New York Times - Page 2

[kdogg36]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 12:30pm

Just to defend the google method a bit, here's what the New York Times website has to say about it:

"Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles."

I just can't see how it's dishonest or even shady to access articles this way when the Times acknowledges and explicitly permits it. (I gather that there's a page limit even through search engines, but I've never hit that limit and would not seek to thwart it if I did.)


A Letter to Our Readers About Digital Subscriptions Updated On: 7/14/13 at 12:30 PM

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 1:30pm

Kad - I have lived out of NY for over 20 years now. I would never pay the price to get the NY Times delivered to NC and so read it on line (10 articles). If the NY Times as well as other newpapers are willing to give 10 free articles I will take advantage of it. If I needed a suscription to read any NY Times article than I would not go to their web site any longer. When I was in NYC over the Memorial day weekend, I was very happy to buy the Sunday NY Times.

[whatever2]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 2:46pm

on the google method: as i said, i agree it's a grey area. the method exists becomes the vendor is still "refining its model" -- i.e., trying to balance the advantages of being discoverable on google against the disadvantages of people using it to do an end run around the limits they've imposed on free use. like most new media revenue experiments, it's still a work-in-progress. but it's a safe bet that as soon as they can figure out a way to maintain discoverability while blocking free riders the google method will disappear.

using the google method is exploiting a known weakness to circumvent the paywall. that it is *known* doesn't give the user a get-out-of-jail free ... intent matters and the intent here is to sneak in through the back door. my guess is it's not illegal, but i still maintain that someone who cares about the underlying principle should have at least a few qualms!

[Addison D.]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 2:55pm

"...intent matters and the intent here is to sneak in through the back door. my guess is it's not illegal, but i still maintain that someone who cares about the underlying principle should have at least a few qualms!"

Agreed 100%. Presumably, people are seeking access to NYT articles rather than those of the NYPost or USA Today because they value the quality of the product. That quality is the result of a variety factors--maintaining decent staffing levels, supporting writers for the time it takes to research a story adequately, etc.--that cost money.

Consumers of the NYT should be eager to support the Grey Lady with their dollars, not scheming on ways to rip Her off.

(And isn't this thread better-suited to the OT board?)

[kdogg36]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 4:07pm

I'll make this my last post here, since we are off topic and I've been a part of that! However, as noted above, the policies outlined on the New York Times website explicitly mention the availability of articles found on search engines. I do have a well-formed conscience when it comes to respecting intellectual property, but in the apparent absence of any objection from the content owner, I really don't have any qualms about accessing New York Times content using this method. I don't even consider it a "loophole": I learned about it directly from the content provider, after all.

[pacificnorthwest]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 5:10pm

As someone who works with the media industry, I see no problem accessing articles through search engines; the Times could easily make them unavailable, as many papers do, with a pop-up box requiring you to sign in or pay.

Having said that, I certainly support the paywall for the site itself. Can't remember which poster I copied this from (gee, now I'm stealing intellectual property without attribution) but this sums it up well:

"...violating a content creator's terms of service is theft of his/her/its intellectual property, plain and simple. it is baffling and disheartening that something so basic is subject to debate on an ARTS message board of all places."

[billis2]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 5:30pm

I don't think there's anything wrong with using search engines to access the Times website, either. If they didn't like it, they would have set it up differently.

I don't think it's any different than someone doing student rush who has a lot of money. They're still following the rules

[lovebwy]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 6:07pm

I say take as much as you can. I got rid of cable a long time ago and I see all the cable shows I want for free and I haven't seen a commercial in over two years.

Same goes for music. Fact is, these people lived high on the hog on my dime for years and years. I have no guilt.



Updated On: 7/14/13 at 06:07 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 7:53pm

i'm not sure i agree this is off-topic ... the underlying principles are mighty important to the livelihoods of many artists we post about day in and day out.

kdogg: your position clearly is deeply-considered, and i really do believe the particular issue falls in a grey area. but i do think your conclusion overlooks an important point: the Times has chosen to allow linking from search engines because it has determined that the pluses from having its content more discoverable by those search engines outweigh the minuses from having its content poached. they may be right, they may be wrong -- it's their chance to take, and yours to exploit.

that doesn't automatically make your exploitation ethical, however. do you REALLY think the NYT went to the expense of creating a paywall and then intentionally spoon-fed you a work around? if that seems unlikely to you -- and lord knows, it's illogical enough that it should -- then i submit you need to be open to the possibility that they created the "vulnerability" for some other reason. in which case, your end run probably is legal but may not be honorable.

maybe this really should be submitted to their Ethicist?!?

[capnkidd]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 8:22pm

"do you REALLY think the NYT went to the expense of creating a paywall and then intentionally spoon-fed you a work around?"

Actually, I believe that's EXACTLY what they did. They're seeing how far they can go pushing the paywall without losing readership. That's not to say they want you to utilize the loopholes, but they are well aware of them and I believe will eventually close them all.

As I've said, when they closed the cookie loophole, that was the point I decided to pay. I'm not going to hassle around googling their articles to get them for free when I can just read any damn thing I want by buying the (again, very reasonable) subscription. Gets you access to the archives as well.

