(Started writing this as a response to mhb[1], but posting at the top-level because I think it's generally relevant.) Most newspapers have deliberately promote

(Started writing this as a response to mhb[1], but posting at the top-level because I think it's generally relevant.) Most newspapers have deliberately promoted the online editions in preference to their traditional print editions, which is compromising the economies of scale in printing. The online edition of the New York Times is half the price of the print edition because they want it to be, not because that would be its natural market price. A specific newspaper is not a free market resource; the editorial stance and quality is exclusive. But assume for sake of argument that it is: that there are dozens of different companies that can produce the New York Times. As long as the physical quality (of the ink, paper etc.) is adequate, consumers will purchase the paper which is cheapest. Eventually, a monopoly would emerge due the economies of scale - the producer which sells the most papers would also be able to provide the lowest prices. Yet, this hypothetical printer would still be kept honest because, with no exclusivity over printing, they couldn't raise their prices above the basic printing cost of a single copy (which does not benefit from economies of scale). Here's the key part of the argument: the difference between the online and print edition is $3. For less than $3, I can print the entire Sunday edition at home, probably on higher quality paper too. That means that the New York Times are deliberately over-pricing the print edition relative to their online edition. They can do this because they hold copyright over the text. They want to do this because they can target advertising to individuals, lock customers into subscriptions more easily online, show attention-grabbing multimedia and a do whole litany of other profitable things. I should note that abolishing copyright wouldn't fix the problem, because that would drive prices down below even the true market value of journalism. This is because nobody would want be the first to purchase a copy of the article; wait a little longer and someone else will sell you theirs at a discount. I personally believe it would be closer to the real value than the status quo, but it is still below it, and that isn't a sustainable income for journalists. It would harm professional journalism eventually. Ensuring that anyone is allowed to republish an article verbatim at a fixed royalty - a royalty no higher than the price of the online edition - would, I think, go a long way to making print editions reflect their actual relative value compared to electronic publishing. Legislation permitting format-shifting, and resale of the format-shifted work, would facilitate this. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41261282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41261282