Pay for Internet is coming soon
BEIJING (AP) - The leaders of two of the world's major news organizations said Friday that it is time for search engines and others who use news content for free to pay up.
The comments from Tom Curley of The Associated Press and News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch come as the media industry struggles in the Internet age. Many news companies contend that sites such as Google have reaped a fortune from their articles, photos and video without fairly compensating the news organizations producing the material.
"We content creators have been too slow to react to the free exploitation of news by third parties without input or permission," Curley, the AP's chief executive, told a meeting of 300 media leaders in Beijing.
"Crowd-sourcing Web services such as Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook have become preferred customer destinations for breaking news, displacing Web sites of traditional news publishers," Curley said. "We content creators must quickly and decisively act to take back control of our content."
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_15806/contentdetail.htm?contentgui...
Yep, you read that right from CHINA they are calling for people to PAY for the internet news. Do you like Daily paul today? How about when no one has any money to spend an extra $100.00 or more a month to access news sites? That's just the highly inaccurate, biased MSM, just imagine how the independent media will be IMPLODED thanks to this type of censorship-CHINESE STYLE! ICANN ceded control to the UN September 30, and now we get this.
WAKE UP, your about to get alot less news.
This issue
The issue here is state controlled media is losing money. People realize status-quo news companies have been the prime culprit in selling their liberal, globalist ideology to the public. Ron Paul woke the people up and proof is:
1. Who made the news first, for raising millions online? Ron Paul
2. What political candidate had more social networks tied to his campaign? Ron Paul
Now all political candidates are trying to copy Ron Paul BUT, they don't have the same message - freedom and liberty.
News organizations will charge to view their socialist content. The news organizations who will make it are those who provide it free. Why? Because people will go to the free site and that increases viewers and that increases ad revenue.
Detective Krum Investigates:
http://victory1project.wordpress.com/
http://politicaltrackingnetwork.wordpress.com/
Detective Krum Investigates:
http://victory1project.wordpress.com/
This will only reduce the amount of internet viewers they have
it will backfire big time...
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
Isn't that the goal?
Others will follow suit and soon you will have to pay to get any news on the WWW. Then people will just use the free brainwash box instead....
"There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man."
—Tolstoy
"The body is but a vessel for the soul,
A puppet which bends to the soul's tyranny.
And lo, the body is not eternal,
For it must feed on the flesh of others,
Lest it return to the dust whence it came.
Therefore the soul deceives and despises."
why should this work for newspapers
when it's not working for the music and movie industry?
probably I should buy www.thepiratecnn.com
So what you're saying is
So what you're saying is that if I have a product I shouldn't be able to charge people for it? I may not like the idea of paying for news but people pay for newspapers so why shouldn't they have to pay for other forms of news? I don't like the idea but I understand. Also I'm sure free sources will continue to thrive.
And another thing.....
Having worked as the editor of a small national magazine I can assure you that "publications".... whether online or on paper do NOT support themselves or make money on subscriptions. They make their money on ADVERTISING. And they charge advertising rates based on their popularity. How many "hits" or how many papers sold, or how many subscriptions is what ad rates are based on.
Therefore, these publications should WANT to "give away the news" for free, because that increases the number of "hits" and thus gives them reason to charge more for their advertising. They should WANT the public to be able to "link" to their stories, so that their numbers rise and so do their revenues from advertisers.
SO, if they want to limit their news it is NOT a financial decision, but rather a decision from higher up, and is a means of limiting INFORMATION. I can see that if their "news" is found in a place that does NOT link back to their publication, they are not getting the benefit of a good "hit" count... so that MAY have something to do with their angst here...... but otherwise this is just another scam to get us all off their case!
_______________________________________________________
"Not armies, not nations, have advanced the race; but here and there, in the course of ages, an individual has stood up and cast his shadow over the world." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6pAcBXt2j8
Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Viva La Revolucion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs
Ok let's look at this
Independent media heavily relies on Mainstream media. Go to infowars and look at the ratio of original articles compared to MSM articles, even though they do some great work it's mostly mainstream news. That's because people cost money to support. Counterpunch, Raw Story, Daily KOS, Alternet and most of the rest, while they don't sport "owned by George Soros" or FOX or Disney they are all subsidiaries of the other MSM sites. There's very few unconnected news sites to a few conglomerates.
I do agree people will flock to real news sources, however will they have a choice? Comcast, Verizon and the rest want a graduated pay for play system. With the Cybersecurity act smaller players in the website service will be crowded out because constant lawsuits will destroy them, and they'll be limited by the bandwidth providers.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Start getting freedom today by dumping Federal Reserve Notes, Stocks, Banks and anything made outside the USA. Buy precious metals, real estate, businesses, food and guns and get your business community to use local or sound currenc
But, as I understand it, it would really financially end...
the ability of sites like DP to exist because almost everything posted here "Links" to a story in some publication or to a YouTube of network news. If each link costs the poster a subscription to that news service, etc. then MOST of what we see here will be priced out of our ability to pay. Thus, they will have ended the free flow of information......... Isn't that what they are saying?
EVERYTHING that Alex Jones talks about, and that we talk about here is linked to a news source. I certainly know that when a link leads me to a site that demands that I am a subscriber..... I just skip that story. I think they are going to end the internet ability to spread news fast by pricing us out.
____________________________________________________
"Not armies, not nations, have advanced the race; but here and there, in the course of ages, an individual has stood up and cast his shadow over the world." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6pAcBXt2j8
Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Viva La Revolucion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs
Totally correct
This destroys my ability to spread information through this site, facebook, meetup or by email. We can't inform people anymore.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Start getting freedom today by dumping Federal Reserve Notes, Stocks, Banks and anything made outside the USA. Buy precious metals, real estate, businesses, food and guns and get your business community to use local or sound currenc