"maybe this really should be submitted to their Ethicist?!? "

I think that's a great idea, though I wonder if he'd recuse himself. Either way, I'm almost certain his answer wouldn't be:

"I say take as much as you can. I got rid of cable a long time ago and I see all the cable shows I want for free and I haven't seen a commercial in over two years.

Same goes for music. Fact is, these people lived high on the hog on my dime for years and years. I have no guilt."

These are the words of a proud and unconscionable (literal) thief. The acts described are illegal. Those "people" aren't living "high on the hog on your dime", they are being paid for their hard work, that you are now stealing. Your beloved LuPone would NOT approve.

May plagues of viruses invade all of your electronic devices.

[whatever2]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 9:09pm

capnkidd: great post ... two concerns:

> seeing how far they can go pushing the paywall without losing readership.

that's not why the "loophole" exists at all, imho. it exists because they're still trying to figure out how to weigh the benefits of being discoverable by the search engines (discoverability is the holy grail if you're in the paid content business -- please don't underestimate this) against the financial losses from end-runners. frankly, under the model they're working toward, if you're not part of their paid readership they've already lost you.

> believe will eventually close them all.

you betchya ... the very same day they figure out how to box the end-runner out and still remain FULLY discoverable. which is exactly why the end-run is (ethically if not legally) ambiguous: the work-around doesn't exist for the end-runner's benefit.

and thank you for explaining the obvious to lovebwy better than i possibly could have!

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 9:30pm

I'd like to know how many of the holier-than-thou brigade criticizing the OP own bootlegs.

[capnkidd]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 9:43pm

I don't.

How about you? Do you think it's ok to own bootlegs? Pirate TV shows, movies, music? Other people's work in general?

Or did you just come here to denigrate those of us who take exception to thievery?

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 9:44pm

"I say take as much as you can. I got rid of cable a long time ago and I see all the cable shows I want for free and I haven't seen a commercial in over two years.

Same goes for music. Fact is, these people lived high on the hog on my dime for years and years. I have no guilt."

Before I properly respond to this comment, would you mind enlightening me on your current occupation? That will influence my response.

[Addison D.]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 10:10pm

Thoughts on several recent posts here:

"i'm not sure i agree this is off-topic ... the underlying principles are mighty important to the livelihoods of many artists we post about day in and day out."

You make a good point; I withdraw my comment suggesting this is an OT thread topic.

"I'd like to know how many of the holier-than-thou brigade criticizing the OP own bootlegs."

I do not own boot-leg recordings. In the same way that I want to do my share to ensure that the NY Times will always be there, doing it's job, I want to do my share to support the theater community whose work I value and esteem so highly. I see no difference between owning a bootleg copy of a commercially-available recording and stealing a copy of that recording.

If you make, share or own bootleg recordings, I do, in fact, consider myself to be holier than you.

"I have no guilt."

Are you aware that the inability to empathize with others and/or feel guilt about one's actions is part of the definition of a Sociopath?

Liza's headband--I'm going to guess his "occupation" is high school or college student. His comment rings with the smug confidence of Callow Youth.

Updated On: 7/14/13 at 10:10 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 10:49pm

mordav, what I inferred from your lengthy diatribe was a sarcastic attempt to make those of us who are honest and don't try get something for nothing, foolish for criticizing the OP.

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 10:51pm

[lovebwy]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:25pm

THANK YOU Fosse76. You go!

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:28pm

Addi, I figured as much.

lovebwy, you did not answer my question. Kindly answer when you have a moment. It's the only way to have a fair discussion on this.

[lovebwy]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:33pm

Headband, I'm in academia.

Believe me, none of these people are starving. Most of them live in the Hills of Beverly while I'm stuck here in the flats, BABY!!!

Updated On: 7/14/13 at 11:33 PM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:49pm

So, "academia" translates to high school student? Kay. Got it. Makes so much sense now.

If you ever venturing into selling any kind of "academia" product (study guides, text books) or general intellectual property (art, music, etc.) we'll see how you feel about this issue then. I'm sure you'll be all for the illegal downloads and photocopies?

Why should I have to pay you for your work?

[logan2]

Posted: 7/14/13 at 11:55pm

To by-pass the NY Times subscription thingy, just hit your x button before the page fully loads and shows that message saying you have maxed out your 10 free articles.

I, of course, have never done this personally. I just steal my neighbor's paper because it takes him a while to collect it since he's in a wheelchair.

[lovebwy]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:02am

LOL Logan you're a pistol!

[Addison D.]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:07am

" I just steal my neighbor's paper because it takes him a while to collect it since he's in a wheelchair."

Well--sure; that's just being a New Yorker.

If s/he's not smart enough to get up early and secure his paper, it's his/her own fault.

[logan2]

Posted: 7/15/13 at 12:15am

Addison, I'm in Texas honey - just lucky enough to live near an effete Drama teacher who is in the advance stages of polio.

Updated On: 7/15/13 at 12:15 AM