When I read that for this week blog post, we had to find a piece of content that we don’t have access to online unless we pay for it, my mind went straight to newspapers and magazines.
Since I started university, plenty of times, during my researches regarding any issue or topic, I bumped into articles that I couldn’t read, if not subscribing to the site.
I chose to share with you, one of them: The Economist.
Non-Registered users of The Economist are allowed to read two articles weekly and registered, but not subscribed users have a weekly article limit of three. After have read the amount of articles permitted, this screen appears to the users:
If The Economist could share its contents without asking for subscriptions, of course the advantage could be to have more readers and probably more content sharing on social media platforms and consequent more site traffic. On the other hand, The Economist has a very peculiar target audience that read it, and if it was free, not necessary everyone was going to read it.
The limitations to have its contents shared with the public could be loss of The Economist writers’ intellectual property and, of course, of profit for it: everyone could then, not just share, but also copy their contents easily.
I believe that every newspaper and magazine subscription is right, to defend their writers ideas and job. I believe that, as we pay for reading a book, it is fear to pay for newspapers or magazines, printed or online. A lot of people work on these contents, and it is correct to pay for their work and their ideas. What do you think about? I know it is for all of us annoying when we want to read something and we need to pay maybe monthly subscription for it, but is it not right that people job receive the right fee?