It is remarkably how an outfit that imagines itself so deeply committed to free trade is so incredibly oblivious to protectionism when it has the effect of redistributing income upward. The court order telling Google to hand over the Internet viewing records of tens of millions of people might be a good time to discuss the economics of copyright.
The point is that we incur enormous inefficiencies in the form of monopoly pricing and extraordinary enforcement costs, and now this invasion of individual privacy, all in order to get a relatively small amount of money into the hands of creative workers. We can think of much better ways to finance creative work. It would be difficult to imagine a worse system -- will the NYT ever talk about the issue?
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
