"Morality of Paywalls" Topic

A different site had some premium content and I lamented that it was locked behind a paywall.

Some people suggested that I should pay to support the starving artists. Yet, influencers often complain that GW puts a new miniature in $200 USD bundle box thereby "locking it behind a paywall."

I get the impression there is a morality to paywalls where if it is something you want: they are bad. Otherwise, they help support creators.

Paywalls are simple greed. Please provide an example of one that helps support a struggling artist because I'm at a loss but certainly open to listening!

Regarding the site, every user needs to determine if the content they want to see is worth paying for.

I think "paywall" is an inappropriate analogy to use for physical objects.

There are GW influencers? How sad.

I think this question (at least as related to content, the figure analogy I think is flawed) is based on the assumption that all content on the internet should be free. Doubleones says paywalls are simple greed. I'm not going to use the struggling artist thing (I see paywalls way more often on corporate news sites like Washington Post or The Atlantic, and the like.) It costs money to create that content. Pay the reporters salaries, expenses as they follow the stories, editing, layout. The only publishing expense that goes away when you go online is the physical paper. All of this used to be paid for by subscribers and advertisers paying to reach those subscribers. The expectation of content for free has largely killed the news business, especially for small local papers.
If it took somebody's work to create, then it's legitimate to ask to be paid for it. It's up to the customer to decide whether it's worth the price being asked, and it will sell or not. Enough people not willing to pay for it and it will go out of business (the way of the local papers).
As to artists (like musicians) trying to make money off their work (maybe these are your starving artists). I can't remember where i read the piece, but Ozzy Osbourne wrote something about how much more difficult it is to make it financially as a musician today given the streaming model of distribution rather than physical albums and radio airplay.

If you want it, pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, you obviously don't actually want it.

A paywall is NOT "immoral." Do we think that people should be forced to work for free? Why? Because we're to damn cheap to pay ‘em? Who is being "greedy" here— the person who does a work and thus accepts an expense in time, materials, web-hosting costs, etc., or the person who comes along and expects to receive the benefit of that work for nothing?

Yeah, think about that for a moment.
One person has sacrificed time, effort, talent and money.
The other person wants to hold onto his money, but still be given, gratis, what the first person sacrificed to create.

It's one thing if the person who actually works at something decides to offer it for free. That's fine and commendable— Bill does it here, in fact. The site and membership in it is entirely free. He offers advertising at an expense, and you can pay to be a Supporting Member— or he offers an opportunity to be a Supporting Member through one's efforts to provide the poll content for the site, a popular feature here (even more generosity). But if he has "paywall" areas that's his right— the Marketplace listings are essentially paywalled for the seller, being restricted to Supporting Members.

To me, a paywall represents a choice. Most of the time, I choose to simply walk away. I'm cheap. But I don't blame the person who has one… why would I? I'm the cheapo, not him.

TANSTAAFL.
(So stop expecting one.)

I'm with Parzival. Blaming "greed" is about like blaming gravity, and is almost as useful. I pay for books, for castings, for paints, for WSS--and I expect to be paid for my own work. Not that I don't do some hobby stuff for free--most of us do--but if someone's trying to support himself or his family by his research and inspiration, I see nothing odd about his expecting to be paid for it. If it doesn't seem worth my money, I don't have to pay. That's a better deal than NPR and the BBC are offering.

First question, do these paywall sites still have advertising on them? If not then they are truly providing content for the price of admission. If they are still running ads then they are just trying to get more money. The best example of a site that I use is YouTube. I don't pay so I get to see lots of ads. If I did pay then I would expect no ads. Either way I am paying to see the content, either in time or money, and the site is making money either from ad sales or membership payments. The line I draw is paying for a site and then still getting ads.

+1 Parzival and RP. Same thing I feel when someone states health care is a right and should be free. What they are really saying is that they want me and everyone else to pay for the doctors, drugs and other healthcare expenses. If it cost somebody money to provide it, then it is not a right but a want.

Capitalism will achieve what it's worth or end production if too high. You are not owed what someone else makes.
Parzival 👍

In response to Karl, I don't see pay and advertising as mutually exclusive. See the newspaper model I mentioned above. They put together a combination of revenues to cover the cost of producing the content.

I'm with Parzival and Robert Piepenbrink.

Whatever content you wanted to access behind that paywall had been created by someone who expended time and effort and perhaps they also expended money on research materials.

Why should you be entitled to take it for free? You didn't create it.

As far as a paywall that supports a creator, you need look no further than MyMiniatureFactory.com. Creators there are making topnotch digital models which I am very happy to pay for. And the creators are earning something close to a living from monetizing their ideas and work.

I pay for a magazine, a newspaper, Amazon Prime and they all have advertising.
I write a blog, every day for over a decade, over 2 million hits. I have probably made about $1,200 USD since 2008. The advertising money mostly goes to Google.
The money I earn probably paid for the batteries and my two camera upgrades and the photo studio and bulbs that are needed to actually put the blog together.
I have paid for paywalls, not worth the money mostly.
Bunkermeister