Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New York Times Paywall Goes Live, Loopholes Abound

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the not-a-wall-so-much-as-a-hurdle dept.

The Internet 127

RedEaredSlider writes "As the New York Times' new paywall went live this afternoon at 2 p.m., discussion of the move has made the natural transition to methods of bypassing it. As expected, a number of loopholes and hacks have appeared. One of the more notorious methods appeared almost instantly. Using a Twitter account named @FreeNYT, an anonymous user aggregated every article the newspaper posted to Twitter. The site caught The Times' notice and before long, The Times requested that Twitter suspend the account, arguing that it violated its trademark. Another loophole uses four lines of CSS and JavaScript. Canadian developer David Hayes managed to strip the Times' website of any mention of digital subscriptions in addition to getting past the paywall. The hack was released in the form of NYTClean, a bookmarklet easily added to web browsers." It's likely that the paywall is deliberately porous; as paywalls go, it's a relatively unrestrictive one. Readers referred from search or other sites are unlikely to notice a difference. Workarounds at least keep readers on their site.

cancel ×

127 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh (2, Interesting)

mikaelg (2028366) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644752)

I don't think they really care about workarounds. Most casual users wont bother with those but will buy a subscription if they feel like it's worth it. I wouldn't pay for NYT, but I sure could pay for a newspaper or a writer who I think is writing interestingly, informatively or studies the case. This is especially true on things like business and computer stuff, not so much everyday news.

Get a sunday subscription, it's cheaper. (2)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644972)

for $3.75/week you can get a sunday NY paper delivered in the US, and that gives you a free on-line subscription. By itself the on-line subscription is 3.50/week. SO for less than the postage you get the delightful dead tree version too.

Re:Get a sunday subscription, it's cheaper. (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645118)

"SO for less than the postage you get the delightful dead tree version too."

Don't forget that for less than the postage you also get the hassle of disposing of it.

Re:Get a sunday subscription, it's cheaper. (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646508)

Don't forget that for less than the postage you also get the use of the paper itself for garden mulch, lining cages, making papier mache with your kids, etc.

Fixed.

Re:Get a sunday subscription, it's cheaper. (0)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647156)

I don't use paper mulch in the garden, the pets don't like newspaper as litter as it has poor absorbency (let alone the mess the ink causes) and being responsible no crotchfruit that require diversions. So not fixed, still a hassle.

Re:Get a sunday subscription, it's cheaper. (3, Informative)

rfunches (800928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646036)

for $3.75/week you can get a sunday NY paper delivered in the US, and that gives you a free on-line subscription. By itself the on-line subscription is 3.50/week. SO for less than the postage you get the delightful dead tree version too.

I thought about that too, until I found out that for the D.C. metro area, that's the intro price and only good for 8-12 weeks. After that, it doubles to $7.50/wk. Last time I checked -- granted, it was several years ago -- the newsstand price for the Sunday NYT was only $5.00. (In my case, since I own a smartphone but no tablet, I would be better off taking the Sunday NYT for 12 weeks, then switching to digital.) I'd be curious to know what the NY/NJ/"home area" rate is compared to D.C., or if other parts of the country have cheaper "standard" rates.

NYT paywall hack fits inside twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645012)

$('overlay').hide(); $('gatewayCreative').hide(); $(document.body).setStyle( { overflow:'scroll' } );

Re:NYT paywall hack fits inside twitter (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645344)

My phone's SMS client is just ignoring that.

Re:NYT paywall hack fits inside twitter (1)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647648)

Assumes jQuery is built into your browser. That's a stretch.

I do wonder if... (3, Funny)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645978)

There will be an article in the NYT about how easy it is to bypass the NYT paywall

that would be entertaining

No different that getting around WSJ (2)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646064)

Googling the story title will usually reveal the whole story minus the subscription notice.

Other sites that require simple registration can usually be circumvented with sites like bugmenot.

All in all, their attempts to embargo information will not easily be met unless those who produce the browsers and possibly the operating systems cooperate. In closed environments, iOs is a great example, they will have much better luck but even then as long as the support browsers in those environments ways abound.

"please do not submit logins for paid services" (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647752)

Other sites that require simple registration can usually be circumvented with sites like bugmenot.

Other sites, yes, but not this one. From BugMeNot's submission page [bugmenot.com] : "Likewise, please do not submit logins for paid services."

your mom (0, Offtopic)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644772)

your mom, It's likely that your mom is deliberately porous; as moms go, it's a relatively unrestrictive one.

Re:your mom (0)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644794)

I deeply apologize, I just drank a beer and could not resist this easy joke

Re:your mom (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644810)

I just drank a beer

I doubt it.

Re:your mom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644866)

It is true, I lied: I did not drank my postwork beer yet but I did smoked my postwork joint

Re:your mom (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646446)

mmm post work bong.

Re:your mom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645128)

Next time, go for a funny one instead.

Re:your mom (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646226)

more like you forgot to tick anon and are now justifying your fail joke.

Oh Noes!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644780)

But where will I get my hard-hitting journalism from now? If only there were another, free way to get the news.

Re:Oh Noes!!!! (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645030)

But where will I get my hard-hitting journalism from now?

The Washington Post.. The other left wing rag..

Re:Oh Noes!!!! (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645090)

If by "hard-hitting" you mean they repost everything the White House says as fact and refuse to call waterboarding "torture" when it's done by the US, then yes. The NYT is very "hard-hitting" indeed.

Re:Oh Noes!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645190)

Either that, or the fact that they've won more Pulitzer Prizes than any other news organization.

Re:Oh Noes!!!! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645374)

I just looked at the Pulitzer code, and the NYT is the default case. Someone should open a change request.

Re:Oh Noes!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645394)

Either that, or the fact that they've won more Pulitzer Prizes than any other news organization.

Has Glenn Beck won any? No? Obviously they're just another crooked socialist organization. Just looked it up: administered by leftist Columbia University in NY. Marxism. George Soros. ObamaCare.

Did I miss any keywords?

Re:Oh Noes!!!! (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647082)

Communism and authoritarianism.

Re:Oh Noes!!!! (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645722)

Either that, or the fact that they've won more Pulitzer Prizes than any other news organization.

And how many of those were for stories that were blatantly false? I know of two off of the top of my head. A Pulitzer prize only means that you told a good story that promoted the agenda shared by most reporters and passed it off as news.

And NYT's readership goes up... (2)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644784)

...and they actually gain money from ad revenue, thanks to all the extra hubbub about their paywall. People ask themselves, "just what is so good about this news that people are willing to do anything to read it? Maybe I should check it out."

Re:And NYT's readership goes up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644984)

Citation Needed

Re:And NYT's readership goes up... (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645062)

Or the readership goes down, as causal users encounter an obstacle and just browse to another site. Interested users, ones who actually might pay, just see how easy it is to bypass the wall and so have no incentive to pay. It's the worst of both worlds.

Re:And NYT's readership goes up... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645410)

Uh, yeah. For about 8 minutes. Then the hubbub is gone and they're not getting any subscription revenue and part of their readership isn't showing up because it can't get the hack to work to get them through the paywall so their ad revenue projections come in way low.

NYT paywall is #fail of the year in the narrow category of online journalistic monetization. But nothing like Japanese reactor shutdown procedures, which are likely to hold the overall title to the end of the century.

Re:And NYT's readership goes up... (2)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646052)

"But nothing like Japanese reactor shutdown procedures, which are likely to hold the overall title to the end of the century."
umm i don't exactly see the FAIL here

1 the reactors were "end of life" anyway
2 they got hit by events OUTSIDE the plans (quick name me all of the quakes in that region 0.5 points below what they got hit with and greater)
3 the reactors did in fact get shutdown
4 the cores are more or less intact (but are of course now glowy scrap metal)

5 didn't they in fact restart one of the reactors (the one that was least damaged)??

Re:And NYT's readership goes up... (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648156)

they got hit by events OUTSIDE the plans

Yes, not having any plan for the obvious in Japan would be the #fail.

Re:And NYT's readership goes up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649192)

RIP, NYT :)

Pay Hedge (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644796)

The genius of the Times approach is that it actually might work because of the weaknesses. Instead of a pay wall that everyone would be striving to scale, they have a "pay hedge" where passers-by can see over, and view whatever they like. Only if they wish to stay a while and drink the tasty NYT lemonade (or kool-aid if you prefer) need they fork over some money to enter through the purely ornamental gate.

The other component the Times has to get right is pricing, and charge an amount of money that people think is fair for entering. But at least the Times is getting the part right about how to ask for money while still maintaining a presence on the web instead of going dark to casual readers. All else is just negotiating the right price with readers.

Re:Pay Hedge (1)

wile_e8 (958263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644932)

Uh, yeah, except the hedge has so many holes in it that people can continue coming in to drink the lemonade for free. If the Times notices that someone has had too many drinks this visit, they just have to change their hat and they can start drinking again.

Re:Pay Hedge (1)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645072)

Uh, yeah, except the hedge has so many holes in it that people can continue coming in to drink the lemonade for free. If the Times notices that someone has had too many drinks this visit, they just have to change their hat and they can start drinking again.

And yet people still give out free samples at supermarkets (and especially Costco).

Look, the point of this isn't to get the 0.1-1% of people who will go into the garden attempting to steal the lawn ornaments; it's to entice the other 99% to maybe kick in a few bucks for a membership, and make some extra money that way, while still not keeping people out who just want to visit. It's an intriguing idea, and I'd love to see data over the next few months/year about how well it does. If it goes well, the NYTimes may have just found the ideal balance for attracting customers and still getting a critical mass of those people to pay; if not, well, they've still got the ad revenue.

Re:Pay Hedge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645094)

Adobe's Photoshop is also minimally protected, yet it retains a dominant position in the industry.

It is arguable the the ease of pirating the software increases it's dominance because it has become "The Standard" in the industry.

Re:Pay Hedge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649340)

Companies must purchase copies of Adobe Photoshop instead of using pirated, they would risk too much. NYT is an entirely different target audience.

People pay for what they like (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645218)

Uh, yeah, except the hedge has so many holes in it that people can continue coming in to drink the lemonade for free.

That's why I called it a hedge with an ornamental gate. Because anyone can just step over the hedge.

Yes anyone CAN. But the whole point is that most people do want to pay for content they enjoy, a fact Apple has proved beyond all doubt. I can obtain any music, and video content for free. But if there is a way to buy it I will do so despite that being the case.

So that's why the NYT simply needs to come to a price where those willing and able to pay will find it easy to do so. Then some might step over the hedge but may will not, and that is what you build a business on. Trusting your customers.

Wall Street Journal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645066)

The Wall Street Journal has been doing that for years quite successfully.

It sure took the NYT long enough.

Re:Pay Hedge (3, Interesting)

euri.ca (984408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645348)

Agreed, the price comparison the NYT used was "$15, less that the price of a martini in Manhattan," they aren't targeting people who are willing to twiddle with their browsers, they. (I tried to say as much on my 3 minutes on NPR this morning when they asked me about this)

Re:Pay Hedge (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645442)

The WSJ and other former print mavens have been using the above-the-fold-is-free model for a long time. I have never felt the need to issue coin to them to see what they've got next to the Gold Coin ads inside.

Re:Pay Hedge (1)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647150)

Except instead of losing the favor of those in front of the wall, it lose the favor of those behind it. If you actually pay hard earned money for full access you feel like a chump.

To me it simply emphasizes that the content isn't worth paying for.

The price makes no sense (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647956)

I might be inclined to pay for the NYT, but at $3.75/week its ridiculous considering they (a) don't have to print it (b) they don't have to deliver it.

Cut the price by 50%.

They *want* people to read it (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648102)

The free-market economic model misses the point. They're not in the business *just* to make money.

The NYT is run by journalists. They *want* people to read their stories.

Especially when they've worked for months on a big important expose that can demonstrate that they're not (always) craven apologists for power and wealth.

They still take pride in the Pentagon Papers. They went to the fucking Supreme Court with that and won. (Today with the Republican Supreme Court, they probably would have lost.)

Sure, they want to make money. They want to pay for their huge staff of journalists all over the world, they want to pay editors enough to live in Manhattan, they want to hire new people to play with the Internet, they want to be able to pick up and fly to Japan, they want to pay for amazingly expensive bureaus in war zones.

At the executive and star-reporter level, they're also used to a certain luxury that the rest of us may not be that familiar with.

But when you look at the way they've run the newspaper, they haven't maximized their income. The Sulzberger family didn't sell out to Rupert Murdoch for the highest bid the way the Wall Street Journal's Bancroft family did.

And they do a pretty good job, about half the time. Yeah, they bought the whole Iraq war scam (although there were reporters whose stories wound up buried in the middle of the paper who told you what was really going on if you looked for it). Yeah, they grovel before wealth, power and advertisers a lot of the time. But they also exposed the Chinese pharmaceutical industry, a lot of worker safety outrages, the CIA's overthrow of half a dozen democratic governments (usually too late to do anything about it, but whatever). They exposed Giuliani's lies some of the time. They do a pretty good job of covering welfare and education. They gave a good job to a few reporters for a few years who pushed the limits and finally left. Take a look at the NYT reporters and ex-reporters who appear on http://www.democracynow.org./ [www.democracynow.org]

Anyway, who does a better job?

But the point is that these are people who want people to read their stories, as many people as possible. If they can get more people to read the paper for a little less money, they'll do it. If they can leave a back door open for people to get in around the paywall, it doesn't bother them too much.

Re:Pay Hedge (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648496)

The genius of the Times approach is that it actually might work because of the weaknesses. Instead of a pay wall that everyone would be striving to scale, they have a "pay hedge" where passers-by can see over, and view whatever they like. Only if they wish to stay a while and drink the tasty NYT lemonade (or kool-aid if you prefer) need they fork over some money to enter through the purely ornamental gate.

Why would I want to when I can get the same news for free from other sources?

As long as things like the BBC and ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) have a mandate to provide free news pay walls will never work. All they will do is consolidate readers into sources that are not pay walled.

Pay walls will make people close that tab, if they want to know about the article, they'll google it and find a free alternative. The only organisations who could possibly benefit from pay walls are those "news" organisations who don't provide news as much as a comforting blanket of skewed information to people who don't want their views challenged. Although I'd stand to say even Fox News would decimate their readership by putting up a paywall.

Because they like the product (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648724)

Why would I want to when I can get the same news for free from other sources?

For the same reason you go anyplace to get something when you can go somewhere else for the same thing.

Because you like how its done better there.

I actually am indifferent to the NYT. But there are a lot of people that like the columnists and reporting there.

Yes you can get pure news from a lot of places but not quite like the Times does it. So they are banking on people to support the NYT because of the brand, more than just a basic need for news.

Re:Because they like the product (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649452)

For the same reason you go anyplace to get something when you can go somewhere else for the same thing.

Because you like how its done better there.

I consider quoting myself to be a bit pretentious but anyway, I pointed that out in my GP post.

The only organisations who could possibly benefit from pay walls are those "news" organisations who don't provide news as much as a comforting blanket of skewed information to people who don't want their views challenged.

For all products, a large number of people are not using your product exclusively. There is typically a lot of competition. Take washing powder, I've used the same one for years now, but if the price of BioZet shot up, why would I not change to a competing brand?

What would make the "news" industry any different?

Real world numbers of fanboys (lets face it, they are exactly what we are talking about here) are actually very low. Brand loyalty is very weak in the overwhelming majority of people. Few people would ever be above changing a product if it inconvenienced them, the larger the inconvenience the less likely people will return. Look at how Gawker lost readers with a bad UI change, annoy people and they will go elsewhere.

I think any US "news" agency looking to use pay walls will quickly decimate their readership. In Europe and Asia, readership would be obliterated.

Value? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644816)

What value are they trying to charge for? Is it out of force of habit from their previous business model? Yeah, advertising on a web-page may not seem like a viable business model profit-wise for them but the world has moved on: accept advertisements of smaller dollars because the fat subscription days are over. I will not pay for the New York Times. There is no value in it for me.

Re:Value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35644982)

What value are they trying to charge for? Is it out of force of habit from their previous business model? Yeah, advertising on a web-page may not seem like a viable business model profit-wise for them but the world has moved on: accept advertisements of smaller dollars because the fat subscription days are over.

You act like newspapers haven't been getting advertising dollars when in reality, that has been part of their model for as long as I've ever read a paper.

I will not pay for the New York Times. There is no value in it for me.

Sounds like the advertisers there better not worry about you then, because you have no reason to go there.

Re:Value? (2, Interesting)

welcher (850511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645018)

Uh, the value they are charging for is the reporting they do with a staff of about 2000 journalists. A lot of people value that and quite rightly so.

Re:Value? (1)

pankajmay (1559865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645024)

I do subscribe to the NYT and personally I feel, I do get a value out of the subscription. YMMV.

Their Sunday and Friday editions are enough to justify the price I pay to them, and I have found that they always keep me informed about the changes in their policies along with their justification.

Frankly speaking my customer experience with them has been rather satisfactory and quite a refreshing change from various different websites that take my data and impose arbitrary "shove it in your face, accept our brand-new-redesign-that-we-will-impose-on-you-anyway" attitude.

The Times is amazing to just chill with a cup of coffee in the sunlight lazing on a Sunday morning. The articles usually are thought-provoking with an elevated conversation level that is intellectual, simple, and complete -- a very satisfying experience after the cacophony of @juvenile LOL tweets, facebook "me-too" posts, and brain-dead txt msgs. Just for that, I am glad to be a paying customer and the reason why in spite of being only a poor student, I do subscribe to NYT and make sure to donate to NPR.

Re:Value? (1)

justin12345 (846440) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645738)

News is like porn. There are so many sources giving it out for free, unless there is something really specific you are looking for it's not worth paying. Oh and they are both usually about people getting fucked.

4 lines of JS... (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644836)

NYT probably has to keep the full page intact as opposed to keeping it from loading entirely, because otherwise Google's crawler would only be able to index 25 articles per month. Then they would start treating the Googlebot differently, and as that is against the TOS, Google would block their site.

So instead they serve the same pages, knowing Googlebot doesn't care about JS (hey, does disabling JS break the paywall?). So they adhere to the letter of Google's TOS and go against the spirit, which I'm sure they're fine with.

Re:4 lines of JS... (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644848)

Addendum: Wait, NYT actually allows Google referrers anyway, don't they? Ah oh well I thought it was a good theory.

Re:4 lines of JS... (5, Informative)

euri.ca (984408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645386)

Yes, disabling JavaScript stops the paywall, so does disabling cookies or referrer spoofing. The only reason the media cares about my hack is the narrative of "3 lines of code over my lunch break" is more interesting than "the paywall doesn't work with certain browser settings".

Re:4 lines of JS... (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647142)

One is almost immediately drawn to wonder if this "hack" could be considered a circumvention mechanism under the DMCA. I wonder if NYT will start sending takedown notices...

Re:4 lines of JS... (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649204)

What? I never browse untrusted sites with .js on, anyway. :)

Compare Google Scholar (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647802)

Then they would start treating the Googlebot differently, and as that is against the TOS, Google would block their site.

Giving Googlebot a complimentary subscription isn't against the TOS if your publication is part of the Google Scholar program. I've had dozens of Google searches whose result pages were filled with articles behind the Elsevier, Wiley, SpringerLink, and JSTOR paywalls.

meh. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644872)

Why bother?

More Or Less, Yeah (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646196)

The only "work-around" I'd be inclined to install would be a DNS blackhole to make sure that I don't accidentally click on one of their links. It's not like there aren't other news outlets, and they all have the same or better quality stuff. I'd just as soon let their advertisers know in no uncertain terms that they're not getting my views or my clicks from that site. They can keep their paywall.

Not that interested (3)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35644924)

If the NY Times want to make themselves pay only I'm not going to go to the effort of bypassing anything or breaking any laws to read their content. I just don't care that much. Let them fade into insignificance as people get their news elsewhere.

Re:Not that interested (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645008)

True. I've already set Google News to display as few NYT stories as possible.

Re:Not that interested (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645032)

Let them fade into insignificance as people get their news elsewhere.

