NY Times In Denial: Only Teens & The Unemployed Will Game The Paywall

from the emperor-has-no-clothes dept

Thu, Mar 24th 2011 12:42pm — Mike Masnick

It's really quite incredible how deeply in denial folks in the upper management at the NY Times appear to be about the paywall. In the last few days I've received some communications from some NYT staffers who seem to agree that the paywall itself is ridiculous, and is a backwards looking policy. As many have noted, the whole thing seems like a case of the Emperor's New Clothes anyway, since it's incredibly easy to avoid the paywall, either with some simple javascript or by just visiting from elsewhere. And yet, NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appears to be in complete denial about all of this, claiming that only teenagers and the unemployed will bother to game the system.

"Can people go around the system?" Sulzberger, the Times�s publisher, asked at a roundtable discussion hosted by the Paley Center for Media this morning. "The answer is yes, just as if you run down Sixth Avenue right now and you pass a newsstand and you grab a newspaper and keep running, you can read the Times for free."

"Is it going to be done by the kind of people who value the quality of the New York Times reporting and opinion and analysis? No," he continued. "I don't think so. It'll be mostly high-school kids and people who are out of work."

This appears to be someone deeply in denial. First of all, even if it is just done by high schoolers, those high schoolers will grow up. And never subscribe. But, more importantly, he's just wrong. Yes, some people will pay, but many, many, many people who are both adults and employed, will simply avoid the paywall completely.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: arthur sulberger jr., paywall
Companies: ny times

86 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

crade (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 11:47am

Or maybe only teens and unemployed will bother to game the paywall and no one else will go to the site since it has an anoying paywall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:04pm

Wow
He says that going around the paywall is the same as stealing a newspaper and then suggests that high school kids and unemployed people are the only ones likely to do it. I don't think many high school kids or unemployed people would want to read his paper if they hear what he thinks of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:44pm

Another NYT post.

Mike, you must really fear that this thing is going to work, you are attacking it like a hungry dog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:45pm

Re:
Continue with the irony TAM, it's perfect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
freak (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:49pm

. . . or you know, people might start avoiding it completely accidentally. And then when they DO run into the paywall, they'll avoid it on purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:52pm

Love the comparison..
I love how he compares getting around the firewall to actual, physical theft. Those guys really know how to stay on message. LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
freak (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:53pm

Re:
It's more like a great actualization of the worst possible idea of how to run a business on the net, if you follow Mike's theories.

If something sprang up which was exactly the anti-thesis to your thinking, wouldn't you watch it very closely? That's where you could improve, change, or heck, maybe regret your thinking. And if everything goes as you predict . . . well, that's a damn good backing for your theory, isn't it?

Point is, I could as easily say that Mike is following it so closely because he wants everyone to know that he's being proven right.

But the real matter is that the NYT paywall, no matter what light you view it or Mike in, is relevant to the way Mike thinks about online business, and no matter what the outcome, will be useful to him as a study.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MRK, 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:54pm

The real question is not if people will game the paywall. But rather should I trust a news source that thinks this paywall is a good idea. Starting to look like the Old Grey Lady has finally gone a little senile.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:57pm

Re:
Techdirt readers are interested in the paywall. We want this level of analysis. Obviously you aren't and you don't, which really highlights the question: why are you still reading?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:58pm

So what you're saying is that they are ignoring the pirates, since they can't do anything about them anyway, and focusing on customers that want to pay them.

And you're harping on them for this.

Jesus Christ, even when they take your advice, you feel compelled to shit on them.

If there is a more negative blog on the Internet, I've yet to find it. Even the Angry Video Game Nerd occasionally finds a game he likes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:03pm

Re: Re:
I'm interested in the paywall. But I don't really need 5 pokes a day (especially ones like the stupid poke at the obit writer) about the topic. Mike is working hard to find any little morsel he can work from, and it's just amazing to watch him go.

I have to think there is a more going on. Why isn't Mike discussing how the death of limewire significantly dropped the amount of piracy traffic?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:04pm

Re:
How do you pirate a website that let's you read it for free?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous a-hole, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:04pm

Re:
It's more a wonderment of how they can get basic facts wrong.

I run NoScript on my Firefox install. This will get around the paywall. I'd hardly call myself a pirate as NoScript is to me a basic protection, little different than any of the major anti-virus software out there.

The NYT paywall is ineffective at getting people to pay if it is so easily defeated by common and legal methods people use to access content.

Is that really so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re:
"why are you still reading?"

