify the expense.

That's why the ad-driven income model has been so successful this far, making the intarwebs the most diverse and rich repository of knowledge and ideas ever created by man, all in the span of a scant few decades at most.

Rupert Murdoch however is nothing but an ugly, greedy, monopolistic swine, a pus-bloated pimple on the ass of humanity. If he somehow could make a move to control ALL of media, he would, in a heartbeat. Then he would transform the rest of free press into shallow, outrageous, libel-ridden right-leaning rags like The Sun and other worthless papers he owns and runs, papers which contribute nothing and publish nothing of any substance or value. All they do is print garbage fabricated to sell to the masses and act as advertising vehicles to make Murdoch more money.

RE: What an idiot
By Penti on 4/15/2009 6:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Even if we wanted to read subscription only content we could probably go to the public library and read it there for free, it only means it will reach a smaller audience. Like the other academic stuff you can access from your library but not at home. If I want to do some research I don't have to pay a dime (except for the printouts at the library), and I can go there to read most magazines and news papers, and you can often even find the daily papers for free. They make a lot of subscription but it's really the readership that's important. I won't subscribe to something just to be updated or entertained. If I feel I like to support the publication I might subscribe however. But not just to get ACCESS to the news/articles.

RE: What an idiot
By BruceLeet on 4/6/2009 5:18:33 PM , Rating: 1

You see those ads in the newspapers you read? Yeah thats how they turn a profit 'somehow'.

Websites pretty much took that idea and e-ized it.

"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki