New York Times Exploring how to Charge for Content

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times is mulling subscription for Internet Archives. It doesn't appear that the free (but subscription required - BugMeNot to the rescue!) ability to read NYT articles less than a week old would change. However, instead of paying $2.95 per article for stuff that is more than a week old, one idea being floated is an annual fee of $49.99 for unlimited access to anything in the last year." (More below.)

Mr. Christmas Lights continues "The WSJ has been pretty successful with their online subscriptions - over 700,000 people currently pay $79 ($39 if you get the print edition) a year for full online access of the last 30 days of articles - the story above happens to be in their public area. But they are a notable exception, with media organizations struggling to charge for News now that it is widely available for free on the Internet. For example, Slashdot recently discussed the AP's plan to charge members to post content online. Will the "GoogleZon" end up replacing the 4th Estate as depicted in the entertaining and informative 8 minute EPIC video?"

Comments

The New York Times

[SengirV]

All the fake news that fit to print.

Re:The free internet is dead

[caffeine_monkey]

I suppose you think that journalists work for free. What do you do for a living? Do you charge money for doing that?

Fair and Balanced

[The Ape With No Name]

Now we could pick on FauxNews for is sources or on the Washington Times for its inspiration.

"Googlezon" video not Informative or Entertaining

[realfake]

It may be a "Troll", though.

The spooky music, the hint of conspiracy, the "don't you SEE where all this is GOING" attitude-- it all comes off as more stoner paranoia than insightful futurism, which it seems to take itself to be.

Re:Or...

[maxpublic]

Sadly, among the largely 16-21 year old, male-dominated, non-long-term-thinking, annoyingly over-opinionated, idiot-savant Slashdot crowd, paying anything for information, regardless of real value, is an anathema.

This tripe is insightful? Jesus H., all I have to do to get modded up is make insulting gross overgeneralizations about specific groups of people and I'm off to the races! Oh, and construct grammatically nonsensical clauses like this:

"Your argument is sound as a balance of value and benefit"

It helps when the reader can't make heads nor tails of what the fuck you're trying to say.

Max