3 ms·

I don't think I agree with kachingle's stance. Casting the situation into one I can more easily grasp: What if I feel that movies should be free; that there be

I don't think I agree with kachingle's stance. Casting the situation into one I can more easily grasp: What if I feel that movies should be free; that there be an "open-theatre"? I pay my $11.00, set up my camera and sound equipment, and press record. I then share this recording with a bunch of like-minded folks. ... Wait a second...

jrockway 16y ago
It's $11 more than Hollywood usually makes from pirates.
- amadiver 16y ago
  So "piracy"* is okay so long as the money ends up in the hands of the producers? Maybe you're not saying that, but it's the implication I picked up. That's such a strange scenario. Instead of paying the theatre $11.00, I instead pay a third party $5.00, who (ostensibly) takes a cut, and then gives the theatre the remainder? I really like the idea behind Kachingle, but I don't support them subverting paywalls, no matter if I personally agree that information should be free and open. *I really don't like the word "piracy" in this context; I'm using it as shorthand.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    So "piracy" is okay so long as the money ends up in the hands of the producers? No, piracy is always okay.
BillSaysThis 16y ago
We agree that the writers (and publishers) of the Times need to be paid--KachingleX is in no way an attempt to take that material for free. We do think that a paywall is the wrong way to ensure these folks get paid, though. As our founder tweeted yesterday, comparing paywalls and social payments: "Paywalls: forced, solitary, a hassle, alienate readers. Social payments: open, social, easy, fun, tap community u build." Bill (Technical Marketing, Kachingle)
- amadiver 16y ago
  The decision to put the content that the NYTimes produces behind a paywall should be the decision of the NYTimes. Regardless of how great the idea is, how noble the intent, and how you're honestly trying to pay for the content, it's not your guys' place to force the NYTimes to accept a third-party payment. It might ultimately turn out that Kachingle's way of doing things is the best solution for the NYTimes, but they should be allowed to come to that conclusion themselves. I'm not sure what your founder's tweet does for this conversation. Thanks for the response Bill.
  - BillSaysThis 16y ago
    Just for clarity, we are not forcing the NYTimes to do anything, we're trying to show them an alternative (and we think better) plan _before_ they put the paywall in place. You're absolutely correct that the final decision is in their hands.

jrockway 16y ago

It's $11 more than Hollywood usually makes from pirates.

amadiver 16y ago
So "piracy"* is okay so long as the money ends up in the hands of the producers? Maybe you're not saying that, but it's the implication I picked up. That's such a strange scenario. Instead of paying the theatre $11.00, I instead pay a third party $5.00, who (ostensibly) takes a cut, and then gives the theatre the remainder? I really like the idea behind Kachingle, but I don't support them subverting paywalls, no matter if I personally agree that information should be free and open. *I really don't like the word "piracy" in this context; I'm using it as shorthand.
- jrockway 16y ago
  So "piracy" is okay so long as the money ends up in the hands of the producers? No, piracy is always okay.

BillSaysThis 16y ago

We agree that the writers (and publishers) of the Times need to be paid--KachingleX is in no way an attempt to take that material for free. We do think that a paywall is the wrong way to ensure these folks get paid, though. As our founder tweeted yesterday, comparing paywalls and social payments: "Paywalls: forced, solitary, a hassle, alienate readers. Social payments: open, social, easy, fun, tap community u build." Bill (Technical Marketing, Kachingle)

amadiver 16y ago
The decision to put the content that the NYTimes produces behind a paywall should be the decision of the NYTimes. Regardless of how great the idea is, how noble the intent, and how you're honestly trying to pay for the content, it's not your guys' place to force the NYTimes to accept a third-party payment. It might ultimately turn out that Kachingle's way of doing things is the best solution for the NYTimes, but they should be allowed to come to that conclusion themselves. I'm not sure what your founder's tweet does for this conversation. Thanks for the response Bill.
- BillSaysThis 16y ago
  Just for clarity, we are not forcing the NYTimes to do anything, we're trying to show them an alternative (and we think better) plan _before_ they put the paywall in place. You're absolutely correct that the final decision is in their hands.