until the end I agree. I think the media is freedom. nice article thanks

I would pay for it if it was easier than pirating and not too expensive. I pay for netflix and occasional itunes downloads.

Rich,

Appreciate the article but I think that the parallel you draw between broadcast and the Internet is fallacious. TV went from a very limited menu of choice (essentially the big 3 networks) to literally hundreds of potential content choices. The paywall was responsible for increasing choice. In terms of the Internet where there are - for all intent and purpose - already an infinite amount of content choices, the decision to lock them down after the fact under a paid subscription model is sheer madness. As for satellite radio, you pay them to not have to deal with advertising as well as highly targeted content. These are value added services that people are willing to pay for, not just access to more music.

Earlier today I saw a video where John Malone tried to justify his position using YouTube as an example. So what? Put YouTube under a pay access restriction. How long will it take another platform to spring up offering competing content for "free" using an alternative revenue model? Sure, the argument about paying for greater bandwidth usage may come into play but that's different from demanding that people pay for access to content specifically. These new media entrepreneurs may also have different ideas on how they want to distribute their content. These ideas may not conform to old school media notions for how to monetize content. Does a service provider have the right to force people to charge for content they want to give away free, at a lower price point or inside a new innovative revenue model? Most people on the Internet - and in general - would say no.

The scale and structure of the Internet make it all but impossible to lock down access on the provider end without severely limiting choice thereby taking away the very thing that makes it so valuable. You want to charge for access? Fine. Offer superior content and experiences that people won't be able to find anywhere else and are willing to pay for but don't expect them to pay you just because you think they should.

I think "content" is too vague. There is some content that is worth paying for and some that isn't, just like radio and tv content. However, the analogy of paying for Cable TV or Satelite Radio doesn't entirely fit. After all, we pay for internet access too, so we are already paying for content.

I think when internet content reaches a quality that is worth paying for, people won't think twice about it. Something like an online magazine or online only TV shows would be worth paying for. But if the content we are talking about is You Tube videos or someone's blog I wouldn't pay

Thanks for raising the question, Rich.

There's a flip side to this issue too: "Will you create content for free?"

The WWW model is set up for the free exchange of information. A file at an URL can be copied and redistributed by others, so advertising revenue depends on whichever distributor is most successful at attracting traffic.

But the Internet -- the network of networks -- is larger than the WWW application built atop it. There are more Internet clients possible than just the "universal document reader" of a web browser.

We need to find additional ways that content creators can feel adequately rewarded for the labor they invest. These new techniques must not inconvenience their audiences.

We need to make content creation sustainable. We need to find practical ways that people will trade value for value.

jd/adobe

I would be happy to pay for the content as long as it is better than my cable service and close to the same price if not cheaper.

I'm pretty sure I'm already paying for internet content. I buy almost all of my media via iTunes (it doesn't run in a browser, but to me, that's irrelevant - it's still delivered via the internet). Videos that I watch on Hulu are interspersed with commercials (a form of indirect payment). So I'm not sure why Diller's comments qualify as news...

I think Rich hit on the factor that would get me to pay: " These are value added services that people are willing to pay for, not just access to more music."

The problem is the huge volume of content and in many cases of questionable quality/authority. I'd be happy to pay for someone to repackage content based on knowledge/research of the underlying topics (like real reporters in the old days did) and ideally pointing to related content that is equally well vetted.

Sorry - that would be Mark not Rich!

Mark,

I was thinking of a world where news services would begin charging for their content (AP, Rueters, etc) and any site that is utilizing any of their content would be paid services. So, in order to get your news online you would need to subscribe to a news source.

If you are reading news on a third party site that is illegally publishing a paid news story it would be the equivalent of getting an illegal music download rather than going through a service like iTunes or Amazon.

If all of the content is subscription based from the source than sites like Drudge (which is just a linked news source) would either need to absorb the fees for their news stories or pass them along to the end user by charging to access their site.

Rich

People will pay for content if it's better than the free stuff. I think there will always be quality free content but not in all areas. The difference between a satellite television provider and an internet content provider is the barrier for entry into the satellite television market is high (and finite) while the barrier for entry into the internet content market starts at $0.

As a matter of fact, I do now a couple of news resources that require payment for certain news sections, and you know what, this somehow doesn't seem right, as high-quality as the content might be.

We do in fact pay for the internet - personally I do. For the connection, as well as through advertisements that have saturated the web. How about the ad-driven google?

I think saying that you currently pay for TV suggests paying for Web content is in our future is not quite right, as others have pointed out. If you still want to watch the free TV content you can, put an antennae on your roof and get the local channels with no fees. Granted you won't get the number of channels you get with the satellite but that's what you're paying for; more choices.

Have we forgotten that the NY Times first went online with subscription fees for certain content? They claimed it generated ten million a year for them. They eventually dumped it. The reason provided? They estimated they would make more money from advertisement revenue by making everything open to the public.

Granted the NY Times pulls some serious traffic I'm sure.

Now, if someone offered some compelling, original content that is unique to them and it's locked behind a subscription/fee then people will most likely pay to get it. The success of digital downloads of entertainment content (games, movies, music) prove this. But I think most content we get off the Internet does not meet that requirement. Shoot, most doesn't even come close.

The NY Times is a good example of this. They wanted us to pay for access to their editorials which is stupid because we have access to hundreds, if not thousands, of editorials elsewhere on the same topics they are presenting. If you're a big fan of the people writing for the NY Times then you would be happy. I imagine for most people they would be happy to go somewhere else.

I think internet is the best option for promoting any kind of business

I think it is a wrong meme, that Internet is about free content. It is about freedom. If people want to sell something on the net, they can do, as long as they don't disturb other users. So i don't see, why it is news, if a commercial company says they are going to take money for their products. Of course they can, as long as they don't force me to buy it.

Just like we pay for a television and the cable or satellite connection, we also pay for our computers and an internet connection. We are not forced to pay for the actual shows we watch on TV, so why would we have to pay for the content that is available online? Yes, there is content on TV (pay-per-view) and content online that we must pay for, but the overwhelming majority is free.

It seems like technology is slowly converging so that in the future, there will be no difference between the connection to your internet or to your television or to your cell phone. If anything, we will pay more for the connection rather than getting charged for the content. It seems like the ad-driven model is here to stay, that there will always be some way for advertisers to motivate you through content, thereby allowing the content to be free.

@Media Contour

I disagree, I pay for my basic TV and then pay for premium channels, movie channels, sports channels, NFL Sunday ticket, NHL plan, etc. It is not per show but it is a subscription, which would be the same metaphor as subscribing to Internet content whether it is print (newspapers) or video (Internet only programming).

I think I will pay for stuff I really care about, and for stuff whose creators I really care about.
Average website content (such as news), average movies, tv shows ? Nah.

I will not pay for content. There has to be a major uprising that will put a stop to such a plan. This is one area that provides access to any type of information and I already pay for the privelege through my ISP.

I say we have a big protest when the day comes, and everyone boycotts paying taxes until the government stops charging us. They cant throw ever single person in jail if everyone revolts!