The New York Times thinks you are stupid. Here's their new offer. And here's an explanation of what it means. The short version is: you get a digital version of the paper that can only be played in a propritary browser (what's wrong with my browser?) can't be linked to or shared with anyone else (including a second computer of your own) and expires after a week. This is getting silly. Only someone who doesn't understand the technology could fall for this. Please join me in never linking to any New York Times pieces. I'm going to stop reading the print edition too. (Yes, I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.)
let me say again for the record F the NYT and F there links!!!!
NYT new motto "All The News Thats Unfit To Post"
I'm not stoping. That's shooting your self in the foot. But I will try to swipe the text and post that more.
How is it shooting myself in the foot? This move proves to me that the Times does not care about their news being open (I didn't say free - I don't mind if they charge for it - but open in the sense that other people can point to it, discuss it, critique it.) The Times is moving (IMO) to a news distribution model where you digest their news, but you are not legally allowed to discuss it with other people. Very scary. Are you sure you're not shooting yourself in the foot by promoting such a source?
(More specifically, I mean, by posting the full text of a NY Times article you are certainly violating copyright law, but what's much worse, you might be in violation of the DMCA in the sense that you can be said to have broken an encryption method - and this might be true even for small snippets of the article that would previously have been covered under fair use clauses. Feel free to read up on the DMCA if you want to be scared about the future of our society. And no, these aren't theoretical threats, someone has already gone to jail because of this law.)
Oh yeah, and another thing - I'll bet in their new proprietary browser you will not be able to cut and paste text - so you'll have to retype the whole article if you want to post it. How fast do you type?
I didnt notice that they where they were closing the old site (with all it's problems) it looked like this was a feature they could sell to dupes who would pay / if they asked for somthing to be removed, that cold be negotiated, but you can still quote heavily from them within the context of a larger discussion (which is in place here already). Avoiding the print which you have come to use daily only hurts yourself by avoiding a usefull (with a grain of salt) information source. And same for their old site (warts and all). Are they dumping that or adding an option they can sell ? But seriously, I want to know how Mike feels about the NYT.
i assume this is what they call a trial balloon but it certainly is a harbinger of bad things to come. i cant see them forcing this option unless they are hemoraging money or until there is a consenus among the media that this is the way to go. i cant believe that even after you purchase a subscription that they would only allow you a week to look at it. thats criminal. but i still wonder about the fair use aspect.
No, they made no mention of dumping the old site, but I can only guess they will because either a) this new thing won't work at all, in which case they will figure "well, it must be because we're still giving away the old stuff - have to stop that" or b) the new thing will work, they'll start making money, and there will be no reason to keep giving away for free what people are willing to pay for.
But yes, I guess I'm reading into their plans a bit. Perhaps they have good intentions at heart. I'm quick to criticize these things. On the other hand, I might have some knowledge that leads me to feel so strongly.
In any case, cost is not my issue. I hope they can charge for their content. What gets me is limiting other peoples ability to connect one parties news into the larger discussion that might be called "democracy" or "open society." The web, by which I mean standard, easily hyperlinked (cross-referenced) HTML encoded data, is cool precisely because it allows all parties to add their voice to the central conversation. Of course businesses hate this because they want to wall themselves off from the big conversation so that they can charge a toll to access their areas of knowledge. This is bad for democracy, bad for open societies, bad for the world. Maybe I need to pay for access, but once I pay I should be able to use what I pay for as I see fit.
Or, look at it another way. If the Times is going to make their news expire after 7 days, how can they be the paper of record? And even inside those 7 days, you still can't point to the content you yourself bought (because it's not in HTML, can't be viewed by standard browsers, and on top of that it might well be illegal to reproduce it in a more open format.) So they've gone from being, arguably, the paper of record, to being just another company trying to make a buck. Not surprising, of course, everyone is doing it, but I'm not going to follow.
The BBC, the guardian, or even the independent all seem more reliable to me at this point. And I used to love the New York Times. I'll just read Newsday (or the Post for a laugh) if I want a real print edition paper.
Years ago the now extinct rag Lies of The Times predicted the New York Times would become
the only legal provider of facts for the New World Order. Any fact without the official NYT brand
festering on its flanks would be devoured by carnivorous infobots that would leave nothing but
a trail of obfuscation & disinformation for those without the credentials to afford real facts. The
resonance here is sinister: in the future,along with water & air, credible news will be very expensive.
Human intrest in reality will end & consciousness will revert to Art Appreciation & Understanding
Poetry.
this is what online journals have been doing for quite some time. libraries are buying online journals subscriptions, usually paying one vendor for a slew of titles; it is cheaper (but still $$$), accessible from outside the library to students and no physical storage required. BUT the library has no archival permissions, and has to rely on the vendor. so long as the vendor is in business, there is access to back issues.
Fair use is trumped by the DMCA (which is already law) and even moreso by the SSSCA (which is still being debated.) Microsoft is jumping right in here with Windows XP (and the new versions of Windows Media Player that come with it) in making sure that the consumer (the person who payed for the content) has no rights when it comes to how that content is used. In the future you will not be able to buy anything - you will only be able to rent it with an incredibly heavy handed set of stipulations. For instance, Windows XP makes you agree that Microsoft can remotely access your computer at any time to check for unathorized content, as well as installing (or de-installing) anything they see fit. See here for more.
so long as the vendor is in business, there is access to back issues.
That's an important point. This is a seminal essay in understanding the corner we are painting ourselves into by giving away everything to these big "content" companies: "With ever changing technology, in order to preserve many works we will need to constantly move them ahead, copying them to each new media form before the previous one becomes obsolete. Also, as we create new media, we need to preserve the knowledge of the methods of converting from one media to another, so we can still access the old works that have not yet been moved ahead. This is crucial. Without this information, even preserved works could be unreadable." But this sort of copying is harshly excluded under current law (i.e., you can go to jail for doing it.)
I dont think we are going to see any NYC restraunt or gallery reviews (for what they're worth) in the above mentioned rags. Right now NYT is all about selling hard copy news and sussing selling it online based on that model. hense the ahead of the curve tight ass nature of their site. This idea will flop and the they will return to the old format "an online sales supprt tool" for the paper goods (till a market evolves for selling online news and advertising). Our job is to stay one step ahead of them and call them out and thats going to require keeping an eye on them not blocking them out. I thought we were mediating media over here (for as for cheep as possible of course).
And it's windows only!!!
WTF?
|
- jim 10-29-2001 1:18 pm
let me say again for the record F the NYT and F there links!!!!
- Skinny 10-29-2001 1:23 pm
NYT new motto "All The News Thats Unfit To Post"
- Skinny 10-29-2001 2:32 pm
I'm not stoping. That's shooting your self in the foot. But I will try to swipe the text and post that more.
- bill 10-29-2001 4:31 pm
How is it shooting myself in the foot? This move proves to me that the Times does not care about their news being open (I didn't say free - I don't mind if they charge for it - but open in the sense that other people can point to it, discuss it, critique it.) The Times is moving (IMO) to a news distribution model where you digest their news, but you are not legally allowed to discuss it with other people. Very scary. Are you sure you're not shooting yourself in the foot by promoting such a source?
(More specifically, I mean, by posting the full text of a NY Times article you are certainly violating copyright law, but what's much worse, you might be in violation of the DMCA in the sense that you can be said to have broken an encryption method - and this might be true even for small snippets of the article that would previously have been covered under fair use clauses. Feel free to read up on the DMCA if you want to be scared about the future of our society. And no, these aren't theoretical threats, someone has already gone to jail because of this law.)
- jim 10-29-2001 4:59 pm
Oh yeah, and another thing - I'll bet in their new proprietary browser you will not be able to cut and paste text - so you'll have to retype the whole article if you want to post it. How fast do you type?
- jim 10-29-2001 5:02 pm
I didnt notice that they where they were closing the old site (with all it's problems) it looked like this was a feature they could sell to dupes who would pay / if they asked for somthing to be removed, that cold be negotiated, but you can still quote heavily from them within the context of a larger discussion (which is in place here already). Avoiding the print which you have come to use daily only hurts yourself by avoiding a usefull (with a grain of salt) information source. And same for their old site (warts and all). Are they dumping that or adding an option they can sell ? But seriously, I want to know how Mike feels about the NYT.
- bill 10-29-2001 5:59 pm
i assume this is what they call a trial balloon but it certainly is a harbinger of bad things to come. i cant see them forcing this option unless they are hemoraging money or until there is a consenus among the media that this is the way to go. i cant believe that even after you purchase a subscription that they would only allow you a week to look at it. thats criminal. but i still wonder about the fair use aspect.