Seriously! Who needs news bureaus and reporters. We gots Reddit!

.

Re:Not that interested (1)

welcher (850511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645034)

It was conceived as a "porous wall". You can still read it as a casual user without bypassing anything.

Re:Not that interested (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645702)

It was conceived as a "porous wall". You can still read it as a casual user without bypassing anything.

Oh you mean a sieve...as in leaks like a....well in that case mission accomplished as this story proves.

Do not upgrade iPhone App (1)

Pausanias (681077) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645006)

As long as you do not upgrade iPhone up to 3.0.0, it appears that the paywall is basically failing to materialize on the iPhone. Yipee!

LOL, they somehow failed to mention "implements paywall" in the latest iPhone app changelog alongside all the other features.

Re:Do not upgrade iPhone App (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645140)

Good to know. I expected this very thing.

However, whenever I check for app updates I'll never be able to use the "Update All" button and have to update all my other apps individually, and that annoying little "1" is always going to be there.

Anyone know how to fix this without updating the NYTimes app? (Without jailbreaking your phone?)

Re:Do not upgrade iPhone App (1)

Pausanias (681077) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645256)

"There's an app for that" if you jailbreak, but not without, LOL.

Re:Do not upgrade iPhone App (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35646294)

Well, if you were running Maemo, you'd have a full apt system, so you'd just pin that package, same as you would on your Debian (or even Ubuntu, if that's your thing) desktop.

Since you're running unjailbroken iOS... why the fuck are you even asking?

Still works on non "smart" phones too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645874)

Still works on my clunky old Sony Ericsson 810i. The Times is one of the few websites that still works great on older phones like these. Its one of those sites that I only read on my phone, so hopefully it stays this way for a while.

CNN, MSN, Google apps also work well. In some ways I'll miss this old girl as I'm geting a new-fangled phone through work. In over 4.5 years of daily use it has yet to fail in any respect.

Don't need the bookmarklet ... (0)

praetorian20 (1723296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645020)

... if you have NoScript installed and block nytimes.com

40-50 mio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645046)

Wait. So it basically cost them $40 - 50 million according to Bloomberg to add a layer of CSS?

I would have done it for half that...

physical newspaper (2)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645054)

It seems to me that like the music labels, many of the newspapers are still hung up on physical distribution of the product. The NYT allows a physical deliver for $14.80 a week. Weekend delivery is $10.80 a week, and Sunday delivery at 7.50 a week. As far as i can tell, all of these include digital access. The full access package, whatever that is, is 7 dollars a week. For fifty cents more I get the sunday newspaper.

Can we say a firm afraid to lose it's printing press? It is natural and even desirable for businesses to go away when they are unwilling to acknowledge that the time of the buggy whip is past and new forms need to be explored. I kind of applaud them for have a $4 and $5 a week option, but when compared with the $7.5 a week option with home sunday delivery, it seems kind of pricey. With the millions of ads on their web pages, and not having to set the pages, and not having to print the pages, I can't believe that a $2.50 plan is not possible. Sure the expenses of the physical paper still exist, but those should be paid by the readers of the physical paper. They are the one's paying $800 a year for delivery of the dead tree edition.

I like the financials time model better. It is simple and understandable. It is basically the same price, but the levels are clearer and it does not differentiate mobile viewing so much

So... (1, Flamebait)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645084)

Basically they're targeting the same market as Apple -- stupid people with too much disposable income who are willing to pay far too much for a mediocre product all for the ability to look cool and sophisticated while at trendy expensive coffee shops.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645150)

You probably won't get the credit you deserve for that excellent and dead-on post, Sir, but I would mod you up as far as I could if I weren't AC....

Re:So... (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645294)

Says the stupid trendy person reading who comments on a mediocre technology site for attention and karma. Perhaps you're also doing it from a laptop in a coffee shop. Really though, if you're using anything other than Lynx on FreeBSD on a 486DX tower in your parents' basement then you're just as big of a stupid trend follower.

Re:So... (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645384)

I know you are but what am I?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35647946)

Your accuracy is astounding... he runs a 486DX2...slightly more tech than you gave him credit for, but close enough.

