> Wojtek writes:
>
> restricting access to such information by putting it behind
>> paywalls is harmful to society in a similar ways as restricting
>> fire protection to those households that are willing to pay for it.
>>
>
> I've never lived anywhere in the US that has fire protection paid for by
> "the willing" -- property taxes pay for fire protection in most places[*].
> Are you saying that taxes should pay for your online access to the NY
> Times? That seems fine to me in principle, but I think we're a long way
> from that.
>
> And it would hardly make it "free" ...
I think Wojo is confusing better ways of organizing society with right action under our current system. For example, I think that some on this list would argue for abolition of the wage system. I don't think many would argue against at a US minimum wage of $15 per hour. But I don't think that translates into arguing that workers at McDonald's should work for free today, so we can get french fries without paying. Right now, given low ad revenues, the only way the NY Times can pay its journalists, editors and so on is to get revenue from somewhere. We can have all the demands we want about how things should be restructured, but while the system is what it is, it is no more a matter of "principle" to insist that we won't touch information that is not "free" than it is a matter of "principle" to insist that we won't eat a hamburger if we have to pay for it.
And again, I would agree that some sort of taxpayer voucher system replacing copyright or other schemes where information is paid for as a public good is perfectly reasonable demand if you can organize people around it. But that is different from elevating refusal to pay for information under our current system into an act of principle. -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com