You are presuming that “poorer folks” who can’t afford the internet and have to go to the library to see it, can afford to purchase the paper. From what we can see, we don’t see these same “folks” reading the paper that much either. They appear to get most of their news from TV and radio, where we don’t post notices.

As to getting out the message, written notices to their house and signs posted in the neighborhood have proven to be far more effective and cheaper too. Also the resident neither has to have the internet nor purchase a paper.

I am not saying that no one gets their legal notices from the paper. What I am saying is that the very high taxpayer cost does not justify the very low response you get from it, and that we could do a better job at a lower cost by other more effective means.

By the way, though not be considered, the most centralized place is actually where you pay your water bill at City Hall. We could easily hand this information out at that site and reach far more people.

Had a free moment and decided to check in on my blog friends to see how folks are doing.

This is timely issue as we find ourselves straddling two timezones when it comes to news and newspapers. One is the old fashioned newspaper era, which I will dearly miss should it ever completely disappear. The other is the growing new wave of on-line news.

We are using both right now and the momentum is clearly moving toward on-line. For better or worse, that is the apparent direction of things to come.

Five or ten years ago it wouldn’t even occur to folks that we should stop printing government postings in newspapers. Now, things are changing. This is the second or third time we see this bill come along. Inevitably it will pass. That day will come.

But not yet.

When straddling change, it’s important not abandon where you’ve been until your weight shifts comfortably toward where you’re going. That has not yet fully occurred in our society when it comes to print versus on-line news. But we are rapidly getting there. Until get there, this bill is not ready for prime time.

Let me take a moment to wish you all Happy Holidays and all the best for a fantastic New Year. May it be much better for us all in 2010 than it was in 2009.

Angelo

to an extent I do agree but there has to be a well known, centralized location that is accessible to all that contains these notices. It is presumptuous to assume poorer folks have to go to the public library to access the internet. We cannot disregard this segment of the population. It is a demographic that many local government policies affect most.

More people find out about a matter by the posted sign, concerned residents that call other residents, and notices mailed than any notice in the paper. Rarely do I find anyone showing up to a meeting because of a notice in the newspaper, though the city spends thousands each year on these ads. At least we would probably reach more by putting it on the internet then in the newspapers.

Even bids and request for proposals often come from sending notices to vendors registered on our web site.

We are just trying to do the best we can and give notices to the public and vendors the best way we can, without wasting precious tax dollars.

If I run a blog and reprint (and give credit to) a newspaper for a story that they are distributing publicly for FREE on the internet, should I be required to pay for it?

What about if I just have a blurb on the story and a link to the Sentinel page?

The WSJ and NY Times I think may be different because they have an online subscription model where viewers pay to read the content, so it’s not just publicly available for free.

But until such time as the Sentinel decides to charge for their content, I don’t know why Google, Yahoo, et al., shouldn’t be allowed to reprint the news (for which they don’t charge viewers) as fair use.

FROM BUDDY: Good point.

Nevertheless they aren’t entitled to an exclusive for legal notices.

But all is not lost. The solution to declining revenues comes from…shudder…Rupert Murdoch who has told Google they may no longer repeat content from his paper press, including the NY Post and the Wall Street Journal,—unless they pay for it.

The AP. New York Times, the Wash Post and the rest of the print press should follow suit.

If the Sun-Sentinel has to pay to reprint their stories why shouldn’t Google, AOL, Yahoo, etc?

Further the Sun-Sentinel and the Herald should start charging for their original stories.

Google can’t reprint copyrighted books w/o paying for them. It can’t put CD’s or DVD’s online w/o paying for them. Why should they be able to publish the Wall Street Journal for nothing?

FROM BUDDY:
Murdoch owns big national newspapers with a potential audience of hundreds of millions of readers. If only a fraction of these potential readers pay, he is successful.
Murdoch also spends a lot of money for unique coverage.
The Wall Street Journal has a built in audience of Wall Street types who must have the paper and charge its cost as a business expense.
The local papers — the Sun-Sentinel and The Herald — have fewer potential readers. How many customers would really pay to read most of what is on their Internet sites? Even at five cents per article.
Even Sam would only read a select number of the articles.
Sam, care to give us a list of those 10 periodicals you read regularly?

I could see special notices, like for the budget and for elections, but for ordinances, and bids, its a waste. Otherwise, it is better and cheaper on the web.

FROM BUDDY: You’ll find that some folks do read the public notices. For instance, parents worried about school boundaries see the advertising the School Board places. Vendors religiously look at the notices involving purchases. Etc. Etc.