Paying to read NYTimes RE articles

Heh, you can also scroll the article in the background

Any article on the times can be googled and subsequently read. They get to claim increased search engine hits, which they use for advertising dollars. The WSJ and others do the same.

Just wondering why you wouldn't, as a matter of principle. want to pay the NYT for using their product. Do you also buy the paper at the newsstand?

Works both ways, The readers are also the New York Times product which they sell to advertising and marketing firms. Under your logic people should pay for facebook, google, etc.

Newspapers have always sold their readers to advertisers and marketers. That's what circulation numbers are for. Are you saying that the NYT should not charge for its product on the internet? Should it stop demanding payment for the paper at the newsstand? And if it decides to charge for its product on the internet and you choose to rip it off, are you not stealing?

Am curious about the "principal" on which you don't want to pay for the NYTimes. Do you work or provide goods or services for free? Yes, communications companies do make money on advertising, but not enough to offset the costs of staffing, production equipment, offices, insurance - the list goes on. Why shouldn't they be able to recover these expenses and profit from their efforts? On principal, you won't pay 55 cents a day for unlimited access to this resource? You'd prefer to figure out ways to get it without paying? Can you explain the principal, because I don't get it.

I think the point is that there is a lot available on the internet. They are looking at the business side and realizing that if they close off their website and charge they get more subscribers and money. For the most part it does not work, last time the times tried this and then reversed themselves. I do not see how it will be different this time as they are already offering deals far below the price they are asking.

While I think the times is great, does it really mean that i want to spend $200 a year to read a few articles a day?

A great deal of the content of the NY Times is not original content. And as long as they are making their content free via google searches, then it makes no sense to pay for visiting the site, unless one is arguing convenience.

You have evaded my questions, though. I'm not talking about sense, logic or your convenience. I'm asking you if you are stealing from the NYT if you rip off their content now that they've decided to charge for it online. The OP asked about ripping off Times articles. Those articles are "original content."

There are a lot of legal loopholes so really they are once again going after the small people. For instance I know that a large NYC hospital has a subscription, not sure what they pay or what the deal is exactly, but all employees are able to access if they log in through this hospitals server.

And if they are making their content available through google, then i would argue it is not illegal as they are providing the content for free to them and it is free for us to use google.

I guess I havn't hit my limit. I thought by now I would get some notification and I am in and out of there all the time. After the initial low price, it is supposed to be $19.95 per month? Tell me, if readership declines online as a result, what would the advertisers have to say? Stay tuned.

The news on Facebook is more fun than the stuff on NYT anyway.

I signed up...i don't want the hassle of cutting and pasting and looking on google for the article. I'm paying so little for the greatest newspaper in the world. Since I started paying I'm reading more articles than I used to.

Shouldn't there be an exception to the paywall for the real estate section? After all, it's advertising, not journalism.

I love that people on a site that's dedicated to the sale of multi-hundred-thousand-dollar, if not million-dollar, apartments, are trying to find loopholes in a system to avoid paying $200 a year.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Yes, they are selling their subscriptions to large institutions and companies that want their staff to have the Times online - what's the offense? And someone doesn't want to pay for the real estate section because it's advertising - but it's evidently important enough to want access to it? Bottom line: they're offering a product to consumers - at great effort. You may be able to access it without paying for it - even legally. But to not pay on "principle", per the original poster? What principle is that? What principle dictates that companies should provide goods/services to people for free? What work effort/product do you provide others for free?

hey sls, why are you grayed out?

Wb - really? interesting. maybe i've been a bad boy

sideline, you're not for me. Bottoms must have ignored you once upon a time.

Ali, it's just the schnorrer-fest that is SE. Nowhere else would anyone admit that they don't get the paper.

A change is hard for people to accept. Online times articles have been free for as long as I can remember. People are conditioned now to believe news over the web should be free .

The work around is easy, other news sources are abundant, cnn, reuters, bloomerg, etc. I don't think its illegal to google an article you want to read instead of signing up for an account. The times must know people are using this approach. Its hard to change people's mentality.

Just download NYTCLEAN into your favorites and when the messages comes up from the NY Times that you have reached your limit, run NYTCLEAN and you get 20 more views.

It's as simple as that.

The Times will probably find a work around soon, but for now it works.

my bad--cant imagine why i ignored you, sls

you were gray only for me, and are gray no longer

This really comes down to traditional media companies struggling to adapt to the changing face of media consumption. The NYT's distribution cost should be reduced with digital media and their potential readership has dramatically increased, this should allow them to make good money from advertising, just like many other website do. Lets face it when you have many great quality sources of free news it is going to be exceedingly difficult for anyone to convince readers to pay money for the privilege, in fact I don't think there is one example of a successful news media pay site.

Re: I love that people on a site that's dedicated to the sale of multi-hundred-thousand-dollar, if not million-dollar, apartments, are trying to find loopholes in a system to avoid paying $200 a year.

Best comment of the day.

Re: A great deal of the content of the NY Times is not original content.

Bonehead comment of the day.

here's a trick how to get all NYTimes crap articles for free....

since they publish all their crap free via mobile devices... when you find the article you want to read for free...

simply copy the title of the article and paste in google news search engine..

...voila, you get him for free and toss him out when you don't need him.

These are all wonderful strategies for someone whose opportunity cost is very, very low...

Pay up if you want the content and convenience - quality content is expensive to produce and the ad-supported model is not cutting it. More and more premium content companies are going to start adopting a hybrid approach and segmenting customers - some free content plus a subscription model for the heavier users. Better get used to it...

Why should ad support not cover it? Your potential readership has just gone from 8 million to 6 billion, that's huge!!!! It works for google, they have never charge for consumer level products, yet they make a vast sum from ads.

Seems to me media companies are afraid of change.

its not free to mobile devices any more (or soon won't be.) Its a paid app (or soon will be.)

Well today there were several news stories(JP Morgan earnings, Obama budget cuts, etc
Multiple news sources covered this, and perhaps did an equal or better job than the grey lady.
My feeling is the Times engages in very little true reporting and more or less reports what everyone else does and usually quoting the same sources or paying for third party content, so what the times is essentially offering is editorial organization and opinion.. oh and the cross word puzzle.

Then if its available everywhere else, you should not care that you can't get it there.

>I love that people on a site that's dedicated to the sale of multi-hundred-thousand-dollar,
>if not million-dollar, apartments, are trying to find loopholes in a system to avoid paying $200 a year.

Actually this site's devoted to the DISCUSSION of such things. Big difference for most folks here.

Me, I've stopped reading the NYT on the web for the time being, simply because it's odd suddenly to be expected to pay for something that I always got for free. I'm sure at some point I'll get a subscription (again, I mean), but for now I'm reading other newspapers online, reading the NYT a couple of times a week in coffee shops and libraries, and listening to the news from the BBC and NPR.

Then if its available everywhere else, you should not care that you can't get it there.
True, and for the occasional article I would want to read, the Times goes out of it's way to make it available for free via google search. Why would you pay money for what a provider gives for free?

" Why would you pay money for what a provider gives for free?"

Because you have no ethics?

It's unethical to google news?

As I understand it, Google and NYT have an agreement that you can have 5 free click-throughs a day into the new NYT pay wall from Google. IOW, the Times wants its advertisers to get their share of views. But once you start looking for ways to circumvent the wall after your free click-throughs, you're stealing content from the Times.

>>" Why would you pay money for what a provider gives for free?"

>Because you have no ethics?

Really?

Then shouldn't price discrimination be illegal? Why should one person be forced to pay more than another for the same thing? Why should students and seniors get a discount when the cost of production is irrelevant?