Well, by his own logic, he must really fear Mike is right and is now attacking him like a hungry dog.

Yay! Cyclical douchebaggery is fun!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:05pm

Yeah right ....
"Only Teens & The Unemployed Will Game The Paywall" and only poor people are cutting the cable cord ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:05pm

Damn, now I'm back to feeling guilty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
velox (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:06pm

Re: Wow
hmm... NoScript = stealing??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Why isn't Mike discussing how the death of limewire significantly dropped the amount of piracy traffic?"

Probably cause it didn't.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/horde-of-piratical-monkeys-resurrects-lim ewire-pirate-edition.ars
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:11pm

Re:
Interesting term, there, "pirates".

If I point my web browser of choice (w3m) at the New York Times web site, I can read all the content. Should I be considered a "pirate" because the NYT has posted content there, thus making it available to anyone on the Internet, and I've accessed it?

After all, it's hardly MY fault that they blew $40M and failed to consider that not everyone uses Firefox, Safari or Opera. (Or IE. Yes, sadly, some inferior, stupid, utterly clueless and appallingly careless people still use IE.) And apparently nobody bothered to explain to their management that the public Internet is...the public Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1044673&c=1

perhaps you want to try something a little more recent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, you so fail hemlet. Can't see anything from that far in, can you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:15pm

Re: Yeah right ....
""Only Teens & The Unemployed Will Game The Paywall" and only poor people are cutting the cable cord ..."

I just did that today, actually. And I have to tell you, it feels great.

One MLB online package was all it took for me not to care about cable anymore...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:19pm

NYT, we'd like to introduce you to AOL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you really claiming your link says piracy went down since Limewire went away? It says P2P traffic is down. P2P != Piracy.

Quotes from your article
"NPD Group reports that 12% of US web users accessed P2P services in Q3 of 2010 but this had dropped to 9% by Q4. This marks a continued drop from the 16% who accessed such sites in 2007."

First of all it is talking about the % of web traffic. So if more people are on the web and the same amount are using P2P the number would drop but piracy wouldn't. Second, it says the number has been going down since 07 so by your logic piracy has been on the decline since 07, guess you asshats are winning, who knew.

"NPD added that the average number of files downloaded by individual P2P users halved from 35 in Q4 2007 to 18 in Q4 2010."

Jeeze looks like by your logic piracy has been pretty much drying up since 07, don't know why you are whining so much then.

"The NPD study was based on self-reporting by respondents and its statistical findings must be understood within that context."

LOL

"This all suggests a significant level of displacement happening, where habitual P2P users simply move onto other unlicensed services rather than migrate to legal alternative or stop filesharing altogether.

There are also wider factors at play such as the rise of cyberlockers and VPN (virtual private networks) that make it more difficult to detect where and how frequently unlicensed content is being exchanged online."

So maybe people are just using better services? like bit torrent which is 1000 times more effective than P2P. So where is the proof that piracy is down? Where is the proof that limewire going away had anything to do with it. Also limewire didnt go away just the LLC behind it

perhaps you want to try some reading comprehension?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re: Wow
NoScript = DMCA violation :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robin, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re: Wow
+1 internets to noscript
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'm interested in the paywall.

I'm interested too. Not that I really care whether it works or not. I keep reading about it because it's like watching a NASCAR race and you just know there will be a spectacular crash soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Yeah right ....
"I just did that today, actually. And I have to tell you, it feels great."

I am on the verge of dropping cable myself. I just need to find sources for 2 more programs online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
I have to think there is a more going on. Why isn't Mike discussing how the death of limewire significantly dropped the amount of piracy traffic?

Because whether P2P usage is going up or down isn't the goal or really a discussion topic of this blog.

Now, if somehow this correlated to increased music sales, then perhaps the RIAA could be vindicated.

Reality is that the study only showed P2P and not overall piracy (locker sites, streaming, etc).

