p2pnet to charge for access …
p2pnet news view P2P:- OK folks, get ready.
Because I’m going to follow the lead of Oz media tygoon Rupert Murdoch (he’s the short one on the left) and start charging you for every visit to p2pnet.
According to him, the existing Net business model is “malfunctioning.”
Translated, it isn’t transforming him from a mere billionaire into a zillionaire like he thought it would.
Same for me. So, like you gotta do what you gotta do. Right?
And my mate Rupert says the “current free access business model favored by most content providers” is flawed.
“We are now in the midst of an epochal debate over the value of content and it is clear to many newspapers that the current model is malfunctioning,” CNN has him saying.
“We have been at the forefront of that debate and you can confidently presume that we are leading the way in finding a model that maximizes revenues in return for our shareholders… The current days of the Internet will soon be over.”
WSJ (etc) readers and the people who keep Rupert in limos? Phk them. They’ll do what they’re told.
“Murdoch said the experience of the News Corp.-owned Wall Street Journal had proved that charging for content could be made to work,” says CNN, adding:
“He said 360,000 people had downloaded an iPhone WSJ application in three weeks. Users would soon be made to pay ‘handsomely’ for accessing WSJ content, he added.
“Murdoch said he envisaged other News Corp. titles introducing charges within 12 months.”
JN
CNN – Murdoch: Web sites to charge for content, May 7, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I think every 4th word should be blocked out on P2Pnet.
If a user wants the whole story, they have to click on the blocked out words at 1-cent per click.
On the other hand, I comepletely and 100% avoid sites that require reg, or require a +25$ subscription.
Why would I pay them for their badly worded, one sided, cartel or politically one sided news?
Fuq em.
So WSJ found 360,000 suckers. Big deal. Its a drop in the bucket in the total online users.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Who is the tall one on the right?
May 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Yeah, I read this the other day. I could not help but laugh at the idea he thinks to continue to make the money he made off the physical papers.
This is the same problem all the other entertainment industries have; how to make the internet pay the same as the physical model did. It’s not going to work. Instead of paying for access to something, I will change where I get my news from. I can get news from the BBC on line and it doesn’t cost a penny. So what this will do is block access to those who have interest in the news and they will go elsewhere. When they go elsewhere guess what happens to readership? Without readership, the whole ball of wax drops.
Say good bye to his on-line sites, they will go the same way as the physical models have.
May 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Unfortunate is that these farts from RIAA, News Corp and other kartels are now associated with old generation in general.
Because I see more and more posts like that on Reddit.
http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=588
“Anybody else waiting for the old generation to die so that we can legalize filesharing, marijuana, gay marriage, etc. and then get on with our lives?”
But this backwardness is not coming from old generation necessarily.
If you look through mediadefender e-mails, you will find some resumes sent by fresh university graduates. These are the same generation as those who fileshare. I am pretty sure that they did fileshare too.
There are simply assholes who are willing to sell out and assist in crippling the internet infrastructure.
RIAA, MPAA, News Corp, etc are very similar to Scient0logy in their tactics.
May 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
âAnybody else waiting for the old generation to die so that we can legalize filesharing, marijuana, gay marriage, etc. and then get on with our lives?â
Gee, thanks.. Im from the old generation (Im 52) as well, but I still will defend filesharing all the way.. Not because I want to be “up-to-date”, but because its the only thing that seems right deep in my mind…
about the other things.. Hmmm.. been there-done that… 
May 9th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“The current days of the Internet will soon be over.”
Yeah. Good luck with that one, Rupert.
It seems this fella needs to be reminded of who it is who is ultimately in charge: The people. And I don’t think the people will tolerate paying money for a mere visit to a URL.
May 9th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Rupert Murdoch can blow me. (On second thought, anybody seen a picture of that guy? Look at the Wikipedia article…..euuugh! Even if I was “into” that sort of thing, and still single, there’d serioudly have to be rufinol involved
As far as these being “generational” questions — feh.
Two words: “Young Republicans.”
The biggest mistake made by a countercultue (and yes, that’s basically what p2p-advocates/copyfighters/corporate watchdogs amount to), is to turn their particular battle into a “generation-gap” thing. It’s easier to turn your parents “generation” into an idiotic strawman representing everything you’re against, than to actually have to confront the horrible fact that there’s probably at least a few in “your” generation who take the exact opposite side of whatever happens to be your pet issue.
Case in point: my (admittedly slightly unhinged) rampage regarding DPI and Net Neutrality a while back:
Or the fact that Jon Newton (the guy who runs this blog) is 67 years old, and, in many ways, more “cutting edge” than a lot of us
But seriously, if these corporate jackasses want to try to squeeze a penny ’till the buffalo shits, then that’s their loss — gratis will ALWAYS spread faster than for-pay.
Actually, it’ll be good if the Wall-street Journal self-destructs, because we don’t NEED a “paper of record”, or one single “authoritative” voice, ESPECIALLY in an increasingly complex world.
So yeah, Rupert Murdoch can suck it.
May 10th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Whole idea is stupid.I can have my local paper delivered to y door for about $5 a week.If I go the online way and have it delivered to my email it costs a dollar more.WTF costs so much to send an email lol.Bunch of greedy penis sucking anal passages
May 10th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
lol