Does this mean we get to read Mo without having to register, and all that bullshit?

I mean, she's not my fave, but sometimes, she gets it right with a vengeance.

And of course, the bushCo dogpile is juuuust starting to gin up, and she won't miss that. :o)
Tanbark | 09.18.07 - 6:09 am | #

The WSJ actually did their online stuff much more smartly. Left the opinion section free, and charged for the regular news.

I guess Pinch never got the scare story about drug dealers from his parents. You know, the "They'll give you some for free first, just to get you hooked."

You gotta have a hook, fool. Elisabeth Bumiller articles aren't gonna cut it.
Jude | Homepage | 09.18.07 - 6:46 am | #

Guess it's time to rollout the newest product.
Pvt. Keepout | 09.18.07 - 6:54 am | #

Gilly is up in the golden clouds LAUGHING HIS ASS OFF at the Grey Lady this morning.
US Blues | 09.18.07 - 6:55 am | #

Yay, my pundit BF (Krugman) is free!
andrea | 09.18.07 - 8:27 am | #

TimesSelect, I never used ye.
You better Select your ass outta here!

"You gotta have a hook, fool. Elisabeth Bumiller articles aren't gonna cut it."
Jude

Thanks, Jude.
I visualized Mr T saying the "You gotta have a hook, fool." comment.
Admiral Komack | 09.18.07 - 8:57 am | #

Speaking of Dr. Krugman:

"A Surge, and Then a Stab"

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/0.../Paul% 20Krugman
Seitan Worshiper | 09.18.07 - 3:49 pm | #

Steve had it pegged 2 years ago. They lasted longer than he predicted much the same way GW Bush lasts longer in Iraq: Denial. But the idea collapsed as Gilly foesaw. Damnation, did that man understand the internet.
Ronzoni Rigatoni | 09.18.07 - 5:33 pm | #

The restriction on the 1923-1986 content is very easily explained:

Everything before 1923 is public domain.

After that, the Times has sold redistribution rights to data providers like LEXIS/NEXIS, and would have to give back millions if they opened up that data for free access. At the time they sold those electronic redistribution rights, it was probably unimaginable that the Internet would be what it is today, but now whoever purchased those redistribution rights has a right to expect to continue to profit based on the contract they signed and the money they paid the Times for those rights.

--
David W. Fenton
David W. Fenton | 09.18.07 - 9:44 pm | #

I think this is a case of "declare victory and go home, ignoring the peanuts being thrown at our backs by the still-existing rabble."
tzs | 09.19.07 - 12:33 pm | #