Turning off Javascript seems to work too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645324)

I run my Firefox with Javascript turned off and I see no sign of this "paywall"
On my MS-Internet Explorer, yup, I get the NYT login screen.
well...that's easy... just turn off Javascript

Which four lines of the script are we counting? (1)

Prikolist (1260608) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645422)

If you actually follow the links and look at NYTclean, it's over 25 lines of code (http://toys.euri.ca/nyt.js). Did it grow in the time between the article posting and now?

Just Blacklist it (2)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35645946)

I think everyone is missing the point by talking about finding a hack or paying a fee. If the NYT want to get out of the business of publishing on the open web I support their decision. I will not longer read anything they publish, free or not.

Unless you are in the greater New York area you don't need the NYT. They consider themselves the "journal of record", but in the real world they are just another mainstream media news outlet, and there is nothing special about their coverage.

I can find everything I need to know without them. For international news I can go to English language sites of the regions that are closest to the story. The same goes for events in the US. Why read the NYT about the situation in Japan when you can go to Japanese sources and the Wikipedia?

I have found that both British news and Al Jazeera are as good, or even better then any US based new organization when it comes to international reporting. All US based news is dumbed down for the domestic market. And US mainstream media are incapable of honest reporting about right wing loonies because they are afraid of loosing viewers. This is one reason the birtherism and the fake controversy about Obama's citizenship is still makes big headlines.

So if the NYT doesn't want me to look at their stuff it's no big loss. I look forward to reading about their bankruptcy in other news forums.

Pay for quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35645960)

I don't mind paying for the quality reporting that the NY Times usually delivers. I also don't mind if a minor percentage of people use hacks to get through the pay firewall. I pay for a weekend subscription and enjoy the access. Advertising along won't finance this kind of operation.

What's this New York Times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35646106)

I subscribe to the Journal, the Wall Street Journal. Worth every penny, the reporting is very good consider who owns it (the changes were minor after the purchase).

The Journal will give you paper and online for $120 per year which is worth every penny. But they will try and jack the rates after a year. All you have to do is cancel the paper version (which I use for firestarter when camping, I need dead trees...) and they will send you an offer to get both for $120 (they want the subscription numbers I'm sure).

In fact, this is the best approach to any magazine, as they try to fleece you after your first introductory year. Just let the subscription lapse and they will send you offers in the mail which are very good. Works for Smithsonian and Nat Geo...

Tor circumvents Paywall? (1)

ehj666 (1549105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646224)

Just for fun I tried browsing the NY Times site over Tor. Sure enough, after 16 articles I got a message saying I only had 4 left and did I want to subscribe. I then shutdown and restarted Tor, and no more messages, even after going to articles 4, 5 and 6. It appeared I was getting another 20 articles. I stopped after 10 or so. I don't know enough about the Paywall. Perhaps it starts counting the Tor exit nodes, and if enough people did the same thing, then those would quickly be exhausted I am pretty sure, however, that Tor frequently switches exit nodes, even during the same session. I was also using the Tor enabled Firefox browser, which I suppose could flush on shutdown whatever the NY Times needs to count visits. Just my speculation, I have no expertise in this area.

Front-end paywall? (1)

epp_b (944299) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646324)

Another loophole uses four lines of CSS and JavaScript. Canadian developer David Hayes managed to strip the Times' website of any mention of digital subscriptions in addition to getting past the paywall. The hack was released in the form of NYTClean, a bookmarklet easily added to web browsers.

Seriously? What developer is dumb enough to leave authentication for a paywall at the client-side?

40 million dollars (1)

saikou (211301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646398)

Oh well, 40 million bucks (40-50 estimation from this bloomberg article [bloomberg.com] ) doesn't buy much of a wall these days I guess.
I wonder how many times did they have to re-write it from the scratch, what amount was spent on "market studies" ("Would you pay us $50 a month of online access? No? Whyyyy?") and how many pennies were spent on actual QA.

Just wondering...

NYT is a lap-dog (2, Interesting)

tick-tock-atona (1145909) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646510)

The New York Times has been dead to me ever since Bill Keller, Executive Editor, admitted that he won't publish anything relating to the US govt. without their prior approval [youtube.com] .

