Paywalls can bring in extra revenue for newspapers and other traditional media outlets, and they can help keep existing readers from leaving — but how do they help bring in new readers? And what happens if they don’t?
Somewhere today, a loose-knit group of activists who are having fun is dropkicking a rich, established organization so hard they are making heads spin. Rich and resourceful organizations are used to living by the golden rule – “those with the gold make the rules”. New ways of organizing go beyond just breaking the old rules into downright shredding them – leaving executives in the dust, wondering how that band of poor, rag-tag, disorganized activists could possibly have beaten their rich, well-structured organization…
See on falkvinge.net
Recent news of the sentencing of four men (1, 2) connected with Anonymous DDoS attacks on Visa, PayPal and Mastercard raises questions over the suitability of existing sentencing options and penal practices as a reaction to online offending.
For flooding these payment gateways with bogus requests such that they were no longer able to service legitimate traffic, in connection with the WikiLeaks saga, three of the four men received custodial sentences, one of which is suspended, while a fourth was reluctantly spared custody as he had been 16 at the time of the offences.
Without having read the sentencing remarks, it is difficult to tell on what basis a custodial sentence is said to be justified. Indeed, it is not immediately clear on what basis these acts are deserving of the moral label "criminal" at all. According to the news, these men were co-conspirators in a group responsible for some £3.5mn of lost revenue. A large sum of money, certainly; but, unlike these high-tech bank robbers, the men in this case did not share in £3.5mn of ill-gotten gains. Their motivations, it seems, were political.
See on www.ecrimeblog.com