Shaddows - 3:02 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm thinking about this.

There's no tangible product to actually sell, nothing to own having paid. Printed news is basically value-added paper (a bit like novels, I suppose). It's this intangability that's causing problems- across the world of creative works. News is arguably a special case for two reasons: the event happened, and thus was not created, and there is a supply side imbalance (only one person writes any given creative work, but anyone can recall events they witnessed).

The problem is that the profesional part of reporting will become devalued. The many news providers will be forced to merge, reducing the number of "voices", and increasing the possibility for partisan reporting.

I agree. I will not pay for news. Or rather, I pay for news out of something akin to general taxation (being UK based and mainly a consumer of the BBC's output). I guess most here are of that opinion.

So, like the music debate, and the orphaned works debate, I think there is a serious point at the centre of this. If money does not flow to the content-owners, who will create the content, and why?