The issue I have with this article is the fundamental difference between the way the record companies and newspaper companies went about offering their data online in the first place.

The record companies have always charged for their music; getting free music has always been theft.

Newspaper websites (excluding the WSJ) have always been free.

The comparison to the two would only be valid if the record companies had offered music for free at first, then wanted to start charging.

The newspaper organizations have set up a business model that simply doesn't work: they have established the value of a news article to be free. That's nearly impossible to change ex post facto.

The only chance I see of this changing is if some of the major players drop out, making a real shortage of good news stories. That might inflate their value enough that they could start charging effectively.