- dave 10-29-2001 6:15 pm
No, they made no mention of dumping the old site, but I can only guess they will because either a) this new thing won't work at all, in which case they will figure "well, it must be because we're still giving away the old stuff - have to stop that" or b) the new thing will work, they'll start making money, and there will be no reason to keep giving away for free what people are willing to pay for.
But yes, I guess I'm reading into their plans a bit. Perhaps they have good intentions at heart. I'm quick to criticize these things. On the other hand, I might have some knowledge that leads me to feel so strongly.
In any case, cost is not my issue. I hope they can charge for their content. What gets me is limiting other peoples ability to connect one parties news into the larger discussion that might be called "democracy" or "open society." The web, by which I mean standard, easily hyperlinked (cross-referenced) HTML encoded data, is cool precisely because it allows all parties to add their voice to the central conversation. Of course businesses hate this because they want to wall themselves off from the big conversation so that they can charge a toll to access their areas of knowledge. This is bad for democracy, bad for open societies, bad for the world. Maybe I need to pay for access, but once I pay I should be able to use what I pay for as I see fit.
Or, look at it another way. If the Times is going to make their news expire after 7 days, how can they be the paper of record? And even inside those 7 days, you still can't point to the content you yourself bought (because it's not in HTML, can't be viewed by standard browsers, and on top of that it might well be illegal to reproduce it in a more open format.) So they've gone from being, arguably, the paper of record, to being just another company trying to make a buck. Not surprising, of course, everyone is doing it, but I'm not going to follow.
The BBC, the guardian, or even the independent all seem more reliable to me at this point. And I used to love the New York Times. I'll just read Newsday (or the Post for a laugh) if I want a real print edition paper.
- jim 10-29-2001 6:20 pm
Years ago the now extinct rag Lies of The Times predicted the New York Times would become the only legal provider of facts for the New World Order. Any fact without the official NYT brand festering on its flanks would be devoured by carnivorous infobots that would leave nothing but a trail of obfuscation & disinformation for those without the credentials to afford real facts. The resonance here is sinister: in the future,along with water & air, credible news will be very expensive. Human intrest in reality will end & consciousness will revert to Art Appreciation & Understanding Poetry.
- anonymous (guest) 10-29-2001 6:28 pm
this is what online journals have been doing for quite some time. libraries are buying online journals subscriptions, usually paying one vendor for a slew of titles; it is cheaper (but still $$$), accessible from outside the library to students and no physical storage required. BUT the library has no archival permissions, and has to rely on the vendor. so long as the vendor is in business, there is access to back issues.
- linda 10-29-2001 6:31 pm
Fair use is trumped by the DMCA (which is already law) and even moreso by the SSSCA (which is still being debated.) Microsoft is jumping right in here with Windows XP (and the new versions of Windows Media Player that come with it) in making sure that the consumer (the person who payed for the content) has no rights when it comes to how that content is used. In the future you will not be able to buy anything - you will only be able to rent it with an incredibly heavy handed set of stipulations. For instance, Windows XP makes you agree that Microsoft can remotely access your computer at any time to check for unathorized content, as well as installing (or de-installing) anything they see fit. See here for more.
- jim 10-29-2001 6:31 pm
so long as the vendor is in business, there is access to back issues.
But this sort of copying is harshly excluded under current law (i.e., you can go to jail for doing it.)That's an important point. This is a seminal essay in understanding the corner we are painting ourselves into by giving away everything to these big "content" companies:
- jim 10-29-2001 6:36 pm
I dont think we are going to see any NYC restraunt or gallery reviews (for what they're worth) in the above mentioned rags. Right now NYT is all about selling hard copy news and sussing selling it online based on that model. hense the ahead of the curve tight ass nature of their site. This idea will flop and the they will return to the old format "an online sales supprt tool" for the paper goods (till a market evolves for selling online news and advertising). Our job is to stay one step ahead of them and call them out and thats going to require keeping an eye on them not blocking them out. I thought we were mediating media over here (for as for cheep as possible of course).
- bill 10-29-2001 6:46 pm
And it's windows only!!!
WTF?
- jim 11-02-2001 4:16 pm