Still tracking the trail of paywalls and other schemes for charging for content (mostly out of curiousity…sort of like watching a demolition derby), this explanation came to my attention from Chuck Peters. 

The falacy of print news believing any form of a paywall (and, yes, ViewPass is just another form of a paywall) would provide long-term encouragment to consumers to fork over their money is so apparent.  I won’t repeat myself here, but I will make the prediction that the average consumer will care no more or less about ViewPass as they would if newspaper made the collective decision to erect their own individual paywalls. Ladies and gentlemen, it is the exact same effect on the consumer – that being money out of their pocket for something that was free and, GASP!, will still be free on plenty of other non-newspaper sites.  Call it what you want, band together like a bunch of dodo birds, but it is still a pay wall and it is short-sighted.  Face it, the consumers have allies in this situation and they take the form of all the television news sites, the independent news sites (including some newspapers), and a host of new aggregation services.  Your flanks are exposed and, no matter what you call your defensive tactics, your are already in enfilade.  Doubt me?  Ask the telephone companies about the measurable bit broadband telephone has taken out of their revenue pies and then ask yourself why the consumers have taken that path.  Hint: believing your hold an audience hostage when you do not.

So, here it is – my prediction.  A pay wall will go up and it might be called ViewPass or just Bill.  It matters little because it will only go down in history as the self-chosen cyanide through which a large number of newspapers killed themselves.