So, what's the news you wanted reported?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robin, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re:
I run NoScript on my Firefox install. This will get around the paywall. I'd hardly call myself a pirate as NoScript is to me a basic protection, little different than any of the major anti-virus software out there.

amen.

if i'm not mistaken, one needs to block nyt.js. i do this on firefox and do not see the mtr.js which i can peruse on chrome, which doesn't have the most fabulous noscript.

and yes, mtr == meter.

ok, i hope mike doesn't get upset, but here's the entire script:

var NYTD = NYTD || {};

NYTD.Meter = {};

(function(){

var callbackName = String(String.fromCharCode(97 + Math.round(Math.random() * 25))+(new Date()).getTime()),
head = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0],
hash, cookie, timeout;

function getCookie() {
return /NYT-M=([^;&]+)/i.test(unescape(document.cookie)) ? RegExp.$1 : '';
}

function getHash() {
return /gwh=([^&]+)/.test(unescape(window.location.search.substring(1))) ? RegExp.$1 : '';
}

function removeHash() {
window.location.replace(window.location.href.replace(/(\?|&)gwh=([^&]+)/, ''));
}

function checkMeter(url) {
var script = document.createElement('script'),
serviceUrl = '//meter-svc.nytimes.com/meter.js?url=' + encodeURIComponent(url || location.href) + '&referer=' + encodeURIComponent(document.referrer) + '&callback=' + callbackName;
window[callbackName] = processMeterResponse;
script.src = serviceUrl;
head.appendChild(script);
}

function processMeterResponse(response) {
if (response.counted) {
var meta = document.createElement('meta');
meta.name = 'WT.z_cad';
meta.content = '1';
head.appendChild(meta);
}
if (response.hitPaywall) {
var hash = 'gwh=' + response.hash;
var url = window.location.search ? window.location.href + '&' + hash : window.location.href + '?' + hash;
window.location.replace(url);
}
}

function loadGateway() {
track();
NYTD.Meter.gwy = true;
var script = document.createElement('script');
script.src = NYTD.Hosts.jsHost + '/js/gwy.js';
head.appendChild(script);
}

function track() {
mtr_track(
"WT.cg_n", "Digital Subscription",
"WT.cg_s", "",
"WT.z_gpt", "E-Commerce",
"WT.si_n", "Digital Subscription",
"WT.si_x", "1",
"WT.z_gpst", "Purchase"
);
}

function mtr_track() {
if ('dcsMultiTrack' in window) {
var old_dcsid = dcsInit.dcsid
dcsInit.dcsid = wt_dcsidArray["Digital Subscription"];
dcsMultiTrack.apply(this, arguments);
dcsInit.dcsid = old_dcsid;
} else {
setTimeout(function() {
mtr_track.apply(this, arguments);
}, 1000);
}
}

hash = getHash();
cookie = getCookie();

if (!hash) {
checkMeter();
} else if (hash && !cookie || hash !== cookie ) {
removeHash();
} else if (hash && cookie && hash === cookie) {
if (window.addEventListener) {
window.addEventListener ("load", loadGateway,false);
} else if (window.attachEvent) {
window.attachEvent ("onload",loadGateway);
} else {
window.onload = (typeof window.onload == 'function') ?
(function(old){ return function(){ old();loadGateway() }})(window.onload) :
loadGateway;
}
}

NYTD.Meter.check = checkMeter;

})();

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Kansas Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:30pm

Re: #10
"So what you're saying is that they are ignoring the pirates, since they can't do anything about them anyway, and focusing on customers that want to pay them.
And you're harping on them for this."

Obviously, he's harping on their dependence on a stupid and doomed solution and their denial of reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh, how does he fail? His point makes perfect sense. You said:

you must really fear that this thing is going to work, you are attacking it like a hungry dog.

Sounds like you're describing yourself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David T, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:40pm

I don't know if people will pay or not. Doesn't matter to me... when I heard the NYT was bring the wall up I deleted my iPhone and iPad apps, even though I used it most times I fired up my iPad.

My google RSS feed and NPR app are better anyway...

Good luck NYT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC vs. AC its like watching Superman and Bizzaro go at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:43pm

Re: Re: Re:
Well, I agree on the obit writer thing - I thought that was a little weird. But other than that I think the volume of NYT posts is entirely appropriate: the paywall debate is one of the biggest things in the news industry, and the NYT is a HUGE real-world example for everyone to learn from. And, quite frankly, it's bafflingly dumb in its design, so criticism is warranted.

Mainly my issue, though, is that if TAM's real problem was that he doesn't like the topics covered on techdirt, he just wouldn't read Techdirt because it doesn't interest him. In reality, he just needs to bitch about EVERYTHING to make himself feel important, and he keeps coming back here every single day even though it's clear by now that he doesn't like Techdirt. Seems insane to me. I hate Fox News, and once in awhile I'll see what they are up to so I can mock them a little, but I sure as hell don't watch every minute of every broadcast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bizzaro Superman, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ohhhh i claim Bizzaro

speak backwards now may I so
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh wait you are TAM. Bah, confusing snowflakes. So yeah: YOU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Dynice (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:45pm

That's funny. That is that same solution we give about the music and movie industries as to how they should not worry about "piracy" but focus on creating value for those that do pay. But the difference in this senario the newspapers are in denial about the online revenu model that has worked for 15+ years: ads, while music and movie industries the are in denial about the similar reasoning the newspapers have in defending a paywall: sales are not lost to infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:48pm

Re:
That's what I do with Fox News. I avoid their site, and if I happen to click on a news article from them I quickly close my browser, promise myself I'll never do it again, and shower with a scrub brush.

-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aww, TAM got caught in his own stupidity. How cute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:53pm

Re:
I agree. Why are you so mad at the NYP. Let them be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:57pm

Re:
Why do you think Mike fears it?

It doesn't hurt him any if it works and he's wrong. I'm sure he can admit it.

Rather, I think he covers it, and I deeply appreciate his efforts for this, because it is HILARIOUSLY FUNNY!

I need a great laugh. And this is it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:58pm

Re: Re:
Nobody's mad at NYP.

We're just laughing at them. (Not with them.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:58pm

Re: Re: #10
Obviously, he's harping on their dependence on a stupid and doomed solution and their denial of reality.

If anybody he liked were trying this, it wouldn't be a "stupid and doomed solution," it would be a "worthwhile experiment."

They have not paywalled off the whole content. They let you see some. They let you share. They will continue to get ad revenue from all of these activities. Only heavy users - e.g., the ones who might value the content the most - will probably ever encounter the "paywall," except rarely.

If the NYT were giving away a movie and selling a DVD with extra content on it, that would be praised. They're giving away 20 articles and all the sharing you can do, and charging for the extra content. But they get shit on for it. Why? Because they're the NYT and not some struggling musician who rails against the evils of copyright.

The advice given here is constantly to ignore people who are never going to pay you, and try to get money from the ones who will. That's what they're doing. Oh, sure, maybe they're not doing it whole-hog, giving away everything and selling lunch dates or T-shirts or articles written just for you or whatever, but they've come halfway. And yet they've been shit on no less than four times in the past two days.

This is completely off the rails hatred and self-aggrandizement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:00pm

Re: Re:
I can't f*cking believe this. The paid $40M for a javascript-based paywall that can be defeated by simply turing off JS?

Bawwawahhhahahhaahhahhhahhaahhahah

$40 million.....LOLOL

WTF - did they not even consider SERVER side authentication? $40 Million must have included $39.5 million in promotion, $400K in equipment and $50k in "user studies". The intern who wrote that was still overpaid.

-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
I can't f*cking believe this. The paid $40M for a javascript-based paywall that can be defeated by simply turing off JS?

So in six weeks when they switch it to server-side blocking are you going to recant or are you just going to hide and hope nobody remembers you said this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Yeah right ....
I've been sans cable for 10 years now. You won't miss it unless you're a football fan. But that's what sports bars are for.

-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:07pm

RICH MAN SAVES MONEY,
its called being frugal..
its HOW rich persons STAY RICH.

Poor man does the SAME thing?
its called Theft..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure I'll recant. Of course the likelihood of me coming back to this thread is minimal. But it certainly won't be from hiding or being afraid of my past words. Of course you still won't like what I write....it will probably be along the lines of:

"Looks like the NYT finally got their sh!t together - hooray for them - their paywall is rock solid."

Mmmm... So what message are you going to come back here with in a year when the grand experiment is shown to be a failure? I'm fairly confident we won't hear from you.

-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rick berlin (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:20pm

Offended
As an unemployed person I'm offended by your insinuations Mr. Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RadialSkid (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:21pm

value the quality of the New York Times reporting and opinion and analysis

He says that, like it's just a foregone conclusion that the New York Times is still a relevant source for quality reporting. Have we flashed back to 1990 when I wasn't looking?

If so, word to your mother.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re: Re: #10
If pay walls worked so well then why aren't they "experimented" with more often by more companies? Do we have any past evidence of websites using pay walls that didn't work? We do! Huh? Well, I guess make of that what you will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Memyself, 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:25pm

"Only teens ect..." and "mostly teens ect..." are two different things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
I actually posted my theory about this in a previous article. Techdirt linked to the NYT fairly often in the past, and the paywall has broken a lot of those URLs. Since it's unlikely that Mike has a secretary or intern to whom he delegate the time-consuming and tedious job of altering each and every link to the NYT website, so I think he might be feeling a little bitter towards their senior management right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:28pm

High school kids read the NYT? That's an absurd statement right there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Yeah right ....
I don't know what solution you're using (or what you watch), but I am using WMC front end with Boxee, Hulu, and Netflix extenders and the only thing I miss is The Big Bang Theory. I bought the first couple of seasons so far and I'll catch the rest when the DVDs come out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
"if i'm not mistaken, one needs to block nyt.js. i do this on firefox and do not see the mtr.js which i can peruse on chrome, which doesn't have the most fabulous noscript."

