OK, so maybe this blog post isn’t about movies; but we have all heard about the problem of illegal sharing when movies and music hit the Internet.
Fortunately for the movement from print to digital, “pirates” don’t seem to be widely hunting for articles to release for free; but that may be due to publishers beating them to the punch. According to some easily accessible “how-to” articles, paywalls in front of content from prestigious publishers like The New York Times can be accessed by simply deleting part of the URL (Basu). Even if you’re not tech savvy, many tablets have special priority with publishers that discard the pay wall for no fee (Basu).
So why put pay walls in to begin with?
Well, the answer is complicated as business strategies are constantly shifting and vary from company to company. Businesses are therefore challenged to be accessible but also exclusive. The online industry is attempting to keep pace as Google continues to work towards refining their search engine to better protect more available content (Wardell). However these shifts make a question: how much money should publisher’s charge for their content? Well, this answer requires publishers to also know how much they should expect from advertising revenue. As a result, we have to note the many restrictions that are being levied on advertisers in an attempt to protect the public (FTC). Because internet can reach audiences and provide access in a way that print cannot, even advertisers have to adjust their strategies, much like publishers.
As we look back to theft however, digital seems to be a safer option than print. By looking at newspaper theft, we see advertisers giving less revenue to newspapers (SPLC). This tax on physical newspapers generates a risk that doesn’t exist online. Therefore, digital theft may be less of a pressing concern than physical theft.
While these observations hold water currently, following the rise of digital media will have ongoing consequences for print media and their accompanying advertisements and revenue structure.
Sources:
fumediaecon.wordpress.com 
In terms of protecting media content, I never considered whether print or digital is better for protection of that content. However, after reading your post, I’m not surprised to hear that digital content is a safer way in protecting content. It’s much easier for people to seek newspapers off a rack on the side on the street. Also, with major newspaper companies instituting paywalls online, this allows those who are truly interested in the news content to have full access to the newspaper’s website. However, I also learned that people are able to bypass paywalls online, which is evidence of peoples’ smartness when it comes to navigating the web today.
LikeLike
I have never thought of print media requiring protection, but always assumed it was protected in its digital format (articles on NY Times, etc.). Like Sally, I am not surprised that digital content is easier to protect. I also found the information regarding getting past paywalls by just deleting parts of the URL very interesting, as I have never thought about people trying to get around that. Overall, a very informative perspective comparing print and digital content.
LikeLike