One. Jeff Bagwell – I didn’t vote for him last year but thought later that it was a mistake. Sometimes I hold it against a hitter when he doesn’t have that many All-Star Game appearances. Bagwell made only four. But he played at a position where there was often a crowded field of great hitters and, in some cases, players later believed to have been using performance-enhancing drugs (looking at you, Mark McGwire).
Two. Barry Larkin
Three. Edgar Martinez
Four. Tim Raines
Five. Larry Walker
...As for one strong candidate who failed to get my support, I declined to vote for Jack Morris this year after voting for him in 2010. He was an outstanding big-game pitcher without question. He won memorable World Series games, to be sure.
I think the image of the man and what we remember is a bit different from the career numbers, however. Yes, he won 254 games while pitching for some good teams over a long period of time. But he had a 3.90 earned run average even though his career ended in 1994 which was really just the start of the steroids era in which the offensive numbers in major league baseball went through the roof.
Morris seldom had the lowest ERA in his own rotation and was over 3.50 11 times in his 18-year career. We remember him leading the Tigers to the ’84 World Series and throwing that marvelous Game 7 shutout for Minnesota in ’91. For his career, Morris was 7-4 in the post-season with a 3.80 ERA. That’s a lot closer to “good” than “great.”
Facts, not memories. That should be the priority in determining how we vote, and the facts say Morris comes up just short.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral IdiotI'm sure it would be more convenient for you if someone did a lot of illegal things for you to make your life easier. I don't think it would be very "nice," though.
I thought it was for copying Gloria Swanson movies from Joe Kennedy's private collection.
That's great, but then what's the point of linking to paywall articles to begin with, if we can't read them? I realize that most people here seem to find Repoz's excerpts all they need to know about what a writer has to say, but some of us weren't brought up on a Reader's Digest version of news.
As for whatever moral principles lie behind the policy, I'm sure Dan has his own reasons for them, but in practice aren't they completely negated by the fact that you can access the complete articles via google?
OTOH perhaps a compromise solution should have occurred both to me and to Dan, which would be this: For paywall articles, simply include the backup google news-linked URL at the bottom of the excerpts. That way BTF can keep its own direct link "pure" while at the same time not engaging in the charade of expecting people to comment solely on some carefully chosen excerpts.
The Dallas Morning News is providing the content. They get the page hits, or in the case of a paywall, both the subscription charge and the page hits, that support that content. It's not terribly difficult to see the moral principle behind that policy (and, considering how large BTF is, the policy isn't just a moral one, but a practical one. Jim doesn't need to be dealing with complaints over fair use).
Repoz links to just about all available Hall of Fame ballots, as part of his year-end round-up of votes. He was able to access the full list of Cowlishaw's ballot. If you want more than that, pay up. If you can find a way around the paywall, bully for you. But cutting and pasting full chunks of text is theft, no matter how much you really, really, really want to share it with others.
Well, that was fairly obnoxious. But I'm sure you're willing to spend the next 1000 posts making frivolous uninformed arguments about how what you did wasn't illegal.
If at that point the DMN wants to cease-and-desist us, then fine, but somehow I think that they've got bigger fish to fry than us, like, er, a little outfit called "google".
Of course if all this is about is to resurrect the old "theft" schtick again, I can't stop you from doing that, but all I'm trying to do is to enable people who want to comment on the Cowlishaw article to be able to read the ####### article. Is that so terrible? And AFAIC posting an article that can't be freely accessed in its entirety is just stupid, since it defeats the whole purpose of a coherent discussion. If you can't appreciate that point, then we're simply talking past each other.
What I did was no more and no less illegal than what google does, and if I'd only seen the google version, where there's no indication of a paywall, I would've had the advantage of deniability.
But yeah, I guess what I did was "illegal". Is that what you're after? If so, then there's your present, and Merry Christmas.
Concur.
I'd lose Walker too. I don't think 8000 PAs are enough in today's environment. Especially for a guy who played in the most favorable offensive environment, pretty much ever.
Whether it's so terrible is irrelevant. It's illegal, and against site policy.
So take that concern up with Jim or Dan or Repoz (good luck with that).
Andy, your motivations are all well and good, but what you did still violates the fair use laws.
If you don't want to respect the law, at least respect the BBTF policy.
