[Previous entry: "The women, the guns and the flies"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Space One"]

07/22/2001 Archived Entry: "GM"

There was a pretty amusing (and accurate, in my opinion) restaurant review/assessment of the public's opinion on genetically modified food in the Sunday Times today, written by AA Gill. Not normally the sort of guy who I envisaged would get worked up about this sort of stuff, but he's a man of my own heart when it comes to GM foods.

Speaking of the Sunday Times, I hear that they're going to start charging for online content soon, as are the Britannica. I'm of two minds about charging for online content. I'm well aware that it's ridiculously easy to obtain usernames and passwords for everything that requires money on the Internet, so it's not a question of 'having' to spend money to access this content - providing that performing illegal acts aren't a problem with you. And of course it isn't to most people judging by the proliferation of music sharing systems and pirated software.

So the real question is whether you are willing to spend the money to support these services; are they good enough for you to make a 'donation' towards their running costs?

I really could only name a couple of online resources that I'd be willing to pay for: Salon and Britannica. I visit them fairly regularly at certain times (Salon less regularly since I'm getting out of my procrastination stage, and Britannica because I'm not at university). Salon costs $30 per year, and I think the proposed subscription fee for Britannica will cost $50 per year. To me, that's not cheap, even though a subscription to both would cost something like 31p per day.

Micropayments? I don't know. They've been touted as the solution to Everything for the Internet but I suspect the reality (which will surely come eventually) will not be as wonderful as people think. Users on the Internet just aren't used to paying for content, not yet at least.