50 to 70 million a year in subscription revenue is probably chump change compared to the advertising revenue potential they can generate with the increased hits they will get if it's a free site. Think of all the big $$$ advertisers that would LOVE to pimp their stuff on The Journal's site. Besides Rupert needs the prestige/PR since everyone knows he's Dr. Evil and wants to control the entire planet. The Wall Street Journal is the epicenter of the global financial media complex and Rupert is well aware of that fact. Nothing is "free" in this world baby, don't forget it...

Yes, The New York Times figured it out a while back: You make more money from advertising with the increased traffic you get by going completely free, than you lose by not charging for subscriptions.

This lawsuit by Judith Regan could be interesting. I bet Murdoch would pay 50 million right now to make it go away.

As a current Wall Street Journal subscriber - I get both the paper and online versions - I think going to a free online version is a huge mistake. The current online version is not cluttered up with pop-ups and all sorts of ads that distarct from the information I want. I suspect there are other subscribers who feel the same way. I might also add the cost to get the Journal - both online and in paper version is hardly a budget breaker for the serious investor - $99.00 a year. (That's way less than what the BOREGONIAN charges for a newspaper that has a pathetic business section at best.

I agree that the WSJ should open up for free. As noted, the extra hits will gain them more ad dollars.

But, Jack, I think your Headline Writer has mislabled this post. Going free is not the same as going "open source".

Open Source is generally referred to when something becomes open and available for contributors to add to (and give up rights to the public community).

Whatever. They're giving up rights, that's for sure. Maybe they'll allow comments.