Consumer Reports magazine charges its subscribers for the same information online that they put in the mag. I think there may be additional info too, but I don't know since I won't pay. They seem to be happy with their arrangement, but I can't say whether they make any money at it. It seems foolish to me. I'd rather pay $2 more per year for the mag (if they'd charge everybody) and have bonus online access.
Don't confuse this with capitalism. This is mercantilism or government protectionism. The only possible way for this problem to exist is for the practice to be protected by government sanction. The Constitution is one source of this protection--and sadly this is one place where Madison and the founders got it wrong. Intellectual property is not property and should never have been protected. Business people sit on their butts and fend off competition with lawsuits rather than fight it out in the marketplace only because the government collaborates with them in this endeavor by offering them cover for this practice. This is a shameful use of coercive powers.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mr Fnortner.
Sometimes works, sometimes
Consumer Reports magazine charges its subscribers for the same information online that they put in the mag. I think there may be additional info too, but I don't know since I won't pay. They seem to be happy with their arrangement, but I can't say whether they make any money at it. It seems foolish to me. I'd rather pay $2 more per year for the mag (if they'd charge everybody) and have bonus online access.
Capitalism
Don't confuse this with capitalism. This is mercantilism or government protectionism. The only possible way for this problem to exist is for the practice to be protected by government sanction. The Constitution is one source of this protection--and sadly this is one place where Madison and the founders got it wrong. Intellectual property is not property and should never have been protected. Business people sit on their butts and fend off competition with lawsuits rather than fight it out in the marketplace only because the government collaborates with them in this endeavor by offering them cover for this practice. This is a shameful use of coercive powers.