Charging for content — who whines the loudest?

Hate speech isn't protected. If the posters believe that you could hand over their info to the cops, that will get rid of all the flip hate speech.

That's what I need out of there.

 

Re: Charging for content — who whines the loudest?

True enough, shot. I edit or delete full cut-and-paste jobs from our boards, substituting a link to the original story, but I fear sites like ours are vastly outnumbered by those who don't care so much about copyright laws and fair-use policies.

And if someone REALLY wants that info for their blog -- or their sports front, in a few cases -- there's nothing to stop them from simply retyping it.
***

Thanks for the clarification, Simon. I agree that a billing address on file might be a greater deterrent than the standard e-mail/IP log most of us use. Still can't go with "all," though, because some people really ARE that stupid and/or hateful.

 

Or create their own.

 

Re: Charging for content — who whines the loudest?

;D

 

BG really nailed it.

And Google took note of what BG was searching for, by the way. In fact, Google has noticed BG has been Googling a lot about baseball recently... also about muni golf courses in his area... curiously, Google has also noticed BG frequently Googles "BG."

Budwiser just paid $5000 for that information.

 

Actually they pulled the plug on pulling the plug.
Rupert ran the math and the WSJ makes more on subscription fees and people who subscribe to the print edition for the online access.
Little Rock has a pay for play Web site. That paper's publisher says the reason they are growing circulation is that the site is pay. E&P named him publisher of the year.
I know other places are out there.