For the BBC and others, a free website is an obvious and relatively cheap addendum to their main purpose of streaming news and entertainment on screen to a mass audience.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Free is not going to go away. Either the advertising model will still work, or there will still be literally hundreds of millions of people who want to put their information on the Net and want people to have access to it.
Why pay a fee for Internet content when a million free sites are just a click away? There's no incentive until people are too addicted to the Net to turn off their computers, yet are bored with what's available.
Free is the best. Anything free is good.
The Internet allows me to be more free.
As a publisher, you should decide what content is free and what you'd pay for. You have to get the packaging right, but people will pay for content.
Open source is a beautiful way of collaborating; but what's happening on the free Internet is more akin to the 'crowdsourcing' of journalists and other content creators by advertisers who no longer have to pay them - only the search engines that parse their articles.
I'd like the reader to decide if he is willing to pay minute sums for content. I'd like the economics of web to be controlled between authors and readers, not advertiser.
Definition of 'Free': You pay for it whether or not you elect to receive it.
YouTube is a free service that is extremely easy to use. There are no downloads, and hundreds of audio and video formats are instantly converted to Flash, which makes it fast and easy for the community to watch and share video.
The U.K. has been very progressive about on-demand, and the iPlayer has been a great invention. It has trained a generation of viewers to expect on-demand - unfortunately, it trains them to expect free!
No opposing quotes found.