Comments on: NO FREE LUNCH

By: joy

joy — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Well the arguement goes both ways in that if the Times (or any other paper) wants to be talked about online it has to be linkable.

So, they can either put up a wall and be a prestigious NY paper or keep themselves online and be a prestigious national paper. Honestly it depends on who they want to influence more.

And yeah, before you throw the WSJ example out, you do realize that it's rare to see a treatment of a WSJ article (not Opinion Journal) in the blogosphere.

By: John Lemon

John Lemon — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

You have to pay for good fiction at Barnes & NOble, so why not on the Times' website too?

By: Little Miss Attila

Little Miss Attila — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Hey--I've blogged about WSJ articles. But then, I'm weird.

What Joy said: a publication has to choose between being easily accessed and discussed, or not. But it's certainly their choice.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Joy: I agree. I'd prefer NYT not do the archive thing, especially if it's deep linked on a blog. But I can understand their motivation. The current method allows it to be discussed while it's fresh; registration is free. Some blogs actually archive the whole article in the extended entry section, which I've considered but am not sure it's "fair use." ---