Try NotScripts?
NotScripts gives you a high degree of "NoScript" like control over what javascript, iframes, and plugins runs in your browser to increase security and lower the CPU usage. It is useful to help mitigate some attacks like certain cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities and drive by downloads by blocking the third-party content before it even runs with it's default deny policy
http://optimalcycling.com/other-projects/notscripts/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detai l/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re: Wow
NoScript for all and to all a good night
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:48pm

Re:
So what you're saying is that they are ignoring the pirates, since they can't do anything about them anyway, and focusing on customers that want to pay them.

First, spending $40 million to put up a paywall is hardly "ignoring pirates". Second, "focusing on customers that want to pay them" should include figuring out how to get those customers to want to pay them (i.e. giving them a reason to buy), and not just throwing up a toll booth and declaring victory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re: Re: #10
If anybody he liked were trying this, it wouldn't be a "stupid and doomed solution," it would be a "worthwhile experiment."

Weird. I actually *do* like the NYT. It's one of the reasons why I keep talking about this. I hate to see them make such a bad business decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vastrightwing, 24 Mar 2011 @ 2:52pm

New definitions of theft
Here's what I learned:

Copying = theft.
Reading something without paying = theft.
Circumventing or ignoring a javascript block = breaking and entering.
High school kids are mostly thieves.
People out of work are mostly thieves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
trilobug, 24 Mar 2011 @ 3:11pm

Theft huh?
So where does that put me if I use adblock and a particular site's revenue comes solely from ads?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 3:16pm

Re: Re: Yeah right ....
I've given up because I can't convince my girlfriend. Any suggestions for how to do so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz, 24 Mar 2011 @ 3:26pm

I don't need to steal a paper a paper from the newsstand to read the NYT. I can just pick up a copy that someone left behind on the bus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 3:59pm

So unclicking the "enable javascript" option in my browser settings is equivalent to thieving goods off the street. Sure. That makes sense. It's not the imbecilic babbling of a stuffed suit in the throes of total cognitive surrender. Not at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 4:05pm

Re: Re: Re:
What really gets me is the sum of all the technical description thus far of the paywall sounds like something I could throw together in 5 minutes. Javascript is not security. It's not something you rely on to keep people away. I thought for sure their paywall would have a fairly sophisticated server-side component. When I saw it was just javascript, I had to ask myself how the fuck anyone pays 40 million for a piece of javascript that effectively does nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 4:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not "TAM", sorry. You can call me semi-random snowflake 6, if you like.

As for me, Techdirt interests me, because many of the people who post here in the comments are interesting, and it is nice mental exercise to express points of view, especially when they don't match up with those of the "koolaid soaked masses", as it were.

It is way more intereting to discuss with people you don't agree with, than it is to stand in a room full of people that you agree with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 4:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bizaro is one of the many Iberian pig races.

http://www.google.com/search?q=porco+b%C3%ADzaro&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Just so you know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 4:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to think there is a more going on. Why isn't Mike discussing how the death of limewire significantly dropped the amount of piracy traffic?

There must be more to the story and discussing an unrelated topic. Bravo!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 5:12pm

Re: Re: Re:
The real reason he isn't discussing limewire and the piracy traffic levels is just to piss you off. Looks like he was successful in that. Now go back to weeping, wailing, gnashing your teeth and rending your garments, just like you always do when you come here. You're dismissed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 5:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Yeah right ....
Set it up so that you have a media box on a different TV port than your cable box. You watch shows exclusively from there. Make it look easy. Eventually she'll get tired of the fact that you can watch your shows whenever you want and she lives by TV schedules (even with a DVR you're only looking at what's current).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 5:30pm

Re: Theft huh?
i GIVE sites a suggestion..
1. if the Advert comes from your site..I will watch it.
2. If an advert has a COOKIE, I WONT..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 5:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Wow
I will LET adverts DIRECT from the site I am on..as long as there are NO COOKIES.
I also TELL the sites this.

