f*** me, poor old Rupert Murdock is so hard up he's talking about charing to gain access to any of his newscorp websites (such as news.com.au) .

Hey Rupert, f*** OFF. The ABC news site will do just fine from now on.

Trog will be cackling with glee.

Topic: Newscorp sites to start charging for access

Good, maybe people will stop reading their s*** articles.

got anything to back this up?

As if you'd go to a News Corp web site for anything let alone something supposedly factual.

got anything to back this up?

Sif not trust me.

Link to another site that Rupert doesnt own (yet) talking about it

I will subscribe, the Australian is goddamn awesome.

He's been whinging about this for years and all his advisors keep pointing out that it's a bad idea, instant loss of user base, hence why it's never gone through, yet.

And i wouldn't bother to subscribe, i'll still just use www.smh.com.au

last edited by giririsss at 11:20:48 06/Aug/09

Until a week ago i didnt know the Broncos were owned by Newscorp.

He's had a bee in his bonnet about it for ages.

Apparently the online marketplace is changing and there is now very nearly enough infis out there who would pay to access his online stuff.

New York Times did this years ago didn't they? Look who reads that online now - basically noone.

"Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content, is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting." Mr Murdoch said.

"The increase we have seen in our Wall Street Journal subscription proves to me that the market is willing to pay for that quality."

if you agree with that you'll fork over some pennies I guess.

I hate the idea personally, but I know my Father would love that as an birthday present that he would actually use everyday.

now if only the family would wake up and buy me a legit copy of Alcohol 120% for my birthday instead of clothes I will never wear :P

maybe for newspapers with a large business base that can somehow justfufy the cost, or more likely somehow make it tax deducatable (business research?) I can see it working, but news.com.au, yeah right.

"Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content, is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting." Mr Murdoch said.

please mr murdoch, do it

no way never

Meh get the Australian and Courier home delivered daily. Then just read fairfax online.

Also Zylox, NewsLTD (subsidiary of newscorp) has these:
* Brisbane Broncos Ltd (68.87%)
* Melbourne Storm Rugby League Club Ltd (100%)
* National Rugby League (50%)

You can't even be guaranteed that when you make a post on news dot com that it will get published so f*** paying for a subscription.

Trog will be enthused.

Paid subscriptions have worked for the AFR online, I can see it working for TheAust, too.

However, anyone stupid enough to read any of the other news.com.au tabloids isn't going to pay for news.

This reminds me of the Music Industry when they tried to introduce Paying for DownLoading Music that was already available for free.

Wont work.

This reminds me of the Music Industry when they tried to introduce Paying for DownLoading Music that was already available for free.

um, it kinda did, you havent heard of itunes? yes it has its problems and the music should probably be cheaper on itunes, but it still makes a decent ammount of money.

Quality journalism

... news.com.au? lol

That's like paying for ACA.

um, it kinda did, you havent heard of itunes? yes it has its problems and the music should probably be cheaper on itunes, but it still makes a decent ammount of money.

And people still buy bottled water.

Best news ever!

Now, how can we convince Today Tonight and ACA they need to move into this sort of a system?

cos bottled water is completely useful. where's the comparison?

Quality journalism is not cheap

Thats why news.com.au is free, I guess

Isn't it in *someones* interest to pay news.com.au to remain free so they can tell us what to think about Kyle Sandilands?

wtf does itunes have in common with bottled water?

they're both conspiracies.

they're both for morons who like paying for stuff that is actually free

water isn't free, nor can it be easily contained or carried around without a bottle-like container

yu have it all rong jim. yu by a coke botle and yu yuse it for botled wata

brb, dancing with glee

brb, dancing with glee

I was expecting you to say, "news dot com dot au should PAY people to read their crap."

Where did people ever think music should be legally free on the internet?

i was outraged the other day when i found out the cairns post charges readers for a digital copy

f*** paying for news.com (will continue to read it for free though)

That's like saying the 'teach a man to fish' theory doesn't work because the man needs to first learn how to synthesise petrochemicals with which to mould a bucket.

Paid subscription works where you have a very specialised area to focus on. AFR pretty much only does majority business/market news with a splash of politics and economics. They're legal and weekend/style sections are once a week affairs.

People will pay for it because much like the WSJ they are the by far the best source of news for their area of specialisation.

The Australian on the other hand is a general news source with a heavy center-right editorial lean. Why would I pay for something that the ABC offers for free and better?

i was outraged the other day when i found out the cairns post charges readers for a digital copy

Worse, its one of those faget flipbook flash things that pretends to be a 'real' book. f*** I hate them.

That's like saying the 'teach a man to fish' theory doesn't work because the man needs to first learn how to synthesise petrochemicals with which to mould a bucket.

nah it's not even remotely close to being like saying that

It's exactly like it to the point where pointing it out was redundant.

being wrong twice is redundant, and doesn't make you right

Wow, your brain is wacky thermite. Srs.

