Heidi + R + 11

This article was of more interest to me, perhaps since it deals with websites and charging a price to view them. It was interested to see the comparison of websites and museums, and how one could charge admission to both. That similar museums could link together and offer an admission price to view all of them just as some museums do. I found that interesting a comparison could be drawn from museums to websites. Websites to me are often just large articles, or books online, a community to talk to and an artistic outlet. I do gather information online, but to me it should be free and easily accessed, if I came across something that cost me a fee, well I would put on my pirate hat and find a way to get it for free. The internet to me is tool to get information, a museum is a place to learn and interact with that information. I will pay the admission price to a museum because I understand the museum has the additional funds of paying security, maintenance, updating their shows, etc. A website has funds and fees are involved, but compared to taxes, electricity and what not the fees for a website are so minimal compared to a building such as a museum. I see no need in charging a fee for a website and I for one would not comply. I pay the fee to see the actual works in person, yes I can go look at any piece of art I want online, but to see it in person, to see the actual size, brush strokes and true color of it, is priceless and something I do not think a screen can depict. The website to me is an aid, it aids the museum, but should not take place of the museum, and is not near enough to the real thing to be charged to view.