Slashdot Mirror
New York Times Paywall Goes Live, Loopholes Abound
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.
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.
your mom, It's likely that your mom is deliberately porous; as moms go, it's a relatively unrestrictive one.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
But where will I get my hard-hitting journalism from now? If only there were another, free way to get the news.
...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."
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Shh.
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.
Why bother?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
$('overlay').hide(); $('gatewayCreative').hide(); $(document.body).setStyle( { overflow:'scroll' } );
... if you have NoScript installed and block nytimes.com
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...
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
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The Wall Street Journal has been doing that for years quite successfully.
It sure took the NYT long enough.
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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
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?
I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
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.
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.
Why is Snark Required?
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.
There will be an article in the NYT about how easy it is to bypass the NYT paywall
that would be entertaining
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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...
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
Seriously? What developer is dumb enough to leave authentication for a paywall at the client-side?
Oh well, 40 million bucks (40-50 estimation from this bloomberg article) 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...
Hyperom.com
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Judith Miller. No way. I'll never read that rubbish again.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Dear Sirs, I am a manufacturer of buggy whips and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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: "Likewise, please do not submit logins for paid services."
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.
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.
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%.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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?
Find free books.
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./
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.
.... 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
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/medmifohjnpmbkjbodbckhlgofiffgpm#
I can't see the point of circumventing paywalls when I can read the same news without effort, for free elsewhere. If a news site isn't available free then it just disappears off my radar.
... they have nothing for me to read.
F
You felt the need to post that twice in the same thread? plus another comment to similar effect? It rather undermines the message when it looks like you've got some sort of personal axe to grind.... (and irritates me when your annoying comments that add nothing to the thread keep showing up as I scroll)
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
They had put their columnists behind a paywall a few years back. They manage to close don pirate sites pretty son after they appeared. There werent really many work-arounds then.
I've been reading the NYT website for about as long as they have had one. I was reading it when the "website" consisted of a about a dozen image-map GIFs, each of which lead to eight or so stories.
In thanks for my sixteen years of freeloading, they have seen fit to grant me a free subscription! I was browsing the other day, and saw a Lincoln ad that also mentioned a free subscription. I clicked on the ad, figuring they'll want my e-mail address to send me some crap I'll simply delete (that's fine by me), or ask me to take a test drive in return for a subscription. (Not fine.) I'm so far out of Lincoln's target demographic, it's not even vaguely amusing...
Nope! Didn't have to do a thing other than click on "activate my free subscription." That was it. I'm sure they've sold my name to advertisers long ago, and GMail's spam folder takes care of that crap for me.
I have set my home page to http://www.google.com/ig and have the NYT home page widget installed, and since the paywall went up I have read at least 70+ articles / slideshows / etc. since, and have not once seen a request for payment. I am using FF4 with Https-everywhere set to run the NYT pages that way. Could any of the above be a reason for the "loophole"? Cheers!
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH