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.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 15:00 GMT kyza
Re: Filth
You are aware that 'Torygraph' has long been used by Private Eye as it's nickname, don't you?
Goes alongside The Thunderer (The Times); The Gruaniad (The Guardian, which is (in)famous for spelling errors); The Indescribbably....(smug, boring, stupid) for the Independent.
You'll be complaining they call the Queen 'Brenda' next.
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 14:28 GMT Tom 38
Tried papers on tablets
They are universally rubbish. The Times app is OK - ish - but the Sunday Times app is atrocious, it's a series of stitched together images mainly, meaning each section is massive to download.
The whole point of sunday papers is to completely cover every flat surface in your house with newsprint, so cramming it all into a small tablet doesn't actually work that well.
The only time it is really useful is when you cannot get the real thing - probably abroad. In that case, the huge downloads really make it suffer. Who wants to wait 3 hours to download the Style supplement?
Finally, the price of most newspapers is outrageous. In London, we get served with free newspapers - not the Metro, but the Evening Standard is actually decent quality. The BBC has impartial (well, BBC impartial) reporting of all main events.
The only paper I actually regularly pay for is Private Eye, which is a magazine anyway. Private Eye, Evening Standard, BBC, The Register. Sunday Times on a sunday if I have 4 hours to kill.
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 22:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Tried papers on tablets
"The only time it is really useful is when you cannot get the real thing - probably abroad. In that case,..."
In the 1970s many foreign countries only had "international" editions of British newspapers. Ex-pats had a variety of publications sent to them by subscription or relatives.
The Daily Mirror arrived at the newsagents in the middle of the month as a bound tome of all the previous month's editions. Useful for a quick catch-up on "The Perishers" cartoon strip.
A flimsy NOTW subscription arrived by airmail - memorably with the back view of Westminster Bridge streakers carefully edited to suggest they wore bras and panties. A regular UK edition showed no such censorship.
The least dated news was in "Punch" - which inherently gave a synopsis of interesting developments. The best overall summary was the Giles cartoon annual.
"Amateur Photographer" could be bought in the local newsagents. Quite often Customs had meticulously ripped off the front cover of the whole edition as an act of censorship.
"Mayfair" arrived addressed to a "Mrs Whitehouse". That was allowed to sit in the office general mail tray for at least a week before belng opened - just in case Customs had intercepted it..
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 14:29 GMT Captain Underpants
Given that Andrew tends to have an agenda in this area, it would probably have been a good idea to link to some actual numbers to substantiate the "circulation is up since implementing the paywall" claim, rather than showing a screenshot of the Sunday circulation figures.
It's not hard - in ten seconds or so, I found this article discussing the NYT's circulation along with those of other papers.
I won't say I'm necessarily delighted to see this happen, but I'm glad that a more rational model has arisen for the continued existence of newspapers. It makes sense to at least try and get some money in from readers. Though I wouldn't object if certain broadband tariffs included a fee that would be kicked back to newspaper publishers in exchange for access to their content....
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 16:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Shame...
Torygraph commentards seem to be either UKIP types trying to further deplete the limited gruntle of Tory voters, with the occasional abhorrent-to-the right trollbait being posted to stir things up.
It's sort of at the EBCDIC-is-the-one-true character set level, occasionally rising to EBCDIC-vs-ASCII.
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 14:31 GMT Dan 55
Er, that photo
Caption says "A canny subscription program saw both paper and digital revenues rise" but...
1. The photo shows circulation, not revenue.
2. Print whatever-it-is-we'll-call-it (red line), didn't rise, it carried on falling.
Those pedantic points out the way, are the Torygraph going to prevent customers who've gone for the browser edition (e.g. more than one device) reading with a fondleslab's browser? Just sounds like they're artificially charging higher prices, if that's the digital future then maybe the freetards have a point.
-
Thursday 28th March 2013 13:13 GMT Intractable Potsherd
Re: Er, that photo - fondleslab fees
I was going to pick up on that - why is there a bigger subscription for tablet users? I don't care - I don't have a tablet and I won't pay for a subscription to a news-service*, but it would be interesting to know why one method of reading downloaded material merits a significant price differential over another.
*I can't remember the last time I looked at any UK newspaper's website, or print edition, for that matter. Like many others, I get Private Eye every couple of weeks, read BBC and Al Jazeera websites for general news, and El Reg for most of the rest.
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 14:31 GMT Tim Worstal
Hmm
Out here in exile the Telegraph has been "paywalled" for some months now.
Not that it makes any damn difference. Clear cookies and you're away.
True story: I used to write for their blogs. Used to get paid (beer money) to do so. They decided to spend their money in other ways: fair enough, it's their money. They then invited me to continue to write for free. Also fair enough.
When I asked, being in foreign, if I could have a free £1.99 sub in return for writing for free I was told no, I couldn't. Wouldn't it be a good idea if I wrote for them for free but had to pay to read the paper instead?
Err, no, no it wouldn't.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 14:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
well the DT paywall doesn't bother me
it seems my news browsing computer is accidentally configured to eliminate all aspects of this 'paywall' stuff, accidentally virtually rebooting about once a week, thanks Ghostery et al!
