Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Many of the links posted here are to articles on Barrons and other subscription only sites? Why bother? If someone doesn’t subscribe, they can’t read the articles. If they do subscribe, they are aware of the articles already or can readily read them by visiting the other sites. I don’t get it. Is this a ploy to attract more subscribers?
Many have brought this same concern up in the past that you present. @Ted, does post a lot of subscription based linked articles. I have, at times, been able to read some of them by opening them in my incognito tab. I'd rather see them posted and if I see something that might be of interest then seek a way to read it. Sometimes it works sometimes it dosen't.
@Tarwheel: As I have stated many times in the past, there are a number of ways to get around most sites that have a paywall. If you scroll and look at the number views ,over 100, of subscription links just this morning, many MFO Members are able to get around the paywall and read the linked article. 1. Copy & Paste article title to Google: 2. In Chrome browser use incognito window: 3. In Firefox browser use private window: Regards, Ted
So let me ask all of you that don't feel the need to pay for someone else's work, did you perform your job for free? I know, too easy.
And Ted, no one knows that you're posting a subscription article until AFTER they've viewed your post so your view count is suspect at best. Needy much?
@Mark pretty much echos my thoughts. So, personally, for my own consumption, I make minimal, if any, effort to go around a publisher’s paywall. I want our free independent press to profit and flourish. I subscribe to the WP through Amazon’s Kindle services. But it doesn’t allow me access to their (identical) online stories.
There’s a gray area with the NYT and WP. Both use cookies that enable users to access a set number of articles monthly for free (typically 5 per month). So, when I come across a good story from one of them somewhere else, I’ll link the original from NYT or WP - thinking most might still be able to access it even if I’ve reached the limit. But I’ll often link a decent (possibly inferior) secondary source along side with a note telling readers they might not be able to access the original.
I don’t even attempt to link directly from those publications that allow no free access (WSJ, Barrons, Financial Times). It’s pretty clear they don’t want non-subscribers accessing their articles. However, I can usually find a decent substitute somewhere else (perhaps CNBC) which characterizes the original article and link it.
That approach seems fair to mfo readers and still complies with the wishes of the publisher. As far as simply directing (frustrated) mfo readers to “... Go do a Google search” - WTF?
@MFO Members: I respect those who feel that by circumventing a paywall one doesn't feel the need to pay for someone else's work. I don't feel that way and in no way is the tips I linked any violation of any copyright laws. Regards, Ted
@Old_Skeet, @hank, @mark, my sentiment is exactly how you all feel. I subscribe to New York Times and Washington Post. I have access to Wall Street Journal through our public library (funded by my property tax). Barrons used to have lots of useful information but the quality have went downhill and I dropped them a long time ago.
I should add that with exception to Lewis Braham who is an excellent free lance writer for Barrons (and other news journals), I would seek out his writing on his Muck Rack website directly. https://muckrack.com/lewis-braham
I can go to my public library and read material (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) without buying the material. So what is so different about accesing published material through Google and being able to read it? Hey, if it is print that is at my local library I see no harm. Barrons can be found in my library's newspaper rack along with many others. And, I am a card carrying member of my local library.
I will only read content at a third party site if it is licensed there. For example, T. Rowe Price used to provide select WSJ articles online to Personal Services investors (back when that required "only" $100K invested). Some articles are reprinted on MarketWatch (another Dow Jones company).
I would not hack into a site merely because I had another channel to access the same content. For example, some publications (WSJ, Consumer Reports, etc.) sell paper subscriptions separately from online subscriptions. IMHO having a paper subscription does not justify accessing the content online if one does not subscribe to that medium.
That said, I consider using well publicized back doors (google, anonymous browsing) fair game. These portals to the content sites are provided by the vendor. Barron's, as sister pub to WSJ, could easily shut down anonymous browsing if it did not have a business purpose in making it available.
The difference, however slight, is that you indirectly pay for the library's subscription to the material via your local taxes. At least that's how libraries in MN obtain materials. I guess I'm just an old school dinosaur who believes that one should either work or pay for what they take/use.
I belatedly agree with @msf. I searched and couldn’t find where it’s illegal to access these sites through the back door. Nor has anyone alleged that it is. More of a personal comfort level I guess. I’d rather pay for the goods I consume.
