General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't want to buy an online subscription to WaPo and NYT
but I want to be able to read the articles posters mention here. Posters are generally good about posting the gist of the story when they refer to an article from one of these papers, not just posting the link, but I often am left wanting to know more. I am assuming most people here, like me, do not have online subscriptions.
I wonder if we could all chip in somehow and buy DU a subscription to WaPo and NYT? We could share the passwords and thus be able to participate better in discussions that arise from stuff printed in these papers.
Maybe it could be a benefit of the star membership, or maybe a "star-plus" membership?
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)And as a content creator myself, a pox on that kind of approach.
If you want quality work, you have to pay for it. If not, your loss.
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)My father spent his working life as an editor and columnist, and I'm not trying to cheat writers (which includes me--first published work under my own name coming out in November). I want DU to consider *buying* a communal subscription, which we members would subsidize.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)I have a hard time being in favor of a communal subscription for a service like this since all of it goes to help fund more quality reporting.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I posted something akin to this below.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)and the WA Post would survive if everyone could find a "communal subscription" somewhere?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)interested in. WaPo is stingy; they only let you read three before they cut you off. The NYT is more forgiving. In either case, you only need log off and log back in incognito. Rinse and repeat.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)and it's anything like mine (Galaxy S7), you don't even need to sign out. With the chrome browser just hold down on the link until the menu pops up. Select, open incognito window. Done.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)Just like music. If you listen to it you shouldn't steal it.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Incognito.
themaguffin
(3,826 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Then again marks insist they are not marks...
themaguffin
(3,826 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)I want DU to consider buying a community subscription that members could share and which members would pay for. I don't read either of those papers online often enough to justify my buying my own subscription. If I did, I would certainly pay for it myself. What I want is the equivalent of what I do in real life: that is, buy a WaPo or NYT as a single issue when there's something I'm interested in reading more about.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)What's to stop my neighborhood from a community subscription and then emailing each other the articles?
Come on dude.
ProfessorGAC
(65,021 posts)Libraries pay for the subscription and anyone who signs up to use one of their computers can access whatever the library pays for.
They do it at our library, and i live in a pretty small city. (Around 6k)
Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)They buy an institutional subscription, based on the size of the population served. The license terms dictate how that can be shared among library patrons. (E.g it might permit a certain number of terminals, it might permit remote access, etc.)
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)for most. Then, Facebook users or other large groups could chip in for 1 subscription to share. I don't think any newspaper would survive if they started that. It takes a lot of money to run a great, investigative reporting newspaper.
You get a lot of it free here anyway. Plus, you can get 4 articles per month free. Local newspapers share articles from both WaPo& NYT for free. That's already generous.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,614 posts)If I were you, I'd post this in Ask the Administrators group. They're more likely to see it there.
Link: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)That access can't even legally be shared within a family.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)But the whole family reads the paper version. I assume you mean across different computers, not reading off of the family computer. But even then... Where did you get this info?
Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)I have the educator rate.
People who pay full rate can share with one person.
lamp_shade
(14,831 posts)saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)but if you become a daily reader of any online site, a contribution should be considered.
For the headlines, you can bypass the "wall" by using
http://www.news.msn.com
The link is not secure. If you can't trust Microsoft, then.....
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Paid content is paid content, and you can run around the license agreement like that.
Nor should you.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,368 posts)Not only do reporters deserve to be paid for their work, but there is a certain class of people that definitely can benefit from getting a real paper subscription;
The folks who work the printing presses.
MyOwnPeace
(16,926 posts)I'd love to read it all, but somebody has to pay for the reporter's work! If we don't support them, well, we'll only get what is not "fake news" (which is not "news" at all, but rather, what the "supreme leader" wants us to hear).
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)I'm from a newspaper family (the Charleston (WV) Gazette), and I want to pay for content, online or on paper. I read an actual paper paper every day; I have trouble reading a whole lot on a computer screen. But I want to read those stories.
Problem is, it seems wasteful somehow for me to subscribe when I won't use the service the way I use a paper paper. I won't read the whole thing online, and although it isn't very expensive, it seems wrong for me to do this just for myself.
Actually, I'd be happy to pay for an informal group subscription, if anybody wants to talk about that in DU mail. If say five of us share a subscription, that's one more subscription the paper would not otherwise have gained, and we would be able to read the whole story when a reference is posted.
MyOwnPeace
(16,926 posts)and got "dumped" in April (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) because they must not have enough people around me to deliver. They did offer me a 2-month "on-line" rate but I'm "old school" - I want newsprint on my fingers and working the crossword puzzle with a pen (yeah, mess up and you're done!).
They had included a free on-line subscription to the WP with my own subscription so I had no trouble doing the links. But when they dumped me I lost it all.
I'm with 'ya - I'd gladly pay to keep reporters reporting in the manner that they were to be doing - free, independent REPORTING, advertisers, owners, and politicians be damned! Bring it to my door - I'll subscribe. On-line, well, again, I'm "old school" - but I'll consider something if it keeps them working/digging/independent!
Pisces
(5,599 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)And why we subscribe to the local paper. I want someone doing this investigative work, so I'm spending some money to support it - even though it is trivially easy to skate around the pay wall of an entity that permits a handful of free articles a month.
spooky3
(34,451 posts)Online subscription is very reasonably priced.
