Crisis of Conscience

It's gotten to the point that I'm pretty much morally opposed to paying for content on the internet. One of the whole thoughts behind the internet was the quick, free exchange of thoughts and ideas. That philosophy has mostly carried forward as the internet has added users and services at a breakneck pace. What was once text has become graphics. What had been typing back and forth to a friend has become talking as clearly as on the phone and, if you have enough bandwidth, seeing the person to whom you're talking. What was having everything freely available, has become registering with the site or even paying for the access to the content. That has always bothered me.

There has been only one time that I have paid for content on the web. It's when I became a member of Consumer Reports as we were about to buy our house and were going to be purchasing everything that you need to get when you first have a home (appliances, lawn mower, grill, mini van - the necessities). I justified it by deciding that they provide a very valuable service to consumers and don't accept any advertising from companies to ensure that there is no question about their objectivity. Also, this proves that I'm a hypocrite. But I'm OK with that now.

Recently, however, I was faced with a dilemma. One of the websites that I have flat-out refused to pay for their content is the ESPN website. Sure, they have the majority of their articles up for free (thankfully, this includes the Sports Guy), but they also have their "exclusive" (read: pay for it) content as part of their "Insider" accounts. Mostly, it comes down to the fact that they've scoured the websites of local papers and provide it as "inside" information for the teams about which you may be interested. However, they also have their scouting reports for the drafts (NFL and NBA being the big ones to me) and other information about the teams from some of their columnists. At least, that's what they say they have. I've never actually looked since, like I mentioned, I don't pay for content, so I'm not an insider. I did, however, recently become a subscriber to ESPN the Magazine. I was disappointed that I missed the promotion that would have bundled my subscription with a month's supply of ESPN the Toilet Paper and ESPN the Bedsheets (thank you, Mel Brooks), but I was happy just to get the magazine. Interesting articles, good pictures of some of the biggest events, and even a page dedicated strictly to Mike and Mike. All things considered, pretty cool stuff. Then, in my latest issue of the magazine, I noticed a little blurb that stated that if I was an ESPN the Magazine subscriber, I also could get an Insider account for free. Now, I'm in a quandary. I'm opposed to the idea of paying for content on the internet, and if I used Insider, isn't that a tacit endorsement of paying for the content? At the same time, they already have my money, and they are, in essence, giving me Insider as an added bonus. It might not seem like a big deal, but to me, it kinda sorta is.

So, do I go ahead and use the service that's being provided to me? Do I stand on my perceived moral high ground? It's an interesting question (to me) with, really, no actual ramifications. After all, I've already admitted that I'm a hypocrite.