Incredibly sad behaviour for what used to be one of the leaders of the "Free Press". And thanks again, Wikileaks, for exposing another facet of the insidious corporate takeover of US democracy.

Re:NYT is a lap-dog (0)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646840)

I'm amused that people go to such great lengths to read their propaganda dreck. Shills for the state, nothing more to see here...

Re:NYT is a lap-dog (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647386)

yes and Judith Miller...

Re:NYT is a lap-dog (2)

DrFalkyn (102068) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647716)

The New York Times has been dead to me ever since Bill Keller, Executive Editor, admitted that he won't publish anything relating to the US govt. without their prior approval [youtube.com] .

I'm at work so I can't youtube, so I can't see exactly what he said, but its pretty standard practice in journalism to allow people to comment on stories that are about them ... perhaps his comments were misinterpreted. I would like to see the exact quote.

Re:NYT is a lap-dog (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648178)

what used to be one of the leaders of the "Free Press".

The 1950s beg to differ [wikipedia.org] .

Fact check (2)

kevinpacheco (2028472) | more than 3 years ago | (#35646566)

Using a Twitter account named @FreeNYT, an anonymous user aggregated every article the newspaper posted to Twitter. The site caught The Times' notice and before long, The Times requested that Twitter suspend the account, arguing that it violated its trademark.

That is incorrect. @FreeNYT wrote, "The @NYTimes took exception with @FreeNYTimes using their logo. @FreeNYT never did and was never shut down. #clarification."
Source: http://twitter.com/FreeNYT/status/51326909027594240 [twitter.com]
All this person did was create a Twitter list consisting of 40 New York Times accounts.

Incidentally, no one seems to have mentioned that the easiest way to bypass the paywall is to use the RefControl add-on for Firefox. Configure it to fake the referrer information to tell the nytimes.com that you are always coming from Twitter, and you can then navigate through their site at will.

Learning from Murdoch's failure with the Times. (2)

sane? (179855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647300)

It looks like the 'NY Times' has learnt from the failure of 'The Times' in its paywall. Once Murdoch setup his paywall for those papers, they basically ceased to exist as far as online was concerned and their paper based readership fell the most out of all UK papers (11.7%). In essence the only way is down if you consciously pull up the drawbridge, since the quality is not high enough to get new readers to pay. By making the paywall essentially voluntary, they get money from the dumb, but don't lose the smart. It won't save them, but its not going to be so fast a decline as it could be.

One name, two words (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647378)

Judith Miller. No way. I'll never read that rubbish again.

Buggy Whip Inc. (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647412)

Dear Sirs, I am a manufacturer of buggy whips and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35647868)

So, uh, where is this paywall? I've been poking around the site and haven't run in to anything I can't read without paying. I don't see anything different from before.

subscriber here (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35647988)

I live in LA, but I get the NY Times delivered in dead-tree format every morning. Recently I found, for the first time, that when I went to look at an article online, it mysteriously wouldn't render properly -- presumably because I have ad blocking software. I used to read a good article in the dead-trees paper while drinking my coffee, then email people the link. A lot of those people were presumably generating ad revenue for the NY Times. Now I just won't do that anymore. Who exactly is this helping?

700 Days ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648524)

.... until Barak Hussain Obama is declared the greatest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.

As it stands, Barak-O-Vision is the greatest masterbater in the history of Homo Sapains.

Nice achievement, "Barry".

--308

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
http://beta.slashdot.org/story/149578
beta.slashdot.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-35
295962
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:Z5CV2S4LFDTO7C6V6LBJW4UIS5KJPSYJ
<urn:uuid:fdb4dc8b-b21d-4167-8547-8085cfd8c44f>
2014-08-29T08:08:46Z
216.34.181.43
sha1:2Q6EVJXLWOHPNUQKDEMAP5KEZ4JQTDM7
<urn:uuid:326e9707-f33b-470c-ac5c-fd8d042217f8>
http://beta.slashdot.org/story/149578
response
<urn:uuid:8652d038-2f64-405b-8b91-bac316de6a70>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-180-136-8.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-35
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for August 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf