NYT Circumvention filter

September 15, 2005 9:46 AM

How can I circumvent the NYT Op-ed wall?

The New York Times will shortly begin charging for access to its op-ed columnists. I have no interest in paying for access to them, because they are not worth the cost to me. However, it would be nice to be able to read them on occasion without having to pay out.

So. It occurs to me that most (all?) of the columnists-- John Tierney, Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, Nick Kristof, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich-- are probably syndicated in other papers, and that at least some of those papers probably put their content online for free (with or without registration).

Thus, first of all does anybody know if my hunch is correct, and second of all does anybody know where to find get access to each, any, or all of these columnists online but away from the Times's site?

[Oh, and finally, don't bother scolding that it is somehow bad to try to acquire for free what the Times wants to sell, but if you think there is a cognizable legal argument that this post or replies to it violate the DMCA, feel free to speak up.]

posted by willbaude to media & arts (34 comments total)

You're a student. Your university doesn't give you online access to the NYT archives? Possibly through LexisNexis or the like?
posted by grouse at 9:55 AM on September 15, 2005

The NYTimes has amended contracts with newspapers that carry their columnists to say that their op-ed columnists can not appear on free websites, with or without registration. So you are not likely to find them free anywhere, unless somebody screws up or breaks the rules. The op-ed columns move to TimesSelect, a paid section starting Monday ($49.95 per year, $39.95 if you sign up by Sunday). There are some online-only extras, detailed here.
posted by beagle at 9:58 AM on September 15, 2005

Oh, they do. I guess I should have mentioned I'm looking for someplace they're freely accessible online, partly because I'd like to be able to post links to them.
posted by willbaude at 9:58 AM on September 15, 2005

Re: Beagle. Rats!

Thanks.
posted by willbaude at 9:58 AM on September 15, 2005

How can I circumvent the NYT Op-ed wall?

Wait. Many other paywalls are circumvented, apparently beyond the reach of cease-and-desists. One presumes that unless the NYT is prepared to sink several times the amount it makes from subscriptions into legal fees, the same will apply here.
posted by holgate at 10:05 AM on September 15, 2005

Oh, and finally, don't bother scolding

No, sorry, you're not getting off with a pre-emptive wave of your hand. You may not like the terms imposed by NYT, but what you're asking for is wrong, wrong, wrong. It doesn't matter if loopholes exist. It's still theft.

AskMe is not for this.
posted by mkultra at 10:18 AM on September 15, 2005

Here's your key to access, from beagle's link.

"Print subscribers get TimesSelect free as part of their regular service."

Likely it won't be too hard to find some person/group sharing this around. Won't get you a publically accessable link to link comments to, tho.
posted by phearlez at 10:20 AM on September 15, 2005

Well, you could read the actual question before your inappropriate scolding, mkultra.

and second of all does anybody know where to find get access to each, any, or all of these columnists online but away from the Times's site?

No mention there of illegality, just of finding a different avenue to what is desired. It's NOT theft if other papers are offering it online for free, though beagle's post indicates it WOULD be a violation of THEIR agreement with NYT.
posted by phearlez at 10:31 AM on September 15, 2005

No, sorry, you're not getting off with a pre-emptive wave of your hand. You may not like the terms imposed by NYT, but what you're asking for is wrong, wrong, wrong. It doesn't matter if loopholes exist. It's still theft.

AskMe is not for this.
posted by mkultra at 10:18 AM PST on September 15

Sodomy is still illegal in some jurisdictions, so I guess homosexuals better stay away from relationship questions here.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:43 AM on September 15, 2005

That's entirely different, Optimus. A manufacturer of X (in this case, a newspaper) has the right to charge for their products (in this case, op-ed columns).
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:46 AM on September 15, 2005

first of all, i think the times should *pay* us for reading david brooks or -- yuk -- john tierney .

that said, i'd wait, like the other suggested. already, the times puts away articles after 7 days but you can always find them reposted on blogs, sites, etc. this will happen with the columnists, too.
posted by yonation at 11:00 AM on September 15, 2005

Maybe Bug Me Not?

Not that I condone this sort of thing.
Nosireebob.
posted by willmize at 11:05 AM on September 15, 2005

No, sorry, you're not getting off with a pre-emptive wave of your hand. You may not like the terms imposed by NYT, but what you're asking for is wrong, wrong, wrong. It doesn't matter if loopholes exist. It's still theft.

unethical, maybe. If legal loopholes exist (which looks unlikely at this point), I don't see how it's theft. Still, it was these legal loopholes that the asker was SPECIFICALLY asking for. That is, the question was whether or not these columnists might be syndicated somewhere where they are accessible for free, not "how can I get this content illegally".* I, anal, bu that seems more like a grey-area quasi-legality FIGHT THA POWER type-situation rather than outright theft -- a situation that mefi users typically support.

The asker's only fault was in phrasing the question in such a manner that it appears they are unconcerned with whether the "circumvention" is legal or not. I mean, if you want him to add another disclaimer "PLEASE LEGAL METHODS ONLY" so we can get your thumbs up, I'll bet he'd do it, and then we can all have a kickass tea party.

* i agree that "how can I get this content for free" can look a lot like "how can I get this content illegally", but I don't think the two are the same.
posted by fishfucker at 11:25 AM on September 15, 2005

Good lord.

Yes indeed it ought to be quite legal to read syndicated material if a source chooses to offer it for free. It appears that isn't going to be the case, which is unfortunate.

If anybody would like to make an actual statutory argument that this-- reading columns available in syndication rather than the original-- would indeed be illegal (under the DMCA, some sort of contract- interference claim, copyright law etc.) please feel free, but it seems to me that the vague and underspecific analogies to theft and sodomy are quite unhelpful to all concerned.
posted by willbaude at 11:33 AM on September 15, 2005

Buy a subscription to the NY TImes. You're not getting around this in any legal way. As beagle said, the NYT amended their syndication contracts with other news papers to disallow exactly what you're looking for.

Yes indeed it ought to be quite legal to read syndicated material if a source chooses to offer it for free. It appears that isn't going to be the case, which is unfortunate.

I'm your provider of syndicated material, and I'm providing you with a whole host of information (NYT runs a wire like AP) for your paper. I've got some extra information that I would only like to be available to premium subscribers, and thus, I'm not going to allow you to print it online. This is my call, I'm the one who's paying for the creation of the information. There's nothing illegal about this. If its worth 40 bucks a year to you to have Tom Friedman mix metaphors on your monitor, then pay it.

But don't act as if this is some "information wants to be free" bullshit.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:43 AM on September 15, 2005

But don't act as if this is some "information wants to be free" bullshit.

To my knowledge, nobody is. And this answer thread seems to have passed the point of negative marginal returns. Thanks to the helpful answers.
posted by willbaude at 11:48 AM on September 15, 2005

To my knowledge, nobody is

Well, it seemed that way to me.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:59 AM on September 15, 2005

Flagging every comment in this thread except the first four. (Yes, including this very comment.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:21 PM on September 15, 2005

willmize: bugmenot's policy is to provide login/passwords for free sites only, not for paid sites.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:27 PM on September 15, 2005

Generally AskMe isn't for figuring out how to get for-fee stuff for free. That said, since this is a currently free thing that is going to cost money, it's in a pesky grey area. So, if you want to belabor this point, take it to MetaTalk, but it does seem that the answer to the question is "no" for now, at least not until someone circumvents it in the manner that holgate mentions.
posted by jessamyn at 2:44 PM on September 15, 2005

People will take care of it for us, willbaude--just wait and see. Within 2 days of the switchover there'll be solutions posted online.
posted by amberglow at 2:56 PM on September 15, 2005

For you nay-sayers, reread the question. Will is not asking for a technical method to circumvent the registration system NYTimes will impose to read these editorials, he is asking if these columnists are syndicated in other places that won't be charging for the same editorials. That's why beagle's answer is marked as best; it actually answers the question.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:06 PM on September 15, 2005

Jessamyn: Thanks for the point of procedure. I had hoped that this was on the light-grey side of the grey area, but since the inquiry has come to naught, I suppose it is moot.
posted by willbaude at 8:55 PM on September 15, 2005

Stanford's take on "fair use."

Reading the column "occasionally" and commenting on it via a blog seems to fall within these parameters. That doesn't mean anyone can hack into the site and take what they want, but it also doesn't mean everyone has to get their knickers all knotted up because the asker wants to read a column.
posted by craniac at 8:55 PM on September 15, 2005

Oh, I don't think the posters were actually concerned about substantive copyright violation. Reading columns in syndication-- if they were available for free which they aren't-- is obviously not just "fair use" but not a violation of copyright in the first place.
posted by willbaude at 9:57 PM on September 15, 2005

Are there any examples of this (paid content syndicated for free)? I don't think the WSJ does it. Seems like that business model would last about two weeks before everyone figured it out.
posted by mkultra at 5:24 AM on September 16, 2005

For a long time I'm pretty sure the New York Times crossword puzzle was an example, although it is syndicated abotu 4-5 weeks behind the original. I don't know of any place you can get the old NYT crosswords online any more, but you used to be able to get it from, e.g., my hometown paper.

Law professors and other scholars, of course, also frequently post their own writings (otherwise available only for fees from many of the law journals or a site like Westlaw) on their personal homepages, which is a lesser-included version of this general phenomenon.
posted by willbaude at 6:06 AM on September 16, 2005

i wonder whether we'll see any editorials by Dowd or Krugman decrying this practice once it starts? and what happens to the "most emailed" lists?
posted by amberglow at 9:33 PM on September 16, 2005

It isn't a full circumvention, but it looks like the Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive is still archiving his columns, including today's -- which you needed a TimesSelect subscription to see on the NY Times website.
posted by HiddenInput at 5:09 AM on September 19, 2005

This character also seems to be collecting the syndicated columns online for free for as long as the manna keeps falling.
posted by willbaude at 5:26 AM on September 21, 2005

Thanks willbaude!
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:47 AM on September 21, 2005

and Infoweb Newsbank thing has Herbert--maybe more???
posted by amberglow at 6:09 AM on September 23, 2005

Krugman too
posted by amberglow at 6:19 AM on September 23, 2005

Technorati coughs up blogs that reprint the columns every time, FYI.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:10 PM on October 9, 2005