And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures

Most of which will resemble little more than random noise and have no value.

Looked at from what angle?

"what he wants is a slice of Google pie, the bigger the slice the better." that rather begs the question: what part of whose pie was google slicing for themselves in the first place? as much as i seen social network benefits from search engines of all kinds, i'm hard pressed to se how they contributed to the sales bottom line of any traditional media company. To me, forgive my bad think, i just remember google as the search engine that would never sell adverts, or would have you think so, aided surely by competitors who whored themselves without doubt,the same company who just became the controller of 60% of their own advertising market, being all of which they appeared - to my recall - to be against. contrary to populatr opinion i see clasrly the arguement that google's revenue (and any other SE) is a derivative of work provided at traditonal media's expense. Maybe i just seen too many aggregator blogs, big names amongst them, who sign off with taglines as "via X via Y via ~insert actual media company here~" To me at least that's a circuitous con, and i the reader become complicit with that. No doubt i find "access" to sources in a novel and convenient way, but really - and just like much trad media, how much am i reading si regurgitated PR? If you think my views are so contrarian, think for amoment that in this internet model, if i publshed the Financial Times, suddenly not only do i have to give copies away fro free, but i have to deliver to your doorstep for free too. What i see constantly, so much so i almost came to believe it myself, is argument for the benefits of meta syndication (blogging, linking, and really dubious practises such as majority citation and replublication) as if it is entirely harmless. The point being, at the bottom line, does any of this benefit major news providors? Moreover, do you think your favourite blog can sustain a adequate alternative? Or, is the question rather that maybe if the revenues were not so fanciful and derivative of other sources, that your favourite blog would by now have replaced the old media equivalent, in terms that the original no longer survives, and your eblog can manage the staffing etc. I am not suggesting i have solutions, but whenever i see this argument, i see it merely discussed one - way, as is the general drift here. Pity that "old media" (and why is it old, if so oft - quoted, or do you mean "yesterday's news" assuming ~fave blog~ is out gettiong tomorrows as opposed to rehashing something read off the wire . . ) i simply don't undestand how old media [sic] fails so spectacularly in engaging the debate with specifics to support their argument and their feeling as to rights and moral rights. Thus, the supposedly eloquent are dumstruck, and naturally are cannon - fodder for the online comunities. But that still does not make a rebuttal of News Corp's claim, or any other similar claim. The emperer may have no clothes, but they remain the emperor, assuming they wake up that is. So many of the comments here just make me want to shout "freetard" but the reality is that eventually this debate si going to get very interesting indeed. I envy with sincerity anyone just in college or education right now, fo rth efreedom of access and information they have, and would argue we ought to keep such facility on pain of loss of a tremendous new generation of ideas. But we ignore the wishes and concerns of the biggest employers in media at our peril. Merely biasing against their position (the cynical "good luck with that" retorts, e.g.) risks polarising the argument and placing it in a wholly political sphere. If the game is the Sonny Bono Act, then i fear the masses will loose. The dark irony in me wonders if political precoccupation with international wars and deflation isn't the only thing distracting government from being suaded by the very real forces of traditional media lobby. We ultimately all have a choice how to deal with this, possibyl in ways which will affect long term outcomes. Is it only me that wonders who a ISP should be the only person i actually pay for so much access? My longstanding personal view is that this pie is very imbalanced indeed. But i'll not venture to apportion slices before being very sure we have a finite cake. and on a random slightly personal note, the next real "freetard" who dismisses trad media's positioning out of hand as ilegitmate ought to be condemned to s long slopw month working the phones to sell a page of advertising in some dead trees, just to learn some empathy.

for sentimental reasons

Oh, Jean Louis Gassée!
Beige and High Right
was not to be.