New York Times Lock-Out
New York Times Lock-Out
#1New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 1:58pm
Whenever I try and look at anything on The New York Times website, I get the following message:
"20 FREE ARTICLES CAN ONLY TAKE YOU SO FAR."
"Take full advantage of the world’s finest news site — with exclusive video, audio and multimedia you won’t find anywhere else. Become a Digital Subscriber to The New York Times to keep up with the world. And your place in it."
Does anyone know how I can get round this please? It has been like this for 48 hours now.
#2New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 2:13pmSome car company (Acura, I think) underwrote the digital subscriptions for a lot of people for a year last December. You were probably one of them, and now it's run out, and you're limited to 20 pr month. Only way around it is to subscribe. I'm not planning on it myself. Too expensive and not worth it these days.
#2New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 3:12pm
Oh it's 20 per month, wow.
How do they know who you are?
SporkGoddess
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/27/05
#3New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 3:17pmIP address, probably. I thought NYT allows free sign-ups, though.
#4New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 3:31pm
No, it's not IP address, it's cookies. Just clear your cookies.
You might want to do that selectively and just clear those set by the Times. If you clear them all you might lose your settings on other sites you visit regularly.
Also, if you go to specific articles on the Times site though a link from another site, such as a blog or google, the 20 article per month limit isn't enforced.
This info is all over the net. I'm not revealing anything the Times has tried to keep secret.
Updated On: 12/17/11 at 03:31 PM
whatever2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/25/06
#5New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 8:26pm
the car company was Lincoln, fwiw.
and clearing those cookies in order to skirt the Grey Lady (that's a great title for ... something!!) is ethically ambiguous. some would call it stealing. fair play to you if you are untroubled by this (sincerely), but it's worth saying.
#6New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 8:33pmVariety only lets you read TWO articles a month if you're not subscribed.
#7New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 9:12pmI tried accessing via Google, I was still locked out.
#8New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 9:23pmGiven how it's almost impossible to move from one page to another without ad ad staring you in the face, I should think the Times can lift the subscription cost. The thing is practically wall to wall ads with minimal jouranlism — and any time you go to a new page, the ads load and load and load, while you sit there waiting for the damn article. Not worth it.
#9New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/17/11 at 9:28pmGo get the chrome or firefox add on called 'NYClean' - it's the 1st google result of it most likely. It clears your cookies for you just by pressing a button in your favorites bar.
ghostlight2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/5/04
#10New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/18/11 at 3:46pm
"clearing those cookies in order to skirt the Grey Lady (that's a great title for ... something!!) is ethically ambiguous. some would call it stealing. fair play to you if you are untroubled by this (sincerely), but it's worth saying."
"This info is all over the net. I'm not revealing anything the Times has tried to keep secret. "
What NoName said, Whatever. The Times knows this is happening. A digital subscription gives you far more than what is accessible during the regular channels. This isn't remotely an ethical issue for me.
ghostlight2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/5/04
whatever2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/25/06
#12New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/18/11 at 5:03pm
so, just for the sake of argument: if my corner bodega knows people steal flowers from out front, but chooses to display them there anyway, it's OK if i take some?
what is being urged here violates the Times' terms of service ... i deliberately characterized those actions as "ambigious" because both the provider and the users of the site are blazing new ground, but the particular justification you've proposed for such actions is facile and hollow. sorry.
ghostlight2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/5/04
#13New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/18/11 at 5:18pm
I don't think your comparison is very apt. The bodega pretty much has to display its flowers outside. The Times does not need to make itself available - if the Times wishes to close this loophole, it certainly has the ability to, but they want to dangle the carrot.
Also? I don't think anyone's urging anything.
Don't be sorry for expressing your opinion - I think this is an excellent question for The Ethicist, don't you?
Updated On: 12/18/11 at 05:18 PM
whatever2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/25/06
#14New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/18/11 at 5:24pm
i intentionally spoke in the passive voice ... working around the Times' limitations certainly is being urged in this thread -- there's even how-to.
I have to confess: I've actually thought of asking The Ethicist about this. He's touched on the general topic once before, but never explicitly on the implications of defeating the usage limits placed on the site. It certainly would challenge him!
My own imperfect compromise is this: I respect the 20 article limit, and don't blow out their cookie. After I've maxxed out for a given month, I google any headline I want to read and link to the article from the Google search results.
I can't decide if there's any material difference between what I do and what I avoid doing, but deleting the cookie somehow just feels less right to me.
ghostlight2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/5/04
#15New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/18/11 at 5:29pmFactor this in: I didn't even know this was an issue until recently. I've been subscribed to the Times digitally since they've offered it, but I have a habit of erasing my history - and thus my cookies) every couple of days. I've done what I've always done for years. They changed the rules and didn't tell me. Is it stealing if I didn't know it was stealing?
Markecib
Featured Actor Joined: 4/13/11
#16New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/18/11 at 6:17pmIf you get locked out on the times, just go to the URL you will see a "?" in it after the .html . Just delete the "?" and everything after it and hit enter. It should load then. Don't know why they haven't fixed this flaw.
