[clug] Re: A most interesting read, most interesting
david at qednet.biz
Mon Jan 1 21:18:02 GMT 2007
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 06:56:10PM +1100, Paul Wayper wrote:
>> that the world doesn't owe him a living. But the point is that one the one
>> hand the newspapers are making millions off these images, and either ignoring
>> (using the images without any acknowledgement or payment) or abusing the
>> copyright system (by paying a pittance for the ownership of the photo) that
>> should mean those original photographers get at least something.
> I thought newspapers made money off the layout, the printing, the
> articles, the delivery to the door and all the other things that make a
> newspaper. How often do they make "millions" on a single image?
> Or do you mean they *save* millions by not having to pay professional
> photographers? In that case it's good for the end user because that's
> indirectly translated to a cheaper newspaper. And if it goes into
> profits, that goes to shareholders.
> I guess the lesson is that if you want to be paid for your images,
> become a shareholder in the company you're sending the images to...
>> On the other
>> hand the newspapers - and all the other media - whinge and whine when anyone
>> else steals their content, and loudly decry the need for tougher restrictions
>> and penalties for this illegal copying. They can't have it both ways.
> Very true, except no-one is breaking any laws, nor is it clear what
> changes are necessary. The people sending the images are not expecting
> to be paid for them, so why are we getting ourselves into a twist over
> the fact that they're getting what they want?
> Have a nice day,
I believe newspapers make money from advertising, primarily. Look at any
News Limited (funny name) newspaper, it probably runs to about 70%
advertising, which equally as funny, people pay for...
Now a picture says a thousand words, if it is big enough. That's a whole
lot of words you don't need to get a poor overworked wouldbe journalist
come work experience hack to cut and paste.
The price of newspapers is broadly determined by what the market will
bear...if people don't buy newspapers then the newspapers dont have a
market to flog to advertisers. On the other hand if you give something
away, apparently it lacks a certain credibility (linux is obviously not
a serious OS because its free).
Since the number of sources of "news" is somewhat limited and known,
most newspapers don't need to steal content from each other (in the
unlikely event that that aren't owned by the same people). Even a casual
observer can see that most of the traditional "news" is the same
regardless of the source, it is just the packaging that distinguishes
what's on offer.
Now that Murdoch and others are buying up slabs of successful internet
sites, we can obviously relax, secure in the knowledge that the same
people who bring us the page 3 girl have discovered what people want to
on their computers.
Joseph Goebbels would be amazed. Consent was never as easily
manufactured in his day.
More information about the linux