Comments on: wapo, nyt trick https://habitablezone.com/2013/09/02/wapo-nyt-trick/ Fri, 03 Apr 2026 22:41:18 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: BuckGalaxy https://habitablezone.com/2013/09/02/wapo-nyt-trick/#comment-26542 BuckGalaxy Tue, 03 Sep 2013 20:03:15 +0000 http://habitablezone.com/?p=37290#comment-26542 I think paywalls run counter to the very nature of the internet and the free flow of information. I agree WaPo and NYT are making a mistake that will limit their readership and thus limit the potential advertising that might be done on their site. Plus, as you say it excludes their outstanding writers from being a part of the conversation in many places. I hope Bezos goes a different route with the Post. A quick note, both WaPo and NYT let you have 10 free views at the beginning of every month. Linked views are free and I was using sites like Reddit and RCP to get some of their articles after my 10 freebies were used up. I discovered the google trick on a whim. I think paywalls run counter to the very nature of the internet and the free flow of information. I agree WaPo and NYT are making a mistake that will limit their readership and thus limit the potential advertising that might be done on their site. Plus, as you say it excludes their outstanding writers from being a part of the conversation in many places. I hope Bezos goes a different route with the Post.

A quick note, both WaPo and NYT let you have 10 free views at the beginning of every month. Linked views are free and I was using sites like Reddit and RCP to get some of their articles after my 10 freebies were used up. I discovered the google trick on a whim.

]]> By: Robert https://habitablezone.com/2013/09/02/wapo-nyt-trick/#comment-26524 Robert Mon, 02 Sep 2013 19:17:47 +0000 http://habitablezone.com/?p=37290#comment-26524 I kept trying, and took the NYT over ten articles to get the paywall. And I typed the title into google, and did indeed get a link to a page without a paywall. You don't need to go to that much trouble: Just edit the URL. Original (in-site on nytimes.com): http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/09/02/sports/ap-box-obit-morrison.html?ref=sports&gwh=AF8A29B96CA6ED409F6F93A9ED32F7A6 edited: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/09/02/sports/ap-box-obit-morrison.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 The difference is to replace all that junk after the "?"--which snitches on you as a web reader with a counter attached--with some generic stuff that says "hey, I'm reading you through an RSS newsreader, so please don't tase me 'bro": ?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 That seems to work on the NYT. I'll post something if I figure out a similar trick on WaPo. I'm willing to talk about the ethics of this if you are. I've been troubled by the paywall restriction because it will marginalize the pundits whose continued stature as pundits depends on their words causing secondary conversations and debate--on their influence, in other words. If we can't cite an opinion piece at WaPo or the NYT on the HabitableZone, then the NYT and WaPO will cease to be influential around here. Multiply that by all the venues where discussion takes place, and these papers are cutting their own throats. They need to solve their financial problems some other way. We may be screwing the newspapers, but we're doing a service to the writers whose work we're liberating. I kept trying, and took the NYT over ten articles to get the paywall. And I typed the title into google, and did indeed get a link to a page without a paywall.

You don’t need to go to that much trouble: Just edit the URL.

Original (in-site on nytimes.com):

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/09/02/sports/ap-box-obit-morrison.html?ref=sports&gwh=AF8A29B96CA6ED409F6F93A9ED32F7A6

edited:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/09/02/sports/ap-box-obit-morrison.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

The difference is to replace all that junk after the “?”–which snitches on you as a web reader with a counter attached–with some generic stuff that says “hey, I’m reading you through an RSS newsreader, so please don’t tase me ‘bro”:

?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

That seems to work on the NYT. I’ll post something if I figure out a similar trick on WaPo.

I’m willing to talk about the ethics of this if you are. I’ve been troubled by the paywall restriction because it will marginalize the pundits whose continued stature as pundits depends on their words causing secondary conversations and debate–on their influence, in other words.

If we can’t cite an opinion piece at WaPo or the NYT on the HabitableZone, then the NYT and WaPO will cease to be influential around here. Multiply that by all the venues where discussion takes place, and these papers are cutting their own throats. They need to solve their financial problems some other way.

We may be screwing the newspapers, but we’re doing a service to the writers whose work we’re liberating.

]]> By: Robert https://habitablezone.com/2013/09/02/wapo-nyt-trick/#comment-26523 Robert Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:57:42 +0000 http://habitablezone.com/?p=37290#comment-26523 I couldn't get either paper's web site to block me with a paywall, so I could test your technique. Which is odd, because the last time I went there, within the last week or so, I did see the grey paywall overlays. And, in the past, links from outside, like search engines or blogs, never had the power to bypass the paywalls. But now all I see, at WaPo, was a polite little box telling me I'd used up my three article views and asking me to subscribe; it it had a little "X" to put it away and continue reading. No coercive paywall at all. So I wonder if what you're seeing isn't a coincidence due to something changing at the web sites? In a related vein, I came up with a simple way to bypass the paywalls: Remove 'em. Most browsers these days have built-in debuggers that let you edit the live HTML, and so all you need to do is delete the overlay, and you can continue reading. In other words, whoever came up with those paywalls decided to just phone it in, and not do anything really secure like lock articles inside the server and not let them get out in the first place. Once they send the article to my browser, I say eff 'em, I'm entitled to dig it out, and if they don't like it, they can try harder to secure their content. That's how paywalls look in my universe. How do I reconcile them to the paywalls in yours? I couldn’t get either paper’s web site to block me with a paywall, so I could test your technique. Which is odd, because the last time I went there, within the last week or so, I did see the grey paywall overlays. And, in the past, links from outside, like search engines or blogs, never had the power to bypass the paywalls. But now all I see, at WaPo, was a polite little box telling me I’d used up my three article views and asking me to subscribe; it it had a little “X” to put it away and continue reading. No coercive paywall at all.

So I wonder if what you’re seeing isn’t a coincidence due to something changing at the web sites?

In a related vein, I came up with a simple way to bypass the paywalls: Remove ‘em. Most browsers these days have built-in debuggers that let you edit the live HTML, and so all you need to do is delete the overlay, and you can continue reading. In other words, whoever came up with those paywalls decided to just phone it in, and not do anything really secure like lock articles inside the server and not let them get out in the first place. Once they send the article to my browser, I say eff ‘em, I’m entitled to dig it out, and if they don’t like it, they can try harder to secure their content.

That’s how paywalls look in my universe. How do I reconcile them to the paywalls in yours?

]]>