Guest firetotheworks Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 That's not what the success of the paywalls behind NY Times, FT and The Times says, though. What is the proper business model for online papers? Ads? They don't make enough from ads. Unless you want serious journalism to disappear and for us to be left with nimrods like Ryder then guys like Caulkin should be supported. This site is very influential and can actually get people to subscribe if they linked the articles in a different way. If the article is free then they still want hits. If you don't want to give them hits then don't bother reading the articles. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Link an excerpt or something. But if an article is behind a paywall then it should really be linked in a different way. Should and what happens are completely different though. I have no moral qualms with someone copying an article. There are no morals involved when they have a free period to read it and everyone knows how to copy and paste. They've decided to knowingly take that risk. I'm not paying just to read one person's blog ffs. A paper? if I read one exclusively, maybe. Doing that seems like a disadvantage when you have the entire internet at your disposal though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I think it's too early to say whether the paywalls are successful or not. FWIW there are semi-paywalls where people can view a certain amount of content a day, or when a link is shared by twitter or Facebook etc it allows access for a certain period etc. Also, there are papers like The Guardian who monetize by selling high quality app subscriptions etc, while keeping their main website free. The Game podcast is free if you want a Caulkin fix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Hesitated about posting it, but I remember other members doing so before so didn't think it would create a problem (it seemingly hasn't either). Anyway, if the mods want to take it down then you're welcome. Just think we're probably the audience that appreciates his pieces the most and we're better off reading it than not. In my opinion, it's sort of their problem that we can actually copy the text from the blog. Outstanding journalism again and again. I am desperate for the newspaper industry to find a way of surviving because the internet with its local/narrow focus and its "citizen journalists" will never be able to educate the broader audience in the same way. I hope they find profitable business models that allows the good journalists to stay in their profession. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Chibas Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Cracking article. Ryder would be dropping a couple of hail marys, by his bedside, while hoping 'only if i could'. Getting away from Gazza, that second para made for some pretty sad reading. It just illustrated how sanitized the game has become, in comparison to when a player could give a little back. Nowdays there's f*** all room for banter between the terraces and the games heroes, anti-heroes, and straight-up villains or rogues. If Terry copped an earful (for most of a half) from a corner of the ground, scored from a set-piece, before trotting back to position and then flipped the bird (with a wink, f***-off) the riot act would be read out to him, and a multi-game suspension dished by the PC Brigade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 On the subject of revenues from online content http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/business/asset-sales-help-quarterly-profit-at-times-company.html?ref=business&_r=0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 George - top piece. Best NE Sports Writer bar none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 George - top piece. Best NE Sports Writer bar none. Just a shame he's basically off my radar now because of the business model of The Times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 George - top piece. Best NE Sports Writer bar none. Just a shame he's basically off my radar now because of the business model of The Times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraz77 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I noticed Ryder re-tweeting someone who claimed John Gibson had written a really good piece on Gazza whilst Caulkin was receiving widespread accllaim off a lot of other sports journalists. Lee is clearly an imbecile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It's incredibly simple to technically protect their content from being copy pasted across the internet. As long as they haven't even implemented such a basic measure to protect themselves from people distributing their content without permission they're clearly not that bothered by it, even if they legally wouldn't have to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It's incredibly simple to technically protect their content from being copy pasted across the internet. As long as they haven't even implemented such a basic measure to protect themselves from people distributing their content without permission they're clearly not that bothered by it, even if they legally wouldn't have to. Is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I used to like nufc.com's 'Gerraway man' popup, whenever you right clicked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It's incredibly simple to technically protect their content from being copy pasted across the internet. As long as they haven't even implemented such a basic measure to protect themselves from people distributing their content without permission they're clearly not that bothered by it, even if they legally wouldn't have to. Is it? Yes, at least for most basic users. I'm sure if I can manage it on my website a billion dollar media business can afford to make it hard for their users to steal their content if they wanted to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 It's incredibly simple to technically protect their content from being copy pasted across the internet. As long as they haven't even implemented such a basic measure to protect themselves from people distributing their content without permission they're clearly not that bothered by it, even if they legally wouldn't have to. Is it? Yes, at least for most basic users. I'm sure if I can manage it on my website a billion dollar media business can afford to make it hard for their users to steal their content if they wanted to. There's easy ways round it. For most websites it's enough but for one of newspapers for the biggest news agency in the World then people who want to will copy it easily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 That's not what the success of the paywalls behind NY Times, FT and The Times says, though. What is the proper business model for online papers? Ads? They don't make enough from ads. Unless you want serious journalism to disappear and for us to be left with nimrods like Ryder then guys like Caulkin should be supported. This site is very influential and can actually get people to subscribe if they linked the articles in a different way. If the article is free then they still want hits. If you don't want to give them hits then don't bother reading the articles. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Link an excerpt or something. But if an article is behind a paywall then it should really be linked in a different way. Should and what happens are completely different though. I have no moral qualms with someone copying an article. There are no morals involved when they have a free period to read it and everyone knows how to copy and paste. They've decided to knowingly take that risk. I'm not paying just to read one person's blog ffs. A paper? if I read one exclusively, maybe. Doing that seems like a disadvantage when you have the entire internet at your disposal though. Before the Internet you would had to pay for the paper to read his column any case, the problem is many people think everything on the Internet should be free which is complete bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superior Acuña Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I don't think there's anything wrong with The Times charging but nor is there with someone who's seen it sharing it. It's just like a cafe having newspapers for people to read - only one copy is being bought. I also think Caulkin will appreciate more people reading it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I don't think there's a compelling reason to stop people copying and pasting stuff TBH. Those people won't subscribe to The Times anyway, and seeing the article might get some of their mates interested enough in the content. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 That's not what the success of the paywalls behind NY Times, FT and The Times says, though. What is the proper business model for online papers? Ads? They don't make enough from ads. Unless you want serious journalism to disappear and for us to be left with nimrods like Ryder then guys like Caulkin should be supported. This site is very influential and can actually get people to subscribe if they linked the articles in a different way. If the article is free then they still want hits. If you don't want to give them hits then don't bother reading the articles. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Link an excerpt or something. But if an article is behind a paywall then it should really be linked in a different way. Should and what happens are completely different though. I have no moral qualms with someone copying an article. There are no morals involved when they have a free period to read it and everyone knows how to copy and paste. They've decided to knowingly take that risk. I'm not paying just to read one person's blog ffs. A paper? if I read one exclusively, maybe. Doing that seems like a disadvantage when you have the entire internet at your disposal though. Before the Internet you would had to pay for the paper to read his column any case, the problem is many people think everything on the Internet should be free which is complete bollocks. Almost everything on the internet is 'free'. There is no should involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 George Caulkin @CaulkinTheTimes 8m Free until 2pm, blog on where #Nufc stand after derby loss to #Safc http://bit.ly/17DwtjA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 George Caulkin @CaulkinTheTimes 8m Free until 2pm, blog on where #Nufc stand after derby loss to #Safc http://bit.ly/17DwtjA Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 he must read the forum Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Well said, that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 The derby loss was sickening and empitomised Pardew's management of the club this season. But personally I don't see the derby as automatically the most important game of the season and certainly not the way I measure the clubs success or failure. We've gone into games this season one place off the relegation zone desperately needing the points, those were all more important games at the time and I measure Newcastle's success through where they are in the league not if we beat Sunderland or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Missed it and can't subscribe atm for some reason, won't accept my card. (Sounds like the shittiest story ever). If anyone has it and wants to PM me I'd be very grateful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I love this man. I post about his texts way too much, but what an excellent piece that was again today. He gets the club so thoroughly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now