The back and forth argument over the Photoshop suggestion is pointless. That's what art work is, choice to create any which way you want and this guy wanted to do this real.
Should he have the right to sue anyone who uses his pic without authorization? I think so, particularly if -as in this case- it is a business using it to promote one of their activity/product.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud liberal and strongly believe that government has a necessary place in overseeing the affairs of economy and society. But government doesn't need to be where is doesn't have to be.
Research undertaken by private enterprise should provide for fair profit. Let's say...25% return on investment? After that, after that, government should require that the fruit of research go into public domain for others to build on or profit from.
While you guys were bred on computers, the great majority of people, particularly those 60 and above, have either never or rarely used a computer. You may be dumbfounded by their ignorance but ultimately you're just showing your low tolerance. Maybe you should get another job, one where your youthful peers can challenge your own skills?
Isn't what law firms and lawyers do every day? Who says lawyers and their firms fight for what they believe in?!? That's tv lawyers! In real life, they will argue anything they think them may win and get paid for.
Unless you're a believer in absolute truths in everything, much of any point of contention can be argued for or against.
Since you used my name to make your point , I find myself obligated to reply. To start with, I used Murdoch as an example because he is the most powerful media mogul in the world and the NYT because that paper is the source of this article. Nowhere do I suggest on is better than the other; that's your assumption.
Finally, if I understand your rant, media is elitist and only serves their evil master, the government and its special interests....right? And your alternative would be?!? Because now that you've painted the world in black and white, I can't wait to hear the white knight story...
Subscription Federation to me is simply a middle men trying to make a buck on other people's work. The essential question is, "are we willing to pay for content and if so, how much?" There are plenty of information outlets for those who don't want to pay, starting with rabbit ears tv. All those interested in specialized news already pay for it or at least their company pays for it. Insightful generalist news is where the battle is and no one outlet has sufficient leverage to force people to pay (unless Murdoch succeeds in his battle with Google). So, $10, $20, $30 a month/a year? Not a chance.
I think we need to better define what "news" is and give it some sort of value hierarchy. Being the first to upload a video file of whatever on YouTube isn't news in itself. I would venture to say that having millions of hits of that video doesn't make it news either. It's just an event among zillions of other events in our daily lives, with YouTube an outlet for voyeurs and exhibitionists. The only value in seeing a cop pulling a gun to a group of snowball throwers or a protester getting shot is the newness of capturing these events and disseminating them instantly worlwide. If we had cameras on every street corner feeding YouTube (gasp!) we'd continuously see hundreds of people getting shot, abused, mistreated and what not and that would quickly be boring.
None of this is news until it is analyzed and evaluated in a greater context. That's what quality reporting and "news" is about and that's why news organisations often have several journalists working hours and hours on producing valuable content. Is this capability limited to the paper media or the big news organizations? Certainly not. But they have been competing in a pond for a long time during which they've learned to perfect their skills and that's why the NYT and at least a dozen other newspapers have gained recognition. Now that the pond has expended to a lake (an ocean?) there are probably hundreds of wannabe journalists with great writing skills who can now find alternative outlets to express their ideas. But the challenge remains: How are you going to make a living at blog.com if idealist newcomers are all willing to work for free? And who is going to read or even find you when 1000 others write about the same thing?
Aggregators are middlemen pulling the work of others and sticking advertisement all around it. How is that benefiting writers or those who pay the writers?
@Kat: Twitter?!? As I say above, saying "First!" doesn't make anything news. I wish NPR would read what you have to say about their "free" content... their money drives are all about getting paid for their hard work!
What I find totally amazing is that people are going to whine about their $20/year news subscriptions while giving away $150/month for the hald dozen channels they actually look at on their cable television...
We all agree the printed media is in dire straits. From free to about $4 at your news stand, the pendulum swings. I suspect many who are so veciforous for "free" content are more often consumers of content while those wanting to put a price on content are more likely producers of it. Self interest is a fairly accurate common denominator in all things human.
I don't think anyone -dangerous idealists, teenagers and students who have never worked aside- believes information should be entirely free. Rather, the debate is who should be paying for that precious content. Should it be the consumer of it or could someone else pay for it in exchange for something else? That's our pendulum.
The paradigm shifted when the internet offered a means to access consumers with little or no upfront investment costs -no paper, no printers, no warehouses, no trucks, etc.. no more barrier to entry. Sit at your pc and blog.. pretty simple, hey? Every Dick and Jane can now blurr out an opinion -as I do here- in response to an opinion piece and we are all exhilarated with ourselves believing that what we write matters, so who needs paid content? Mike Masnik (whose articles I often enjoy) doesn't care, he makes a living off of the controversy itself and -I hope- a comfortable living.
