Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday May 21 2017, @07:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the trying-to-get-paid-for-what-they-do dept.

The Boston Globe website is closing off a hole in its paywall by preventing visitors who aren't logged in from reading articles in a browser's private mode.

"You're using a browser set to private or incognito mode" is the message given to BostonGlobe.com visitors who click on articles in private mode. "To continue reading articles in this mode, please log in to your Globe account." People who aren't already Globe subscribers are urged to subscribe.

Like other news sites, the Globe limits the number of articles people can read without a subscription. Until the recent change, Globe website visitors could read more articles for free by switching to private or incognito mode.

Source: ArsTechnica


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday May 21 2017, @02:17PM (3 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday May 21 2017, @02:17PM (#513020) Journal

    The lamest part isn't the technical details of the subscription or paywall, and whether it is easily beaten by turning off Javascript or using private mode or whatever. It's the business model. It's wishing that there is a technological way to make DRM work. Attempting to create a DRM scheme that works is a waste of effort, as it can't be done, any more than a perpetual motion machine can be built. They can annoy and nag, and that's about it.

    What's to stop people from sharing subscriptions? Even if they detect a hundred people logged in to the same account and block that, how do they stop web site scraping and a few subscribers spreading their news stories around that way? They don't. No one can stop that. Might as well try to shut down the grapevine.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 21 2017, @02:53PM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday May 21 2017, @02:53PM (#513031) Journal

    I don't know if this is a viable business model going forward, but I think the efficacy of DRM can vary significantly depending on the application.

    DRM doesn't work well in preventing stuff like music or movie piracy, because these are sort of "durable goods" that people will want to access over extended periods of time. If it takes days or weeks or even months for someone to bother to make a hacked copy and upload to a torrent site or whatever, there may still be an audience interested in downloading it. If you can't find it one week, try again next week or find a link on a different site.

    News? Not so much. Tomorrow, nobody cares much about reading 90% of today's headlines. So, sharing of content has to be fast and predictable to be an effective alternate news source for the DRM content. But if it's too predictable, it's easier to target and shut down or slam with notices that delink it from search engines and make it "invisible."

    Couple that with the fact that the majority of news in even a paper like the Boston Globe can be found elsewhere. Lots of AP/Reuters stories, etc., and even the ones that are written by Globe reporters that cover national/international events are likely to be told elsewhere. The main "unique" content is local news. So not only do you need to set up a dependable fast pirate site as a mirror, but which magically isn't shut down or made invisible to search engines -- you also need someone out of a few million people in the Boston region to actually care enough to do this and maintain it.

    It all sounds like too much trouble, compared to other places where DRM is ineffective.

    And yes, people can share news stories with friends. High-profile news feature stories from specific news outlets often end up with online mirrors of those particular stories. But the Globe isn't interested in 100% effectiveness or with banning the casual reader from getting free content. (You already get X stories per month free or whatever.) They're trying to get dedicated local readers to pay for a subscription.

    I don't know that it will work as an effective strategy now, and I can't imagine this will be what the news business looks like in 20 years or whatever. But for the immediate future, any "DRM" attempt doesn't need to be 100% effective or handle every edge case. It just needs to make it hard enough or at least obscure enough to circumvent that a significant number of people will still pay for the service.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @04:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21 2017, @04:28PM (#513051)

      DRM on news articles has got to be the wet dream of every propagandist. You can spread whatever fake news you want, and by the time reality comes knocking, you can be sure no single trace of your fabrications remains.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22 2017, @11:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 22 2017, @11:24PM (#513841)

    Beyond that it's as if people couldn't adjust their linking preferences to favour some 9 bazillion other news sites instead.

    The whole point of "five pages for free" is to bait people into reading their stuff and perhaps possibly convert some day into a paying subscriber. They are doing that because it works better than shutting passers-by out altogether. When they start implementing more effective paywalling they are going to lose some of those juicy viral social media links. I wonder if they understand that this isn't necessarily the best possible tradeoff. Putting some of their better and less viral articles behind a harder paywall (with some freemium ways to occasionally showcase the paying user experience) while not limiting the other stuff could be a lot better tactic.

    I don't mind paying for quality content that I keep consuming. I just have to feel like I actually want to support that and overcome my laziness to subscribe. Saying "fuck off, we don't like your browser settings" is one way of making me not feel like that. Masquerading adverts of articles that I can't view as content (that I supposedly should) on googlebookdotnewster is another.