British newspaper 'The Times' website to start charging - Polidicks

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8588432.stm[/url] [QUOTE]The Times and Sunday Times newspapers will start charging to access their websites in June, owner News International (NI) has announced. Users will pay £1 for a day's access and £2 for a week's subscription. The move opens a new front in the battle for readership and will be watched closely by the industry. [/QUOTE] I don't think newspapers who charge online quite understand how the internet works. Information like news should be a fast and free thing to access. Can't they just use ad revenue to keep up funds? I'm pretty sure their online readership is going to plunge now. Why pay for something like that when there are hundreds of free alternatives? Rate 'Bad Reading' if you think newspapers who charge online are stupid.

About time someone did this.

Someone will just copy-paste the articles somewhere, like here, or pastebin, and just provide free links to these versions. The Times will lose ad revenue in the process, because people will no longer visit the site.

Facepunch is free, we can become the internets free source of news :)

This man has the solution!

It won't work. You charge for the news, they'll get it elsewhere. Plain and Simple. Most if not All news organizations get the news from another source anyway, By the time a big one broadcasts or puts it online, it'll be online in many other places first Hell the news of Michael Jackson's death was up a good solid 20 minutes before CNN said it, (They were covering it LIVE too) and even when CNN said it they would say 'We have been given word from such and such'

This is [B]suicide[/B] for the Times. I think it's interesting to note how Murdoch isn't doing this on all of his newspapers, just the Times and Sunday Times. Meaning if it is unsuccessful he has the Sun and the Express to fall back on. Furthermore, it shows that he doesn't have full confidence in his scheme, meaning that he has actually considered the possible outcomes of this decision. From this we can extrapolate that this may be only temporary, and the Times online will eventually be reverted to the ad-revenue based business model.

[b]The Times are a chargin'[/b]

This is why I read the Guardian Murdoch sucks

What can The Times' website offer you that [url]www.bbc.co.uk[/url] can't? The BBC website will always be free as we pay for it through our TV licenses. I read up on the news on the BBC website every day. I would never pay for something that I feel should always be free. By all means, the papers should cost you something. Obviously (Although there are a few free papers out there that are actually pretty good). But paying to view information on the internet that you're already paying to use? Don't think so.

It's [i]times[/i] like these that I'm glad we still have the BBC. :britain:

Their loss.

Fuck you Murdoch. [editline]02:48PM[/editline] [QUOTE=James*;20973569]This is why I read the Guardian[/QUOTE] +1

Broadsheets are pretentious shit. Tabloids are gossipy shit. BBC News suits me fine.

[QUOTE=James*;20973569]This is why I read the Guardian Murdoch sucks[/QUOTE] Indenpendant bro. :smugdog:

I just get my news from the BBC anyway.

same as a lot of people in this thread, i get my news from the BBC, so we're losing nothing.

Um but won't everyone just use the BBC instead?

[QUOTE=smurfy;20974551]Um but won't everyone just use the BBC instead?[/QUOTE] [B]Exactly.[/B]

For online news the BBC is unparalleled. I probably wouldn't touch the Guardian's site if it wasn't for Charlie Brooker, and the others have little more to give me.

I don't see many times articles in here anyway, so I'm sure if won't affect pretty much anyone.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;20973827]Indenpendant bro. :smugdog:[/QUOTE] Agreed. :smugdog: Though the Daily Mail is cheaper than cat litter.

[QUOTE=Rosek;20978637]Agreed. :smugdog: Though the Daily Mail is cheaper than cat litter.[/QUOTE] Cat litter has better writing though.

[b]This thread needs more points emphasised using bold[/b] Otherwise, yeah, this is fucking stupid. People just aren't going to use their site.