#17New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/18/11 at 6:53pmI've been on the "free ride", and am now getting pop-ups saying my freebie expires end of December, and I can do a "trial 8-week subscription" for only $0.99. I'll probably do that, but will not subscribe at their regular digital rate.
whatever2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/25/06
#18New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/19/11 at 12:25am
I'd say that if it's your practice to blow out your cookies at regular intervals, that's a risk the Times accepted with the approach they've chosen.
Here's the thing: when the Times entered this brave new world (trying to capture value for their intellectual property), they had to make a series of compromises. One of those compromises was how restrictive to be in policing access. They had a range of options available to them; each one came with a trade-off. The one they've settled on -- for now -- seemed like the right middle ground ... yes, the Times knows there are ways around its rules, but the more restrictive options came with downsides that they deemed even less attractive.
(And if you think I'm pulling this stuff out of my arse, the Times' editors have said much the same in front page pieces and interviews.)
So, for me, if i'm intentionally skirting the Times' rules (by, say, deleting cookies or a question mark ), then it's on me; but if i'm following my age old security practice of scrubbing my history on a regular basis, or finding an alternate means to their content that they have sanctioned (a google search), then it's on them.
maybe the Times doesn't care ... maybe it's factored the behavior in question into its revenue models. i don't know, and
so i'm not judging others -- honest -- but i think that on a site dedicated to the promotion of the creative product it's worth reminding people that the Times has implemented these restrictions in an attempt to protect its creative product.
#19New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/19/11 at 2:26am
what is being urged here violates the Times' terms of service ... i deliberately characterized those actions as "ambigious" because both the provider and the users of the site are blazing new ground, but the particular justification you've proposed for such actions is facile and hollow. sorry.
Bullsh*t. You have every right to clear your history and/or cookies. If this happens to scoot around the filter that NYTimes has then it's their fault. Fix the loophole or not. It's that simple. Clearing your cookies is a hell of a lot easier than changing your IP and even then popping on a proxy will skirt away that issue too.
The only way they could get around it is by making NYTimes a program for your computer that's connected to the internet.
winston89
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/18/06
#20New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/19/11 at 2:33am
I can't say that I am sure that I agree with constant mindset of "why should I have to pay." To me it comes across as stealing. And, in any event just because you could delete your cookies on a constant basis doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Furthermore, the number of people who get The Times via a digital format is greater than those who go and get a physical copy of The Times. With that being said, if they didn't charge for digital access then things could be very different for them from what they are now.
Now, I just looked at their website for digital subscription rates. The most expensive once (the one that allows you access on their website, smartphone and tablet) is roughly 9 bucks a month. That isn't really that much over time.
I guess that I feel as strongly as I do against this because I am all in favor of donating financially to that which I strongly support. And, The Times is one of those things. Furthermore, everyone in my family doesn't pay for digital access for The Times. Reason being is that if you're a home subscriber then you get digital access at no cost. But, even then, The Times is still getting money for its services rather then anyone trying to get it for free.
ghostlight2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/5/04
#21New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/19/11 at 4:53am
"I can't say that I am sure that I agree with constant mindset of "why should I have to pay." To me it comes across as stealing. And, in any event just because you could delete your cookies on a constant basis doesn't make it the right thing to do."
And if you already do? Are you suggesting I should police myself and stop after I've read 20 articles, despite the fact I've never received a prompt for payment? I'm with Sean Martin here. Not only have I done nothing wrong, the Times is more than compensated by its ads. If you subscribe (as they did ask if I would be interested at one point), you get options that are not available for free in any way. I declined the extras. If you want them, pay for them. In the meantime, I'm doing what I always have done.
#22New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/19/11 at 5:11am
A lot of libraries have access to subscription-only magazines/journals/papers/etc. The libraries are often free to join, especially local ones, and allow you to access the content remotely. Just check out their respective catalogues online before you sign up and you know what you can access.
Updated On: 12/19/11 at 05:11 AM
winston89
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/18/06
#23New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/19/11 at 6:19am
ghostlight2,
Yes, there are ads on The Time's website. There are also ads in any hardcopy of the newspaper itself. So, based upon what you're saying, because they have ads in it doesn't mean that I have to pay for it? So. with that logic its totally okay for me to walk past the newsstand during my morning commute and pick up and walk away with a copy of The Times? After all, why should I have to pay for it, there are ads there, right?
whatever2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/25/06
#24New York Times Lock-Out
Posted: 12/19/11 at 8:58am
theaterfan: in ethics, as in life, intent matters. if your intent in clearing your cookies is to deprive the Times of revenue in violation of the terms under which it has chosen to make its product available to you, then "ambiguous" is a fine word to describe that conduct.
if on the other hand, as you say, you just so happen to scoot around their rules as a result of your routine browsing practices, i agree that is their problem.
again, the Times has evaluated and for their own good reasons rejected more draconian options (for now) ... they probably anticipcated "scooters" when they made their decisions. but what the Times does or doesnt do to police its policy says NOTHING about the ethics of the scooting.
as for the ad revenues, please let's not lose sight of the fact that the Grey Lady is drowning in a sea of red ink -- it's trying to figure out whether it can make a subscription model work out of necessity, not choice.
Videos