I don't know if you're just dense or what, but if unpaid water is not free because you have no container, then an unpaid fish is not free because you have no container. Point being that the container is irrelevant.

Why would I pay for something that the ABC offers for free and better?

I wonder the same thing about people that go to news.com.au now, and news.com.au is free and ABC is free. Why anyone would go to news.com.au after seeing the average s*** that they peddle..

hunter-like dopiness, except hunter was just a complete dumbass

water isn't free, period. you can't just place it to your lips on a whim for ingesting without having given something for it - which is what you are trying to claim is true when you state that people who buy bottled water are morons because they could get it for free.

err, well it is, it's f***ing everywhere, go watch a doco on survival

And if you think it costs money - then so does a fish.

Both are things from nature that people have been sourcing for tens of thousands of years.

So clearly you're wrong and have no right to go around insulting people more intelligent than yourself.

And it doesn't take much intelligence to understand an analogy you god damn twit.

last edited by thermite at 14:32:47 06/Aug/09

Why anyone would go to news.com.au

For the laffs

So clearly you're wrong and have no right to go around insulting people more intelligent than yourself.

And it doesn't take much intelligence to understand an analogy you god damn twit.

My roflcopter goes swoi swoi swoi!

The analogy is understood but lacks application to it's framed context. Jim is right and you are wrong, no amount of frothing at the mouth about being a very smart person can change it dude!

LOL and can you explain that? No you can't. All you do is quote an internet meme or something stupid like you always do. You have no ability to argue because you're an idiot. You're just a bandwagon rider that agrees with Jim no matter how wrong he is.
You can't write anything that can be responded to and discussed because you have no ideas in your head. What is the point of you?

You have no ability to argue because you're an idiot. You're just a bandwagon rider that agrees with Jim no matter how wrong he is.
You can't write anything that can be responded to and discussed because you have no ideas in your head. What is the point of you?

And you're a guy indulging in a moment of e-rage on an internet forum about a ridiculous point of argument semantics.

Who was the idiot again?

thermite: I strongly doubt that you collect, filter and bottle all the water you ingest from rainfall, into containers that you made yourself from dirt you dug up at some free dirt facility. And if you do, how much of your time does it take to do that? Is your time free?


no, no, no

water is not free

buying bottled water is not moronic - in fact more often than not, it's extremely sensible

your so-called analogy, wasn't an analogy - it was just a really silly, far-stretched attempt at drawing a parallel between two things that weren't parallel

You're just a bandwagon rider that agrees with Jim no matter how wrong he is.

there's that selective memory again
there's been plenty of times where hogfather has done the complete opposite of what you're claiming

Yes I have collected water for free from a river and lived off it for a week.

Yes the barrel cost money, duh, that's the whole point of what I posted about the fish saying. The saying goes "teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime" - according to you, this isn't the case because fishing rods, and transportation to the river, and buckets to carry fish, all cost money or have to be made by someone else, making the man reliant upon something and thus falsifying the whole saying (and sayings cannot be falsified or they wouldn't be sayings now would they). This analogy demonstrates the absurdity of your original comment, and that goes to explain why you have become so defensive and insulting.

And as far as analogies go, the concepts are so embarassingly similar, that saying the analogy is just restating the original problem. So how can you argue with the analogy? Oh yeah, because you already decided that you were an a******.

Or you were never taught how to fish! (WARNING: this is an analogy)


last edited by thermite at 14:53:48 06/Aug/09

And as far as analogies go, the concepts are so embarassingly similar, that saying the analogy is just restating the original problem. So how can you argue with the analogy? Oh yeah, because you already decided that you were an a******.

Reliance on metaphor to illuminate a point demonstrates an underlying weakness of argument.

No analogy can be without rebuke or challenge as you are comparing disparate entities and concepts. The best reaction to having your analogy challenged is to present a counter-point to the challenge, and then invoke a new argument to support your position. Defending the analogy ad nauseum serves no purpose.

The worst and least effective strategy is to start referring to anyone with a contrary opinion as an idiot or an a****** arsehole.

last edited by Hogfather at 15:01:07 06/Aug/09

I've just realised Andrew Bolt's blog will also become pay-per-view. Noooooooooooooo. I can't stomach ABC as a news source, I'll be sticking with brisbanetimes.com.au and The Australian, even if I have to pay.

last edited by fade at 15:02:51 06/Aug/09

So Rupert is going to charge for online news... fishing with buckets and water bottles.... I think I've got it.

Yes I have collected water for free from a river and lived off it for a week.

that's not an answer to the question I asked. the reason you provided that as an answer is because you're running out of room to move with your ridiculous argument.

that's what, 3 maybe 4 strawmen you've thrown up now?

i like the news on news.com, but then im smart enough to know the difference between SUPER SERIAL news and interesting puff pieces which are amusing (OHNOS NOT SERIAL)

news.com.au is a good source of comedy faux-news articles. It'll be a shame if it's not available for free...

ABC is ok but for right-wing commentary, Andrew Bolt is unparalleled for righteousness and insight into the poisonous minds of the do-gooder Global Warming socialist fashionistas.

last edited by infi at 16:18:39 06/Aug/09

andrew bolt is a total shocker

Why would you fish with a rod when a keyboard works so well?

guilty

i am naming my first born, andrew.

When he bought wsj we got the impression he'd open it up for free and bring in more of their style of journalism to Australia to compete with fairfax's afr

that didn't happen. Wsj is still subscription, and now he's taken that pay for quality approach to his other online presences. What he doesn't understand is that his high traffic site, news.com.au is just fark.com with a blurb for each link, with the occasional republication of an AP/Reuters piece, and he can't compete with them. The comment system is s***, and far too censored to create real traffic generating debate. It's not going to work. I am not going to pay money to find out what is big this week on utube or in my inbox.

I am not going to pay money to find out what is big this week on utube or in my inbox.

Yeh, I guess the thing is - how many will?

i happily pay for an AFR subscription, might pay for the Australian. wouldn't pay for anything else.

thermite i'm sure someone else has pointed this out but you are ignoring the costs you are paying for the fish/water, namely your time.

the opportunity cost of your time is the next best alternative you forgo by spending your time fishing/collecting water. you could sell this time as labour, use it to produce/consume other items, etc. it is a very real cost, and by ignoring it you are making a very large logical error. that's highschool/1st year economics, not difficult stuff.

there is no such thing as a free lunch.

edit: should also add i pay for a subscription to the Economist and also for some of their online stuff like Economist Intelligence Unit reports. well i don't pay for them, they're too expensive :(. every single person in any kind of business/finance or even just in a professional sphere should read the Economist. best publication in the world imo.

last edited by taggs at 18:51:54 06/Aug/09

Quality journalism is not cheap

but the crap they pass off on news.com.au would only be called "quality journalism" by the page 3 topless girl editor for the trashy london news papers.

this would suck at my old work. All the older people (the majority) there thought the internet was evil except for checking news sites. I was checking news.com.au daily at one point. Will be glad to never see it again. Gaming news > real news yo.

I drink water at home coz its very cheap.
I dont buy water when Im out because its Extremely expensive.
If you got a pass in Maths at school you prolly dont drink bottled water.
You also wont pay to read tabloid news.

Mr Andrew John Winston Robert INFI.

I find Bolt a bit extreme at times infi but nevertheless I find his blog site worth a read.

I drink water at home coz its very cheap.

cool
a lot of people probably do, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you're trying to say

I dont buy water when Im out because its Extremely expensive.

it _can_ be expensive, like anything. but to say "it's extremely expensive" in a manner that suggests it always is, or even usually is, is quite inaccurate because it usually isn't extremely expensive, or even expensive at all

If you got a pass in Maths at school you prolly dont drink bottled water.

most people get a pass in maths at school, and bottled water sales are big business. this contradicts what you're saying

I'd go as far (lol) to say that most people posting in this thread would buy bottled water at least reasonably regularly but wouldn't subscribe to read news dot com dot au

the whole notion of introducing the purchasing of bottled water into this thread as a parallel to paying for a subscription to newscorp sites was a complete waste of time

or even expensive at all

It is if you compare it to those $1/L soft drinks and whatnot.

Buying bottled water is for trendsetters, plain and simple.

It is if you compare it to those $1/L soft drinks and whatnot.

is it though? or does it just cost more?

buy me a legit copy of Alcohol 120%

lolz koopz, Funny thing!
I just bought a copy yesterday.

Lifetime upgrades :P

"Drinking water in Melbourne or Sydney costs around $1.20 a tonne," says Mr Kiernan. "Australian bottled water costs around $3000 a tonne. And Italian bottled water? About $9000 a tonne.

Two thousand times the cost is Extremely expensive.


haha News.com.au has removed the Comments section.
I didnt read one that was pro.

last edited by FaceMan at 00:35:47 07/Aug/09

dude
we already covered that ad nauseum

water that comes from your tap is not the same product as water you can buy in a bottle. how do you drink water from your tap when you're not near your tap? you don't. you have to either bottle it yourself and take it away from your tap in a container, or go to some other tap when you need to drink, or buy it in a bottle that you can drink or take with you. ALL of those methods cost more than drinking from your tap at home because your time is expended. they become a different product.

bottled water is generally not expensive.

At the risk of being on topic:

I don't think news.com.au would be the type of site that would attract paying subscribers. But, I don't think it's the type of site Murdoch is talking about when he talks about paying for content.