Subscriptions to top quality publications are dirt cheap considering the quality of writing and analysis one can receive for $15-25 monthly. For around $40-50 monthly I receive 2 top quality national newspapers 7 days a week (ad free) delivered to my Kindle reader, plus 2 top-notch science magazines monthly, also on the Kindle, plus one free audiobook of my choosing every month (great for falling asleep at night). And my $$ goes to support good journalism. What a deal.
Tend to agree with @Sven on a couple points. Admire LB’s writing. And, I’ve little use anymore for Barrons. Received it for the past year for their $52 special rate and rarely picked it up. I suspect some of that may be a degradation of the content over the past 50 years and some of it a maturation of the reader over the same time span.
Comments
Many have brought this same concern up in the past that you present. @Ted, does post a lot of subscription based linked articles. I have, at times, been able to read some of them by opening them in my incognito tab. I'd rather see them posted and if I see something that might be of interest then seek a way to read it. Sometimes it works sometimes it dosen't.
Old_Skeet
1. Copy & Paste article title to Google:
2. In Chrome browser use incognito window:
3. In Firefox browser use private window:
Regards,
Ted
And Ted, no one knows that you're posting a subscription article until AFTER they've viewed your post so your view count is suspect at best. Needy much?
@Mark pretty much echos my thoughts. So, personally, for my own consumption, I make minimal, if any, effort to go around a publisher’s paywall. I want our free independent press to profit and flourish. I subscribe to the WP through Amazon’s Kindle services. But it doesn’t allow me access to their (identical) online stories.
There’s a gray area with the NYT and WP. Both use cookies that enable users to access a set number of articles monthly for free (typically 5 per month). So, when I come across a good story from one of them somewhere else, I’ll link the original from NYT or WP - thinking most might still be able to access it even if I’ve reached the limit. But I’ll often link a decent (possibly inferior) secondary source along side with a note telling readers they might not be able to access the original.
I don’t even attempt to link directly from those publications that allow no free access (WSJ, Barrons, Financial Times). It’s pretty clear they don’t want non-subscribers accessing their articles. However, I can usually find a decent substitute somewhere else (perhaps CNBC) which characterizes the original article and link it.
That approach seems fair to mfo readers and still complies with the wishes of the publisher. As far as simply directing (frustrated) mfo readers to “... Go do a Google search” - WTF?
Regards,
Ted
https://muckrack.com/lewis-braham
I can go to my public library and read material (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) without buying the material. So what is so different about accesing published material through Google and being able to read it? Hey, if it is print that is at my local library I see no harm. Barrons can be found in my library's newspaper rack along with many others. And, I am a card carrying member of my local library.
I will only read content at a third party site if it is licensed there. For example, T. Rowe Price used to provide select WSJ articles online to Personal Services investors (back when that required "only" $100K invested). Some articles are reprinted on MarketWatch (another Dow Jones company).
I would not hack into a site merely because I had another channel to access the same content. For example, some publications (WSJ, Consumer Reports, etc.) sell paper subscriptions separately from online subscriptions. IMHO having a paper subscription does not justify accessing the content online if one does not subscribe to that medium.
That said, I consider using well publicized back doors (google, anonymous browsing) fair game. These portals to the content sites are provided by the vendor. Barron's, as sister pub to WSJ, could easily shut down anonymous browsing if it did not have a business purpose in making it available.
It's not as though the publishers aren't gaming us at least as much as some may think they're gaming the "system".
https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/02/after-years-of-testing-the-wall-street-journal-has-built-a-paywall-that-bends-to-the-individual-reader/
Subscriptions to top quality publications are dirt cheap considering the quality of writing and analysis one can receive for $15-25 monthly. For around $40-50 monthly I receive 2 top quality national newspapers 7 days a week (ad free) delivered to my Kindle reader, plus 2 top-notch science magazines monthly, also on the Kindle, plus one free audiobook of my choosing every month (great for falling asleep at night). And my $$ goes to support good journalism. What a deal.
Tend to agree with @Sven on a couple points. Admire LB’s writing. And, I’ve little use anymore for Barrons. Received it for the past year for their $52 special rate and rarely picked it up. I suspect some of that may be a degradation of the content over the past 50 years and some of it a maturation of the reader over the same time span.
Regards,
Ted