Even an iPad/iPhone can do: Settings/General/About/Advertising/ Reset Advertising Identifier button + Limit Ad Tracking to ON and Settings/Safari/ Clear History + Clear Cookies & Data and voila - free html news incl pink 'un (- surely a 17-yr of can write an App for that?)
I agree with the article that if/when a news App becomes a pleasure to use and better uses the pad media than the HTML browser version or the dead-tree version then I'll happily invest. (At present my fave news source is a english language google translated html version of http://rus.postimees.ee/?online=1) best cleaned link is something like: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Frus.postimees.ee%2F%3Fonline%3D1
ogooglebar!
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 15:12 GMT TeeCee
Re: well the DT paywall doesn't bother me
I agree with the article that if/when a news App becomes a pleasure to use and better uses the pad media than the HTML browser version....
Given the tendancy of "app" developers to regard pinch to zoom[1], as implemented in browsers, as the work of Satan and not to be trucked with, I reckon you're on a hiding to nothing there. Especially with text-heavy content, which is where the ability to resize is crucial. They may think that their chosen text size and layout is perfect and that nobody would ever want to change it, but they're almost invariably wrong.
I've found that there are perishingly few web operations where the "app" experience is better then visiting their page[2]. I have reserved a special circle of hell for those who direct you to / automagically fire their app when a mobile browser is detected.
I tend to find that a bookmark pinned to the screen shits from a great height on most apps for usability.
[1] Or indeed any method of resizing the content.
[2] Likewise, thank fuck for "Request desktop version" in the Android browser and a plague upon the houses of those sites that override it!
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 16:00 GMT diodesign
Re: Re: well the DT paywall doesn't bother me
"Given the mess it was before"
How long ago was that? The Windows 8 (shush at the back), iOS and Android apps should be all right.
C.
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 16:35 GMT Anonymous Custard
Re: well the DT paywall doesn't bother me
Near the beginning (the Android app) when it couldn't even manage spaces in comments, and then a few weeks after that when it was bloated, still not overly good with comments (although OK then with spaces) and had other issues with size and synching.
Just had a quick look again - looks a bit better now, but still seems to be missing some basics like being able to search articles? Or being able to see comment vote counts or indeed vote?
The only thing it seems to give is offline caching, and that looks to be all or nothing for both articles and for comments?
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 15:12 GMT DrXym
Freeloaders?
The Sun and Telegraph festoon their sites with ads and charge a lot of money for the impressions they deliver to the millions of visitors they enjoy every day, So while it might be "free" to visit their site (and other sites that carry advertising), it does not mean they are not making money from the act. It's a quid pro quo thing.
Anyway, the Telegraph has disappeared up its own backside with its ridiculous UKIP pro-rhetoric of late. If it disappears behind a pay wall, then no great loss. I have no opinion of the Sun's content since I don't read it though News International haven't exactly had a lot in that direction and it's hard to see why casual visitors would be more likely to pay for the Sun than the kind who might read the Times.
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 15:57 GMT El Presidente
Re: Freeloaders?
"the Telegraph has disappeared up its own backside"
Quite a lot of long form journalism as gone the same way and a lot of output from erstwhile hacks these days is short opinion pieces presented as blog posts, neatly wrapped in click bait *Apple* surrounded by, I'm told, flashing adverts.
Not quite the same as reading a strong image followed by three broadsheet pages full of in-depth reporting on a given subject, with a couple of astute analysis pieces by other journalists as a follow up (with a couple of pints in't pub) is it :(
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 15:55 GMT kyza
Timesonline...
NewsInt have been remarkably quiet as to the progress of their decision to paywall The Times/ST. It might be indicative of it's success that they're moving The Sun behind one, but it's just as likely that's happening because of Rupe's quotable disdain for giving
his blessed opinionsnews content away for free.Being cynical, I'm more inclined to believe that it's not really been that successful else we'd have heard about it's amazing success by now.
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 16:03 GMT Sebastian Brosig
fine.
All I read on the Torygraph site is the Matt and Alex cartoons, the actual articles are all lies anyway.
And if Alex or Matt disappear behind a paywall, hmm I can live without it.
If the Matt cartoon is particularly good (which happens quite frequently) they quote it on Radio4's Today Programme anyway.
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 16:36 GMT The Vociferous Time Waster
You think el Reg is a news site?
As the management of El Reg have stated in the past the 'news' elements of this site are only there to suck us in so they can occasionally do some market research on us and sell the results to tech companies. They also sell advertising to those companies. Hardly a good candidate for paywalling.
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 17:38 GMT kyza
Re: You think el Reg is a news site?
Way back in the mists of time when I was an online media buyer I punted a reasonable amount of business in the direction of El Reg as, commentards declaiming advertising notwithstanding, it's readers do actually click on ads and engage with the advertisers.
Which amazed me, as I'd always assumed bog 'ware vendors would have hyperactive sales reps, thus negating the need for any ads...
-
-
Wednesday 27th March 2013 23:55 GMT Fihart
Paywall not the way to go.
Most papers with paywalls concede that the casual browser can scope the main stories for free. This suits the short-attention-span mindset that most internet users adopt. If they try to stop that, the majority will simply drop them and go to the many free sites remaining (and others will doubtless spring up in response).
In London there are now three free (physical) newspapers daily and one weekly magazine -- plus the Indie which sells for just 20p. This would seem to be the future.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
