4 ms·

Comparing the economics of a pure bit-based product (media) with a pure atom-based product (camera) is not the most convincing way to make an argument in my opi

Comparing the economics of a pure bit-based product (media) with a pure atom-based product (camera) is not the most convincing way to make an argument in my opinion. You can get most of what WSJ writes somewhere else for free. You'll probably say that's not true because the value you get from WSJ is not news but their commentary, but even in this case that particular "value" is very subjective and for most people it's not valuable enough. I for one don't care about whatever elite content they write. And I definitely don't care for a mere website wasting my time by making me click through just to find out I can't read it, over and over again.

aerodeck 9y ago
So you believe that there is such thing as a news report without commentary?
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  No
Bluestrike2 9y ago
That's probably the biggest concern for the WSJ and other news sources that might follow their lead. Most news coverage--excluding content like features, initial exclusives, and commentary--can be considered a substitute good. You'll find it on other sites. Unless you've built a sort of loyalty or trust with a reader, they'll just go elsewhere. But to build that loyalty, you need to get readers to come to your site in the first place. Policies that harm your performance in search results would seem to be contraindicated.
SilasX 9y ago
So, because your product is easy to copy, that makes it not valuable. A rejection of the concept of IP with different words.
- problems 9y ago
  It's not just that the product itself is easy to copy, it's that the facts themselves are not copywritable, only the writing is. Meaning a source without that restriction provides the value without the cost. With the exception of more creative editorial pieces, most news falls into this bucket.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    You're still saying that the work involved in collecting those facts -- journalism -- is without value, and if no one bothers to do this professionally because their work will just be instacopied, so be it.
    - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
      You can be the person who just complains about how people don't appreciate journalism, or you can acknowledge the reality and think in more productive ways. The ones who make a difference are generally the ones who think more productively instead of just blaming the people who "don't get it". If traditional media journalism was truly appreciated, then they wouldn't even have this problem. And honestly they have lost a lot of respect from people in the recent years because they have been doing a lot of things to undermine their own journalistic principles in order to make more money.
      - SilasX 9y ago
        The fact that someone prefers to cheap out and read the copy-pasted version doesn't mean they don't appreciate the paywalled version; it just means they want it for free. For all we know, it was high-quality journalism. See also the sibling reply.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  I don't know if you have heard of "strawman fallacy" but you and the other guy below saying "So you believe that there is such thing as a news report without commentary?" have fallen into that trap. It's not even funny how you go from my argument to "This makes it not valuable" to "A rejection of the concept of IP with different words". Here, let me spell it out for you by copy and pasting the same comment: > You can get most of what WSJ writes somewhere else for free. You'll probably say that's not true because the value you get from WSJ is not news but their commentary, but even in this case that particular "value" is very subjective and for most people it's not valuable enough. - It is fact that you can get most of what WSJ writes somewhere else for free. - And I said the "value" is very subjective. and it's not "valuable enough" for most people. Yet you go on and say I said "it's not valuable". Then somehow go from that to accusing me of rejecting the concept of IP. I don't even know where to start.

aerodeck 9y ago

So you believe that there is such thing as a news report without commentary?

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
No

Bluestrike2 9y ago

That's probably the biggest concern for the WSJ and other news sources that might follow their lead. Most news coverage--excluding content like features, initial exclusives, and commentary--can be considered a substitute good. You'll find it on other sites. Unless you've built a sort of loyalty or trust with a reader, they'll just go elsewhere. But to build that loyalty, you need to get readers to come to your site in the first place. Policies that harm your performance in search results would seem to be contraindicated.

SilasX 9y ago

So, because your product is easy to copy, that makes it not valuable. A rejection of the concept of IP with different words.

problems 9y ago
It's not just that the product itself is easy to copy, it's that the facts themselves are not copywritable, only the writing is. Meaning a source without that restriction provides the value without the cost. With the exception of more creative editorial pieces, most news falls into this bucket.
- SilasX 9y ago
  You're still saying that the work involved in collecting those facts -- journalism -- is without value, and if no one bothers to do this professionally because their work will just be instacopied, so be it.
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    You can be the person who just complains about how people don't appreciate journalism, or you can acknowledge the reality and think in more productive ways. The ones who make a difference are generally the ones who think more productively instead of just blaming the people who "don't get it". If traditional media journalism was truly appreciated, then they wouldn't even have this problem. And honestly they have lost a lot of respect from people in the recent years because they have been doing a lot of things to undermine their own journalistic principles in order to make more money.
    - SilasX 9y ago
      The fact that someone prefers to cheap out and read the copy-pasted version doesn't mean they don't appreciate the paywalled version; it just means they want it for free. For all we know, it was high-quality journalism. See also the sibling reply.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
I don't know if you have heard of "strawman fallacy" but you and the other guy below saying "So you believe that there is such thing as a news report without commentary?" have fallen into that trap. It's not even funny how you go from my argument to "This makes it not valuable" to "A rejection of the concept of IP with different words". Here, let me spell it out for you by copy and pasting the same comment: > You can get most of what WSJ writes somewhere else for free. You'll probably say that's not true because the value you get from WSJ is not news but their commentary, but even in this case that particular "value" is very subjective and for most people it's not valuable enough. - It is fact that you can get most of what WSJ writes somewhere else for free. - And I said the "value" is very subjective. and it's not "valuable enough" for most people. Yet you go on and say I said "it's not valuable". Then somehow go from that to accusing me of rejecting the concept of IP. I don't even know where to start.