The news about News Corp charging for access to all its news websites is very, very interesting.
There's lots of comment on it - you can find more links on my Friend Feed. Or Google.
My reaction when I heard about it was the same as Jay Rosen's.
There's been a lot of speculation about what Murdoch's motivation is. For me, it's simple. News Corp is a listed company. The stated aim of every listed company is to make profits and deliver shareholder value. Murdoch thinks he can make money out of this.
And I think if any news group is in a position to make money out of the paywall model, it's probably News Corp. On one end of the scale the Wall Street Journal has a working paywall model that the group as a whole can learn from. On the other end, you can imagine that the kind of exclusive content provided by papers like The Sun could attract paying punters.
For example, at the moment if The Sun gets a video exclusive like this the way it can make money from it is to give clips to the broadcasters with the proviso that The Sun logo is prominently displayed, in the hope that folk will buy the paper or visit thesun.co.uk to see more.
In a paywall model, if you want to see a celeb snorting coke you'd either have to be a subscribed member of the site, or maybe pay 20p or so via some kind of micropayment system.
Hand-in-hand with this though will come attacks on Google - and there's already talk of possible lawsuits. That way madness lies. How can you drive traffic to your site without links?
We'll see what happens. I'm not sure how it'll work out and I'm still thinking through the implications.
I think there's something in there about community support though. If Murdoch's model make it more normal and acceptable for people to pay for websites, could that make it easier for smaller, more focussed community supported and even community-owned sites to start up - either with or without paywalls?