Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
All morning the nytimes.com front page has been displaying an ad for jobs in the CIA's clandestine service. Does CIA ad revenue factor into their decision to overcharge for access to old information?
I'm sure the folks at the Freakonomics blog understand my argument and appreciate the positive benefits of giving away a 'sweet taste'.Hopefully they have some influence over the people in charge of actually making a decision on this issue.(and I say "people" and not person, cause I suspect that there are many layers of decision makers for every decision made at that bloated, dying, sad, establishment)Prof. Althouse, would you want THE BLOG THAT TIME FORGOT (it really seems like an ALL CAPS phrase to me, intoned by Don Pardo, preferrably) to be a .blog.nytimes blog (if they made access to the archival articles you write up each day free, of course)?Speaking of Freakonomics, surprised you haven't blogged about this post on student use of laptops for non-class activities yet.And thank you kindly for the link.
Oops, see you've already posted about the "phony laptops-in-the-classroom" issue a few years ago.Ayres post would be much less interesting if he weren't getting lambasted by a large chunk of the commenters.Well, there's nothing like revisiting a subject you found tiresome two years ago once again.
XWL wrote:Right now, .edu customers get 100 articles per month free, and NYT subscribers get unlimited access to the basic archive, but for everyone else, there's only a link telling you to shell out $3.95 to have a little peek at a musty old article from decades ago (1851-1922 are available, and since 1987, but 1923-1986 will cost you).I'm beginning to think this is not right. Maybe Ann, due to her relationship as you put it XWL, with the NYT, has a special deal.Or maybe because she used to be a Time Select subscriber, or something.I keep clicking using my new .edu NYT account, and it still says I gots to pay.Cheers,Victoria
"has a special deal."...unbeknownst even to her, I mean.
Thanks, X, I did a post on the Ayres thing.As for my blog getting absorbed into the NYT site, I wouldn't object, but they probably would, since I criticize the journalism a lot. If they were really cool they might.But the idea that they might give me a way to link to the archive and make it free is a possibility. I will probably ask about that.
Ever since you first mention the project I've been poking around other papers archives to see if any are free beyond the mid-80s, and so far no luck.Interestingly, seems a bit of collusion is going on.All these different papers owned by quite a few different conglomerates seem to have agreed that $3.95 should be the going rate for single article purchases.I wonder whose ass they picked that number from?Also, NYT is actually the most generous with its archives as hard as that is to believe. Other papers I checked like WaPo and LAT have a yearly plan, but it tops out at 200 articles per year. At least the NYT gives you access with a sub, plus that access is unlimited, nobody else seems to come close.I bet the revenue they get for this is negligible outide of University and institutional purchases (and people who can expense their research to companies with lax oversight). Also, if these really are valuable archives, then why give away stuff from the late 80s, 90s, and most of the 00s? Copyright issues are just as valid in the recent time period as the 20s to the 80s (unless the usual contracts were restructured in the late 80s and the papers own all articles after then, and the writer of the article owns part of it from 24-86, but some how I doubt it).Seems like the ever shrinking news media are determined to imitate the ever shrinking music industry in preventing people from using, sharing, and acting as unpaid advocates for their product.The ridiculous thing is that all this stuff is easily found at just about any good library (public, university or otherwise). Maybe they can be shamed into opening up their archives on Global Warming grounds ( . . . if you don't open up your archives, I'll be make more carbon spewing trips to the local library, please don't make me do that, the baby Gaia will cry . . .)But what I really mean to say is dumbass companies piss me off.Hopefully the NYT will see the light and give you special permission to reprint portions of the protected archives for your new blogging project, there's got to be some sort of accommodation that can be made, otherwise that blog becomes a bit like a group of blind men describing an elephant.(and if I haven't said so already, the blog is fantastic conceptually, and in execution has been promising, but frustrating given that the articles themselves aren't readable)
Time Magazine goes back to 1923.
Post a Comment