NO 3rd party cookies..
The FIRST person to Prove a Bot/cookie/VIRUS from an advert on ANY CERTAIN site Brike his machine...will make TONS OF MONEY and scare the BEANS out of the other advertisers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 6:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I saw that before and I wasn't going to say anything since it was so obviously crazy, but since you brought it up again: that's crazy, dude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 6:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not "TAM", sorry. You can call me semi-random snowflake 6, if you like.

Well, sorry. Blame the real TAM (the former handle of a well-known AC) for trying with all his pathetic might to get on my nerves for the past week or so and, though I am loathe to admit it, succeeding slightly.

It is way more intereting to discuss with people you don't agree with, than it is to stand in a room full of people that you agree with.

On that we agree, which raises all sorts of paradoxes...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 7:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Wow
Twitter = DMCA violation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mikelist (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 8:51pm

Re: nyt paywall
i bail whenever a link takes me to the nyt login page, and i could curbstomp the idiot that linked an article i can't read. not that i would, being first peaceful by nature, and second, made unthreatening by the same source.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 11:39pm

Re: Re: Re:
"But I don't really need 5 pokes a day"

And why should anybody here give a damn about what you need?

Right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lens42, 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:38am

It all ads up
(Almost) everyone's business model seems to be predicated on sucking $15/month (or more) out of my bank account. What the NYT, the Daily, credit card companies, Verizon, and nearly everyone else doesn't realize is that when viewed from the consumer side, it looks like a screaming torrent of hands reaching for my pocket. My reaction is tune ALL of it out, and simply refuse to pay, a recurring monthly fee for ANYTHING, unless it's an absolute necessity. NYT's problem is not those that bypass the wall, it's everyone (and I mean everyone) who won't bother and also won't pay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
robin, 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
So in six weeks when they switch it to server-side blocking

sure sounds big and scary, uh-oh.

by definition, a "meter" counts what any given remote node is doing, and the only way to positively identify a remote node is with info dropped on it's hard drive:

a cookie entitled NYT-M, containing an md5 hash entitled gwh.

if this node both deletes said cookies and! doesn't run mtr.js looking for said cookies, nyt is hosed trying to track this node (aka MY fucking computer).

btw, they're already making several calls to their servers when the script runs:

'//meter-svc.nytimes.com/meter.js?url='

'script.src = NYTD.Hosts.jsHost + '/js/gwy.js';'

to both run their server side tracking suite and to instantiate the paywall gateway w/in the browser.

the $40 mil probably went mostly into the database creation and mgmt needed to run this meter at the required enormous scale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:34am

"Is it going to be done by the kind of people who value the quality of the New York Times reporting and opinion and analysis? No," he continued. "I don't think so."

I don't think so either. Nobody values the quality of the New York Times anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2011 @ 1:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is amusing to see you paytards fail so epically. Your arguments are so weak they can be very slightly reworded and used as a counter argument, which just highlights how weak the argument was in the first place.

But then, so is your fail response to being so easily caught out.

Pathetic. Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 3:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually posted my theory about this in a previous article. Techdirt linked to the NYT fairly often in the past, and the paywall has broken a lot of those URLs. Since it's unlikely that Mike has a secretary or intern to whom he delegate the time-consuming and tedious job of altering each and every link to the NYT website, so I think he might be feeling a little bitter towards their senior management right now

Um. The paywall does not change or break any URLs. So, no, that has nothing to do with anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
antitheman, 25 Mar 2011 @ 7:10am

news costs money
I did not know anyone paid for news at all anymore. This is a joke right? They don't really expect this to pay off do they? Or is it just another way to prolong the inevitable death and extinction of the news paper industry. Maybe these guys are getting ready to retire and they figure they can squeeze the last bit of life out of the industry before they do and make it out before it all goes south.

I haven't paid for news in a decade and don't miss anything that is published in the NY Times. As soon as I see a news site that wants me to register for free I immediately close it and find the story else where in less than 20 seconds. I would imagine most would do the same as soon as they ran into a paywall to ready the NY Times. Like they have something special that you would pay for. Like they have the only people who know how to report news!!! NOT lololol. RIP NYT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 8:10am

Re: Re: Re: Yeah right ....
1. Show her the bills

2. Spend a night or two showing her how to navigate TV online with whatever you use to watch (channel websites, Hulu, Netflix, etc.)

3. Spend a few bucks making an easy system that streams the images to your existing TVs in the house so she can see what it looks like
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 25 Mar 2011 @ 2:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not Bizaro with one z, Bizzaro/Bizarro:
http://www.batman-superman.com/superman/cmp/bizzaro.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]