But what about the news itself? Whose blog did you read to learn about the Haitian earthquake? Did you turn on your tv for which you most likely pay a subscription to? Did you go on the web to get the news from a recognized media outlet whose pages are loaded with advertisements? Fair amounts of money is spent to report that information and many outlets are competing with each other to get your attention. He who gets most attention gets most advertising dollars. But if that money is spread too thin and it becomes impossible for a news outlet to send journalists out, we will eventually be left with the Murdochs of the world to feed their interpretation of the news and hundreds of bloggers and talking heads to spin those feeds. More is less.
I watch UFC and WEC frequently on Spike and Versus, although I would never pay more than $3-5 for pay-per-view fights so I don't mind watching these a few days/weeks later. I did realize though that about 70% of my tv watching is Spike and Versus and the 30% remaining (Networks series) I can watch "free" on the internet, so I'm paying Dish Network $50/month to watch 2 channels!
It make sense that my next step is going to cut my satellite/cable subscription. Yet, neither Spike not WEC have full fights on their websites or streaming on hulu... so what am I to do? Their lack of imagination is pushing me to torrents when I would be willing to pay a token subscription fee (how much does Dish Network and cable companies pay them?) to watch their fights on the internet.
Re: Re: Government run health-care.It can be scary!!!!!!
and since the placebo effect has shown to work as effectively as real meds in many circumstances, we should spend less time complaining about "The Government" are spend more time focusing on our disfunctions.
Humm, I see... Aren't things oooo soo complicated in this world that you should want to simplify it all in a few sentences. Please take two aspirins and call us back in the morning when you feel better. Cya!
I headed supply chain for a European wine retailer 10 years ago. Our and Amazon's problem then was that supply chain costs (warehousing, transportation, systems, customer service) were higher than our profit margins so that every sale pushed us deeper and deeper in the red.
I don't recall exactly how long it took Amazon to actually make a profit and I'm not sure is has yet recouped all its costs since it's start up days but I admire their success. As a frequent user of their services, I feel confident that my product will be delivered when promised and that my overall cost will likely be the lowest or very close to than anywhere else, on the web or not. Impressive!
See my comment about this point above. While you are certainly not unique and may even be part of the majority at this time, I think this is exactly the mindset that will have to change for services to develop on the web beyond the 3-tech-nerds-in-a-room model.
I do think that if Google was to charge a small amount/year for their Gmail, they would lose many users, but they would also retain a large enough number that would provide a dedicated stream of income to develop additional services that are presently left out due to cost issues.
The problem with free is that it makes it very difficult for competition to offer a sustainable alternative. Google doesn't make its money from Gmail so it's easy for the company to offer free email. Only super large competition can challenge them with similarly free services.
In the real world this is like dumping, an illegal practice of selling goods below cost to gain market share.
The other side of the coin is that we as consumers will have to address a paradigm shifting responsibility concerning our consuming behaviors. Since there are so many free options or fairly easy means of getting things legally or not for free, we will have to learn to give voluntarily as opposed to being forced to do so (you want you pay) or it will be very difficult for services to gain traction long enough to survive.
For example, giving some information about yourself to a website that doesn't charge for its service is not a tremendous obligation. Another example, like many, I like to play games on line. While clans don't require money to join and there are many clans to choose from, it takes a voluntary decision to give money to help your clan continue to exist. The same process applies to all websites that don't rely entirely on advertisment.
Print media is having to adjust to massive competition from the internet and other information spreading means. Their model: gather/create-print-charge is obsolete and they are paying the price for their lack of foresight.
Furthermore, some have wrongly attempted to recreate their traditional model on the web by charging for content access. That certainly did not endear them with generally younger and more technologically savy internet users would just visited free access news sites.
So now what? I think that fundamentally print media has to determine if they want to be printers or content providers and break from the other. In a world of heavy competition, the only way to survive is to specialize.
The NYT and other "papers" will have to choose between latest news content (very, very difficult to stand out) and thoughtful analysis or thorough investigative work. It is on their ability to provide unique content coupled with positive word of mouth feedback and promotion that people will consider spending money to read it.
Many of these media insitutions already have great writers. Instead of pushing them away to cut costs they should press these talented people to produce more in depth content.
I'm not sure I understand the relationship between salary and education. You may come to realize one day that money is not the only incentive for people to study, learn and/or contribute their knowledge.
That MDs earn so much money in America is one of the reasons the medical system is in such trouble. But we're getting off track.