Righthaven extends copyright lawsuit campaign to individual Web posters
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87369
Printable View
Righthaven extends copyright lawsuit campaign to individual Web posters
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87369
I agree. I won't even use a website that asks you to "register" in order to read it's content. Not in this day and age. Just like over the last 15 years I have rarely watched shows on networks that have too many commercials. And, now with DVR's and other technologies, there's just too many options available for the consumer than to settle on something that's "inconvenient".
Posting a link with just a "teaser" of the article is a system I respect, though. And, if that site asks for registration, money, etc., I feel that's the best way to respect the copyrights of others. Whether or not the teaser is enough to generate the "next step" is up to the individual reader. I don't think it's fair that the whole article is cut-and-pasted. From now on, that's how I'll do it, too, for any site, anywhere. It's only fair.
The Cincinnati Enquirer went behind a paywall today. You get to look at 30 stories per month before it locks you out and requires you to pay for access.
R.I.P to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
I can't imagine ever hitting that 30 stories a month limit.
It's trivial to get around also I'm sure. Google incognito works if you hit the New York Times limit.
Just to be objective, what is lost here? Anyone have some examples of good investigative journalism the Enquirer has done in recent years?
As someone who follows the Bearcats, Reds and generally just got local news from there, I would hit 30 rather quickly. But, I will just check elsewhere for my sports news and only look for local things on there and only read what really seems like it is needed.
Must be a Gannett thing since the Des Moines Register has a similar policy. Only I think their's is 20.
Newspapers are looking for that silver bullet... Unfortunately for them it doesn't exist. Newspapers just don't fit in well in this 21st century paradigm.
There's also the business case for when you have a dying industry, you simply squeeze whatever profit you can from the late adopting customers by increasing prices and cutting expenses to the bone.
Gannett has made it pretty clear that this is their M.O. They've cut staffs as far as they can and still be credible. THey no longer pay for top talent but rather pay just enough so that veterans aren't as motivated to pick up their boots and head elsewhere.
Now they're acknowledging that they won't be able to grow market share enough to attract advertising, so they're charging a subscription from the last remaining loyal readers they know.
Unless I'm missing something, or there's a glitch in the system they've yet to catch, the 30 article limit does not appear to apply to their mobile app.
30 articles is much better than the 10 article limit that the Columbus Dispatch went to a few months ago.
The Enquirer has what has to be one of the worst editors in the business. Even if it wasn't a dying medium I'm certain she'd find a way to shave out dollars from the profit line somehow.