[ezkcdude]

So, here's Rupert Murdoch's view on the iPad and paid content delivery:

Rupert Murdoch believes that were it not for content from companies like News Corp., the iPad and Kindle devices would be "unloved and unsold," according to a report Wednesday in the Sydney Morning Herald. Murdoch, who is looking for new ways to get readers to pay for news content, is close to imposing charges for access to all his company's Web sites, media reports said. Murdoch was also quoted as saying that he's now in talks with makers of hand-held devices for media content access, the Herald reported. Murdoch added that technology used in such devices as Cupertino-based Apple's (NASDAQ:AAPL) iPad are powered by the content they can provide.

I think this raises some important issues. Let's say that at some point all the major news organizations begin charging for their content. If a blog "reports" on news acquired from paid delivery, would that violate copyright laws? Or would it be a free speech issue? If I come here and paste an article (third-hand really), am I violating copyright? Or is it free speech? At what point will news organizations start going after bloggers? I'm seeing a potential parallel with the record industry and RIAA going after Napster. What do you guys think about this? In some sense, although I hate to admit it, Murdoch does have a point. It was easier when we directly paid for news by buying newspaper or by watching tv ads. What's the new model going to be? I don't think we've even begun to see all the ramifications. Discuss.

[pscates2.0]

Well, there will most likely be no rational, level-headed "discussion" simply because of the individual involved. But I wish you luck anyway.

As for me (before I bail and leave it to the rest)? I've just about reached the point to where I feel that too much news (when most of it is grandstanding, biased-in-some-way-or-another noise) is worse than none at all. So if/when these people do this, I won't care. I already don't watch cable news networks for the above reason, so if I can't go to CNN.com or any other without paying, guess what? I'll drop 50¢ in the little red machine on the corner by my house and just get the local paper on days I feel like giving a damn - or am curious - about what's going on around me.

The 24/7 cable news thing has just really turned me off the industry in general, I guess. But I like reading a paper, the editorials (local and national), doing the games, getting print-based news without all the extra trim and frills you get online and TV. So I'm fully prepared - and even eager? - to do without both, if that's what it comes to.

I don't know about the legalities of re-posting stuff from for-pay news sites. I'm sure they'd want to curtail that and link it to "theft" or copyright violation, if you're making some sort of dent in their money-making efforts.

Murdoch - and others - can try this, but I think they're in for a rude, ugly jolt. I don't see the majority of surfers ponying up. That story came out a couple of weeks ago about some newpaper up in New York who went to this model and had, after spending millions on a site redesign and the whole bit, had something like 35 subscribers.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 As for me (before I bail and leave it to the rest)? I've just about reached the point to where I feel that too much news (when most of it is grandstanding, biased-in-some-way-or-another noise) is worse than none at all.

I heard Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry" on the radio for the first time in years last night. Boy did he have it pegged.

Most of what passes for 'news' nowadays isn't. It's just sensationalist crap.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Murdoch - and others - can try this, but I think they're in for a rude, ugly jolt.

The problem is though, that newspaper profits are in a downward spiral, so they're in for a rude ugly jolt either way. Subscriber numbers are falling, advertisers are falling with them, money has shifted from print classifieds to online classifieds (eBay, craigslist, jobs websites, etc. etc. dunno the particular brands in the US). They have to cut their news team, the quality of journalism drops, subscribers drop further, advertisers run away scared, etc. They have to do something.

I think the iPad or similar might be what finally provides them a platform where they can charge. If they really push these things out and make the content they put on them excellent - the full daily print edition plus a breaking news section, videos, interactive crosswords, excellent photo galleries, etc. - and make the reading experience at least as good if not much better than the print edition, then I'm sure loads of people will be more willing to pay, whereas they're not for the websites. I also think it might help them to emulate print advertising on the iPad edition. Annoying Flash and text ads in the online edition just aren't bringing in the required dough.

Just a few thoughts...

[Robo]

The initial quote ("unloved and unsold") just makes no sense to me. I mean, the Kindle, yeah sure whatever, I'll give them that (even though I mainly used my Sony to read content that was even older than Rupert Murdoch! ). But the iPad? The one that most people won't use as an ebook reader, the one that doesn't even come with an ebook app out of the box? Pssh. Get over yourself, dude. In a world without News Corp, people would still buy iPads. I think pscates would even agree with me there

[Curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Roboman In a world without News Corp,

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your iNewsletter.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude If a blog "reports" on news acquired from paid delivery, would that violate copyright laws?

If it directly reproduces large portions of the original content, yes.

Originally Posted by ezkcdude Or would it be a free speech issue?

Unlikely.

Originally Posted by ezkcdude If I come here and paste an article (third-hand really), am I violating copyright?

Yes. If not of the original source, then of the secondary source, unless the sources are explicitly labelled as using something like a CC license that permits redistribution.

Originally Posted by ezkcdude Or is it free speech?

No. At least in the US, copyright law usually trumps "freedom of speech".

Originally Posted by ezkcdude At what point will news organizations start going after bloggers?

When the amount of material being reproduced starts measurably eating into the news orgs' revenue, I'd guess. Isn't this already happening in some degree, though?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb Originally Posted by Roboman In a world without News Corp, Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your iNewsletter.

x2

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude Let's say that at some point all the major news organizations begin charging for their content.

Major, and smaller, news organization have been "charging" for their content since the colonial days. You pay for a newspaper.

As much as you may dislike certain news organizations (and I am sure most people on this board don't like murdoch or his news organizations very much) can you imagine a world where there are NO journalists? People who write investigate and write articles really need to be paid just like everyone else. Independent bloggers play a role but we really need real newspapers who hire (with real money) real journalists to go out and investigation and write real stories. Now it can certainly be said that the state of modern journalism is in a sad shape and that it is almost impossible to see the line between opinion and news that USED to exist (although I will say that murdoch's WSJ still does this well), we STILL need journalists to keep our society in check. Right now print media is in real trouble trying to find a way to stay profitable while still paying those journalists to write stories. If paying for electronic content keeps these folks afloat then I think that is a good thing. Murdoch may be a right winger but keeping an independent profitable press is good for all political viewpoints. I think moving to a pay-for-e-newspaper or whatever is WAY overdue. You have been able to get almost all the news for free for a very long time. News didn't follow the RIAA or MPAA route, give them a break...

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA Major, and smaller, news organization have been "charging" for their content since the colonial days. You pay for a newspaper.

Given that the content is mostly free on the internet, it would seem that it's the format/paper they're charging for, not the content.

In any case the topic of discussion here is about charging for the digital version of the content.