Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[B <beeline AT mindspring.com>]

I know that I got off track in my e-mail, since the the cited article
discusses charging to link to a page. For example, if you wanted to link
to a page on my site, I could charge you $50 -- and (as Joe pointed out)
in this particular situation you would be constrained against saying

anything negative about me, my site, my page, the information on my
page, and anyone (or thing?) noted in the information in the page. Talk
about control! (Surely this would be overturned in the first court that
heard it....) If this pay-to-link scheme became a standard thing, it
would force those who must pay to charge their visitors, further
squeezing the public out of information access.

You apparently believe that turning general information into a commodity
is fair game in the quest for the almighty buck. I wouldn't (and don't)
begrudge charges from businesses that spend time and effort to uncover
esoteric information that's important to a relatively small segment of
the population, but I don't think that it's right to hold a monopoly on
and charge for stuff that most folks need to know. Unfortunately, this
later category isn't clearcut. How important is it to the general public
to read about the problems in the Los Angeles police department? At
first glance, it may only affect those people in LA -- but shouldn't we
all be aware that such abuses exist so we can be on watch in our own
communities?

I see a lot of negatives in a future where one *must* pay for good
general information, when the 'Net is no longer a "convenience" but a
utility like the telephone. Those who can't pay will remain ignorant or
misinformed through no fault of their own, and public policy will
certainly suffer for it. If you were, say, the head of a big
pharmaceutical company, it would certainly be comforting to know that
the general public will not have access to negative publicity about some
drug you're pushing. Newspapers have been able to survive and grow in
spite of charging readers a price that at times doesn't cover the cost
of the newsprint, ink, and labor that created the paper; television
networks don't charge viewers and radios don't charge listeners. Nearly
all popular media cover their expenses and make a tidy profit through
advertising dollars.

As for the California fat cat that I mentioned -- I don't care if he's a
venture capitalist or the biggest philanthropist since Carnegie: If his
name is McClatchy and he owns the News and Observer he doesn't give a
flying fart about what is happening in Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC,
beyond the difference between the newspaper's expenses and its revenues.
He doesn't live here, his kids don't go to school here, he doesn't
attend the plays here, and he loses no sleep over possibly meeting angry
or disgusted citizens at the Teeter or the next big pig-pickin'. (You
can correctly assume that I'm no fan of Rupert Murdoch....)

"saundrakaerubel.com" wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> Online versions of newspapers, periodicals, dissertations and the like have
> been around for a price since at least the late 70s when I was using them
> through Dialog, Lexis-Nexis, Orbit or DJ to access information.  Of course
> they were available to the privileged few that were trained to use some
> very archaic systems.  Or I could have bused it to the local library and
> looked at them for free.  With the Union List of Periodicals, a source that
> lets you know which libraries have which publications, if I knew the
> article was only available at Harvard Med, which was frequently the case,
> getting it from the online service was a LOT cheaper.
> 
> With the Internet, this information is now available to the masses, it's
> called paying for convenience.  I am not surprised that some online
> periodicals/newspapers are now charging.  I know that some silicon valley
> papers already do, but it is their parent company, Knight Ridder that
> probably made that decision.
> 
> Enough of these dot coms going to dot gones.  You have to make money 
> somewhere.
> 
> Perhaps that "rich guy in California" is my friend the Venture Capitalist
> interested in reading about what others are doing in different areas of the
> country.  You want information, you get it any way you can, and sometimes
> that means paying cash.
> 
> Saundra, The Former Librarian
> 
> At 02:51 PM 12/28/2000 -0500, "B"ing mobile wrote:
> >I know that dot-coms are trying to figure out how to make money with
> >their Web sites, but charging for _links_ to content!?!? What happens to
> >our ability to say "lookit what I found here, Clyde"?
> >
> >http://ww.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,40850,00.html
> >
> >This is another leg in the all-information-as-commodity ramp. The News
> >and Observer soon will begin charging for the privilege of viewing its
> >online archive, as a number of other news organizations are doing. (No
> >charge if you subscribe.) Used to be that the newspapers made their
> >money through advertising -- roughly 60-65% of a regular paper is ads --
> >and saw the news-ed parts of their product as the method by which the
> >advertising was distributed. I certainly haven't noticed fewer ads
> >online....
> >
> >I am troubled by this movement toward paying for information online
> >since it places information in the same cart as exotic fruit.... In a
> >"free" and "democratic" society, we *must* be informed before we can
> >make informed decisions. At the least, in the current Real World(tm)
> >scenario, public libraries provide copies of newspapers that anyone can
> >walk in and read, free of charge. What happens when/if libraries fade
> >away and there's no place for folks to find information that they want
> >or need? Will online libraries be allowed to provide free news archives
> >that anyone can access? (Somehow I doubt it....)
> >
> >It seems that, for news organizations, this is yet another step away
> >from serving the public and toward serving the bottom line. (Does some
> >rich guy in California _really_ _care_ about what happens in the
> >Research Triangle, NC? Don't think so, as long as his profits increase.)
> >Here, I could go off on my favorite rant about how the
> >mega-corporatization of news organizations is threatening our
> >liberty....
> >
<snip sig lines>

-- 
            "B"ing mobile
=====================================
    I always have more questions
Thank you in advance for your answers
=====================================
 http://beeline.home.mindspring.com