Odoreida
(1,549 posts)I'll pay for books (on paper).
But not online anything.
Not news. Not movies. Not games.
Given away free or public domain is the way to go.
And if they have a script to detect ad-blockers, disable scripts too.
Fuk'm.
Shouldn't the people who made the games or movies be paid? I suppose for larger sites like the NY Times it might not be a big deal, but with games, especially indie, games the developers don't have a lot of money to lose. The same with a lot of smaller websites. I mean, I can't say I'm perfect on this. I exploit the incognito trick for WaPo and NY Times, but they're large enough that they can take the hit and still run ads.
Odoreida
(1,549 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Emails with .edu, gov & .mil !!
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)My local subscription gets me a free subscription to the Post because there is some corporate relationship there. If you have a newspaper subscription, see if it gets you any wider access.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)If someone posts a Washington Post article here just copy and past the title into google's search
engine and click on the link returned and you can see the whole article.
The Washington Post actually told people they can get around their paywall by doing that in this article:
About that Paywall
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/10/about-that-paywall
Which you can see in its entirety by plugging the title "About that Paywall" into google and clicking the link returned:
http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=About+that+paywall
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)And too often threads just have an OP subject title, with a WaPo link in the body.
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)many if not most posters have been including a summary of what the article says, in addition to the link.
Freethinker65
(10,021 posts)I can access media subscriptions through a service our local library belongs to by logging on while at home
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)Proposal aborted.
Demsrule86
(68,565 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)In the end, You get what you pay for.
I suggest supporting journalism and pay for at least a digital subscription if you don't live in the area of those two papers.
We go one step further. We have our local paper delivered every day. That paper happens to be the Washington Post.
When I lived in Atlanta, we had the AJC delivered.
Before that, When I lived in NY, I picked up the Times to read on my way into work.
Asking DU to do this is really rather unscrupulous. Instead of asking everyone to chip in and have DU do this, how about you spend a few bucks a month and support a free press while we still have it?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,686 posts)because they'd started doing some real journalism again. Both newspapers have run some excellent articles and op-ed pieces about the Russia investigation, and I wanted to support that kind of work. We have to pay for paper copies; why not pay for electronic ones?
Joe941
(2,848 posts)some of us just can't afford it.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Or should they work for free?
Demit
(11,238 posts)If newspapers had to depend on subscriptions for their operating income, they would cease to exist.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)ksoze
(2,068 posts)How do you think those papers deliver the product they do? Its as bad as copying software or stealing music.
shanti
(21,675 posts)It works.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)It's still a general concept worth thinking about. Blog tiered pricing. No sharing of passwords. Star members are simply ably to pass through. The algorithm would be extremely simple. Not sure about the pricing.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)See if yours does
brooklynite
(94,541 posts)Personally, I've paid for a 7-day subscription to the Times since 1977. I also have paid subscriptions to the Washington Post, New York Daily News and the Guardian.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... so find the story on Google then click the WaPo link and you're in! (Or you may find the same story presented elsewhere on an non-paywall site.)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It's pretty clear that you don't understand the obvious legal and technical flaws in what you are suggesting.
But notwithstanding that, there is a simple, and legal, workaround.
1. You take the headline of the article.
2. You go to News.Google.com.
3. You paste it there and hit search.
4. You click on the headline and read.
Doing it that way solves your problem, and also solves the newspaper's problem, since you'll get an ad or two that do not show up for the paid version. The newspaper publishers worked this out with Google a while back. Use it.
mucifer
(23,542 posts)I think it's very reasonable. My brother shares The Atlantic with me. They have a similar thing going. I share the WaPo with him.
If you do that legally with someone you can split the price with the other person.
ginnyinWI
(17,276 posts)If so, even a digital subscription, check to see if they partner with WaPo. We subscribe to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, and they partner with WaPo, so after verification, we are not getting WaPo thrown in for free. MJS is cheaper, so it's a real bargain.
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)but I've decided to go ahead and pay for the NYT and WaPo online. Anybody who wants to share my subscription, let me know.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)No doubt there's one in your town.
Use it. Smh.
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)I asked a question. I did not say I didn't want these online editions to be paid for. I posted repeatedly that income from a newspaper is what allowed my family to exist. I never *once* asked for a way to get these services without paying for them. And I didn't see any posts from you expressing "SMH" to all the people who posted ways to get around the paywalls--which btw is something I would never do.
Have you ever heard of civility?
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Thin skinned?
Go pull a couple bucks out of your wallet and buy a paper.
Or read the online version, you get 10 stories free from the NYTimes.
I buy the paper every day, and sometimes I don't read the whole thing. I guess I should add up how many dimes I lost with any story not read. Too funny.
I do hope your day goes better.
I am bowled over by your charm. God bless your little heart.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Whining over the cost of a paper. Seriously, dude?
Things that make you go hmmm.
dembotoz
(16,803 posts)bluepen
(620 posts)Not sure if it would be in violation of some rule here, so Ill just say if you Google it there are lots of sites that show how. Its easy, and its NYTs and WaPos glitch.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)It is one way I'm resisting. I really enjoy it as well
cyclonefence
(4,483 posts)The thought that more success for the WaPo would enrage Trump pushed me over the line to a paid subscription.