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

[Uzoma Nwosu <uzoma AT metalab.unc.edu>]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, B wrote:

> Of course, this means that the advertisers will have a certain amount of
> control over the Web content, as they currently have a certain amount of
> control over the televised content. (Remember when Lou Grant was
> canceled in 1982? The network caved because advertisers threatened to
> pull ads when this most excellent show aired a segment about abortion. I
> studiously avoid purchasing from those advertisers even now. I really
> liked Lou Grant.)

All I have to say is that I liked the show Rhoda.  But I don't think
advertisers threatened to can it.   :)

Like most folks, I'm not crazy about paying for every article.  And I
think that most sites will come with a reasonable payment system.  For
example, I use Billboard Magazine's site a lot. The mag off the stands is
$5.95 a week.  Get a subscription in the mail and it's only $200 a
year--what a, um, bargain.  But check this: I go to the website and I pay
$14.95 for five free articles (archived stuff has a small charge to it)
and I'm sorted.  Not a great deal.  I save what? 20 bucks? But I'll take
it anyway.

I see that I'm a lot of good out of such a deal.  I'm paying to not
make trips to library every time I want to look at something.  I'm
saving a tree.  And I'm only getting what I want.  If I want to browse, I
still have that option.

Now, I know that this is a specific case but I think that you can apply it
to other publications.  Billboard still has freebie charts and articles
on their site.  But if you want the package, you'll pay for it.  What's
wrong with that?  If any of us want to look a writing for free, there are
libraries for that.  It's your tax dollars.  And it works really well...

Still believes that bookshops and magazine stands are excellent for random
access browsing.

Uzoma