So how long till el reg hides behind a paywall?
Torygraph and Currant Bun stand by to repel freeloaders
The Daily Telegraph is to begin charging regular web readers for web access. The Telegraph doesn't use the term 'paywall' in its announcement, which is fair enough, really. The P-word is really a propaganda word, as the FT's M B Christie has pointed out: "Why don't we call it paying for content, just like paying for milk or …
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 21:39 GMT bazza
Printing press
The Register, unlike the Daily Telegraph, hasn't got a loss making print operation to support. And I suspect that the staff count at The Register is considerably smaller than the Telegraph's. If that means the hacks at the Reg can still get a few beers like this one <--- on expenses then I see no risk of them putting up a paywall...
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 14:05 GMT El Presidente
BBC for the headlines
Blogs for analysis?
I'll only buy content from Big News when it's in dead tree format.
The best thing about the new paywalls is that the guardian's comments section will be swamped with exiled right wing nut jobs too tight to pay a few quid a month to vent their spleen. Popcorn anyone?
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 14:31 GMT An0n C0w4rd
Re: BBC for the headlines
It's also one step closer to the loss of (perceived) anonymity on the Internet. If papers push most of their content behind subscription systems, it becomes very easy to link a commentator to a verified credit card billing address.
Given how the UK police and security services (as well as our lovely friends in the USA) have over-reacted numerous times to innocent comments posted on the Intertubes, I'm not convinced that this is a step in the right direction.
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 14:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: BBC for the headlines
"Given how the UK police and security services (as well as our lovely friends in the USA) have over-reacted numerous times to innocent comments posted on the Intertubes, I'm not convinced that this is a step in the right direction."
And exactly how anonymous do you think the likes of you and I are on El Reg? We've given them a valid email address, and unless it is hosted in some East European sh1thole then the mail server operators would happily grass up the IP we're accessing the email from, which in fairly short order could have you named.
You could be accessing through multiple proxies, or from work servers (eg when I post from work it gets routed through a continental server), you could use all manner of fancy obfuscation, but I'll wager that you don't, and the incidental obfuscation of work postings and the like wouldn't save you.
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 15:20 GMT El Presidente
Re: BBC for the headlines @Ledswinger
"mail server operators would happily grass up the IP we're accessing the email from, which in fairly short order could have you named."
So what? Simple solution: Never say anything online you wouldn't say to someone's face and never say anything to anyone anyway which you can not substantiate with facts. It's not rocket surgery, is it?
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 15:57 GMT Captain Underpants
Re: BBC for the headlines @Ledswinger
@El Presidente
That's great, until you factor in the notion of whisteblowers. And whether or not you think they're needed very often, it's not necessarily a net improvement to the world to make it impossible for someone to report dodgy dealings or actions without effectively standing up and saying "I, Joe Bloggs of 123 Fake Street, would like to bring to your attention the following criminal *ack ack argh*", shortly followed by a takedown notice on the basis that the post is defamatory and a news story a couple of days later about how Joe Bloggs of 123 Fake Street has been found dead with two bullet holes in the back of his skull, and the police believe it to be suicide, and Definitely Not Shady At All.
I do think that an awful lot of comment sections would be improved if the very small but non-zero probability existed that saying something objectionable might get you a real-world kick in the danglies. (But then, who gets to define "objectionable"? Back to square zero...)
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 16:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: BBC for the headlines @El Presidente
"So what? Simple solution"
You seem to think I'm taking a view on on-line expression. In fact I was merely responding to the OP who commented that newspaper paywalls and associated comment forums would make the commentards more traceable, and for a very high percentage it won't make a blind bit of difference.
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 16:02 GMT Tom_
Re: BBC for the headlines
Easy solution:
Set up the email account in an internet cafe in a town you never visit. Actually, pay a random teenager to go into the internet cafe and set the account up for you. Have them also link the email to your new Register account and respond to the confirmation email while they're in there. Have them give you the Register account username/password. Pay them in alcohol that you bought in another town that you otherwise never visit. Wear a different disguise in each town and put on a silly voice when negotiating with the teenager. Make sure you pay them enough alcohol that they won't remember any of the Register or email account details. Never ever log into the email account.
Remember to use cash to pay for the alcohol and train tickets and don't get the cash out all at once, but just by withdrawing an extra tenner each time you use a cash machine for the preceeding few months. Launder the cash via two independent beuraux de change, converting it into a foreign curreny and back to ensure you end up with notes that don't bear your finger prints.
Simply repeat most of the above process each time you wish to post a new comment on the Register.
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 17:37 GMT Defiant
Re: BBC for the headlines
Don't think you'll ever get a right-winger on the Guardian. The paper itself is £24 million in debt due to left-wingers preferring to troll right-wing media, fact.
On another point while people are knocking this I take it you left-wingers don't mind the BBC being behind a pay wall, the BBC TV Licence
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 17:37 GMT Elmer Phud
Re: If only the Dailymail were to follow suit.
Will the Mail implode with even more self-righteous postings and be forced to go the same way?
No doubt there will be reduced rates for subbing to the Sun via Sky , less to confuse the little dears.
Will the Sun have special options -- one with all the news and gossip for the laydees and ine with just tits and sport for the geezers?
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 21:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: If only the Dailymail were to follow suit.
"Will the Sun have special options ..."
Wasn't that supposed to be an "advantage" of online content for a consumer? Your news and music feeds would be filtered to only the narrow spectrum of things you say you like. Choosing a single newspaper already sets an effective filter for style, viewpoint, and content. No doubt many regular readers then regard a large percentage of that as irrelevant to their tastes, needs, or desires.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 14:27 GMT Tequila Joe
More jet Spitfires? - Oh yes please!
I suppose I ought to sign up - I am beginning to think this country is run by the EU.
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 21:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: just remove cookies
"Cookies wont help if the system checks the IP"
That only works if you have an IP address dedicated to one PC. Most home users have several PCs behind their IP address. That in turn may be a NAT shared with other customers. Business intranets have a lot of PCs multiplexed behind a small set of IP addresses.
Anyway Firefox by default erases cookies if you close the browser.
Probably the only way they will be able to try enforce the limit will be a mandatory registration even for free content.
-
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
