The strategy here is that online free viewing steals from print sales (I'm not saying that's true, I'm saying that's what Murdoch thinks is true).
So you put the online behind a paywall. You generate a few dollars, but mostly you boost print sales, instead of online cannibalizing print.
What Murdoch should be doing is maximizing online revenue: yield management strategies to price ad sales like airline seats, finding ways to increase premium ad inventory and target the ad sales better, improving the demographics of the eyeballs he's selling.
But he's old school: eyeballs on print ads are worth more, maximize those. Its like Detroit scrambling to make SUVs more poopular as the price of gas rises.
Every one of these politicians is asking for donations. Oh, its indirect: here's my web site URL, and within there, here's my appeal for money.
But still, you do any asking for money, even without providing anything in return, its commercial. That's why laws regulating panhandling have held up in court. If begging for money on the street is commercial speech, then so is asking for "support" (which includes money) in a paid commercial.
...some bored American will see these, decide to dub herself Jihad Jane, and try to become a terrorist. We've started to see bored dimwit chicks who want to play with the terrorist bad boys (a single mother in, IIRC, Colorado, just disappeared to meet up with her online terrorist boyfriend).
Now whether banning these videos will work, who knows, you still have chat rooms. But yeah, people sometimes do see these and decide to join the merry band of thugs.
I was on the phone the other day, and I could hear a song playing in the background while my friend droned on with some boring story. I'd better notify the RIAA to sue my cell provider.
Do these people realize The Pirate Bay is....a search engine? Really not much different from typing the same name in to google and adding "torrent"
Do I work less because I pay income tax? Uh, no. Do I save less because interest is taxed? No.
And for a venture firm, where most investments go nowhere, but a few make spectacular returns, there is even less disincentive from taxing returns. So I make a two thousand percent return instead of a three thousand percent return, on the one investment out of a dozen that hit. Do I take my money and say, well, gee, never going to do that again.
Somebody has to pay taxes. If you don't tax venture capital returns, your tax code in effect is transferring wealth from the middle class and working poor to the rich - since the latter two are paying the taxes you're not putting on the former. Income inequality is growing in this country, tis reached Gilded Age proportions, and in a consumer-driven economy that's very bad news. And I'm supposed to worry that a VC guy will only reap five million instead of seven, that this will somehow stifle innovation?
Here's a clue: VC managers are not the source of innovation.