I believe he is referring to the op/ed pages of The Australian/Asia WSJ etc. These appear online atm for free. However, before teh internets you had to pay for this content by buying a paper. I think it is fair for someone to continue to charge for the content they provide irrespective of the format.

Murdoch has always maintained that people will pay for quality. And he has been proved correct so far. Circulation at The Australian hasn't been hit by people moving to the internet. Fairfax on the other hand has seen circulation drop significantly (witness the recent firing of staff) as they chased the internet crowd by adding glossy/lifestyle/liftout sections at the expense of quality.

As far as the ABC offering that same op/ed content for free? A rant from Bob Ellis or some moralising from a tree hugging enviro-facist doesn't stack up against actual quality journalism.

when i buy bottled water, i'm paying for the convenience/portability/bottle. pretty much only happens at music festivals, travelling, forget to take water to uni, etc. never buy evian or any expensive s***, mount franklin or whatever no frills s*** they have will do me fine, it's just water.

that's just me but i'm sure a lot of bottled water consumers fall into that sort of category.

i'm sure there are other bottled water consumers that consume it for the 'taste' or image that a particular brand may be seen to project. but i don't think those kind of bottled water consumers are quite as prevalent as the haters would suggest.

Do you drink coffee when you are out ?
Do you pay 2000 times the cost of a cup of coffee at home ?
Do you drink Alcohol at home ? same again ?

Are you suggesting Bottled Water is healthier ?

Do you drink coffee when you are out ?

yep

Do you pay 2000 times the cost of a cup of coffee at home ?

nope

Do you drink Alcohol at home ? same again ?

yep, yep


are coffee and alcohol supplied by pipe to my taps at home by local municipality as part of my land rates?
nope

are you introducing even more silly attempted parallels?
yep

Are you suggesting Bottled Water is healthier ?

nope, how could you possibly get that from anything anyone here has said?

are coffee and alcohol supplied by pipe to my taps at home by local municipality as part of my land rates?
nope

I hear they have that in Candy Mountain Shire.

When you said 'free' I thought you meant you know, like the birds, the wind, unshackle-able; like what air-headed hippy chicks sing about...

like mercury when you try to pick it up with tweezers - like

free - free - free - FREE - FREE

Woo - woo - woo

gee you guys talk crap

3 thumbs up face-dude and Hoggy - Troll, troll, troll

Do you drink coffee when you are out ?
Do you pay 2000 times the cost of a cup of coffee at home ?

paying different prices for different products is a pretty normal thing, faceman.

Do you drink Alcohol at home ? same again ?

see above.

Can all you people talking about this newspaper business please leave this thread, you're going off topic about the free bottled water.

(As I sit on my ivory and gold crusted pedestal sipping on my bottled water... AT HOME!!!!EElelevne!!!OMGFG!!)

Pretty sure he won't make tabloid fest that it is news.com.au, the sun etc paid contents - cause that'd be suicide, pretty sure he didn't get to be billionaires only making bad business decisions all the time.

I'd say he'll charge for only higher "quality" sites like the Australian and whatever else news corp happens to own. Which I wouldn't mind paying for if I really want it. I mean I'm already paying for magazine subscriptions like APC, Choice etc I could almost justify this as tax deductible expense as they also have Australian IT section.

water that comes from your tap is not the same product as water you can buy in a bottle.

True that.

Bottled water is full of chemicals that leach from the plastic bottle and given the lack of preservatives/oxidisers prolly has more bacteria then tap.

yeh ok faceman ;)

I was referring to the fact that when you buy a bottle of water you are buying water in a resealable, conveniently sized, easy to carry, (optionally) refrigerated container. You walk in, pick it up, hand over some coin and you're on your way with very little time/effort of your own invested aside from what it took you to earn the money.

Water from your tap at home is just... water from your tap. You turn the tap on and it runs out and disappears down the drain or into the ground unless you contain it in something. To get it to be the same product you buy at a store involves a considerable amount of your time to maintain on an ongoing basis as well as monetary expenditure for the container and (optional) refrigeration.


Different products in a commercial context, not chemical

Quality journalism
... news.com.au? lol

That's like paying for ACA.

I was referring to The Australian Newpaper dude.



last edited by koopz at 13:36:15 09/Aug/09

Bottled water is no better for you.

Yes I did work for a company that bottles water I can show you the boar they pump the water from. before you ask I would drink the water from the boar.

Newscorp is providing a service and they can start to charge if they wish but I don't think it will catch on.

long live abc/bbc and pbs along with reuters.com

i don't mean to be a bore, but a boar is a wild pig. you can also get water from a bore.

Zoddi, are you reviving threads just for kicks?

Zoddi, cut it out. It's incredibly annoying what you're doing.

14 posts straight after signing up. impressive.