By: Ajit Jaokar

Ajit Jaokar — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:09:34 +0000

Hello Anthony, firstly – thanks for reading my blog.
Here are some more thoughts.
you asked me also what if the guardian put my blog on their newpaper and made money on it. My answer is – I would consider it free PR. I would think that if I asked so, they should remove it. I would not however expect them to use it and also want to impose a revenue model on them.
It is unfortunate to single out the guardian who overall seem to do an excellent job – except in this case
The blind rent collectors: The future of journalism should not be
confused with the future of newspapers ..
http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2009/04/the_blind_rent.html
kind rgds Ajit

By: Anthony Mullen

Anthony Mullen — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:25:11 +0000

It’s not a subsidy from my view. It’s payment for use of assets. I’m sure you would get uppity if the Guardian published your blog in their paper without paying you.
OK so there may not be agreement on the amount to be paid and of course I want the business model with Google to work but I’m concerned that the musicians are being demonised here or rather the PRS/MCPS. This is unfair.
Stopping linking to ‘old media’ will leave you with Pink and Franz Ferdinand in your return results – good luck with that – you’ll only end up paying in the form of mental counselling further down the line. I’ll be using the web structures that cover the Beatles, Hendrix and Public Enemy. If I pay 0.0001 pence for the Chemical Brothers and that is split between PRS and Google then so be it.
Why is paying for music such a problem? You should be getting behind micro payments and any initiatives that reward creators.
Use your blog energy to suggest a workable model not poo poo a valid request from musicians organisations.
I think your blog is generally on point but this one is a ‘miss’ for me.

Comments on: Maybe we should stop linking to old media and let them take a sabbatical for a month from the Web?

By: Ajit Jaokar

By: Anthony Mullen