Edit: Coke to SoSH
That was what I appreciated about it, too, above and beyond his actual choices, all of which I agree with. If only every other HoF voter could do the same thing, and if only those columns could be gathered on one master website for future readers / historians to access.
And in the future, I'll simply link to the google version's URL rather than copy the entire text. That should please anyone who's not looking simply to pick a stupid fight over nothing.
Morris is like Reggie in this regard -- excellent in the World Series, not so much in the playoffs. Which is how you'd draw it up, I guess, if given the choice.
You can read them, if you pay for them.
Just like you can install for-sale software on your computer, if you pay for it.
This isn't that complicated.
No.
And if anyone will have to deal with the copyright owner complaining, it'll likely be Jim and Dan, not you. Probably that's one reason you don't care.
And in the future, I'll simply link to the google version's URL rather than copy the entire text. That should please anyone who's not looking simply to pick a stupid fight over nothing.
Lose the scare quotes on illegal and you've got a deal! Merry Christmas!
I completely agree with Lassus here. I watched this show maybe 30 times when it first launched. The typical panel was Simers, Paige, Cowlishaw and Mariotti. Cowlishaw stood out, but I realize that could be the one-eyed man ruling the land of the Blind, but he was measured, smart, looked past the simple stats and actually used rational thought. It drove Simers and the others crazy. And I think Max Kellerman was the host then (?) and he is someone that seems to know his stuff more than most TV talking-heads...
RE: Copy/Paste Gate. I'm with Ray and SOSH here. This is proprietary content. Just because Google has enough money in the bank to discourage litigation for their practices of piracy doesn't mean that it is OK. Why not just copy/paste EVERY article into the BBTF interface so we NEVER have to click through?
Done.
As I said, in the future whenever someone links to a paywall article (a practice I still think is pointless, for obvious reasons), I'll just link to the google URL and won't copy the text. I'm not trying to sink BTF.
It seems that the two main sources of revenue going forward are going to be advertising (based on page views) and paywall-based subscriptions. Journalists get that most people don't think they should have to pay to see news on the Internet, though that is slowly changing, so they are really relying on page views - clicks to and on their websites - to drive their future business model.
Even if a newspaper's website is free, without a paywall, it is the culture that we all drive people to their website to legitimately increase their page views. It helps the newspapers charge more for advertising, and it helps them determine what readers want to read. Obviously, with a paywall, this is even more clearly the case.
All of this is to say: Generally speaking, if you use excerpts much longer than what Repoz and others typically use in their posts, you are likely:
1) threatening the folks of BBTF with the threat of legal action;
2) going against the cultural norms of an industry (newspapers) that is getting pummeled, but that plays an important role in our society; and
3) unintentionally hurting people who work at these media outlets. Their pay is being cut, many have been laid off, and they are being told by such actions that their work is such a commodity now that it is virtually devoid of compensatory value.
I don't think anybody here is trying to achieve any of those three outcomes, by the way...
Also, Edgar is the man.
Andy does have a point: posting paywall articles is annoying for those who don't have the paywall access, because we can't discuss the article like we can with free ones. That, as has been said, is an issue for Dan/Jim/Repoz.
On the other hand, posting the entire text of an article that's behind a paywall is clearly illegal. Not "illegal," either; illegal. IANAL, but even I know that fair use is pretty clear on this point. The legality is not debatable. As for the morality...well, let's not start that up. I tend to be fairly pro-consumer on most copyright stuff, but writers ought to get paid, and many paywall sites derive income thanks to the contributions of specific writers. For example, ESPN gets my money because of Dan and Keith Law; if I could get full text articles free here, I doubt I'd pay ESPN.
I have no idea what the deal is with Google News, and whether they have arrangements with paywall sites to show the articles or not. So I'm not sure how to feel about them. But for now I do think it probably works as a compromise, I suppose.
EDIT: and as #28 points out, even free articles generate revenue via page views, so I think it makes sense to just summarize and post links.
They must. No way someone with Google's deep pockets doesn't get the #### sued out of them if they violate fair use.
Steve, I don't have any problem with paywalls, and in fact I wish that my hometown paper (The Washington Post) would adopt the New York Times's model of allowing only 15 or 20 "free" articles a month before a paywall kicks in. That model has already helped the Times's bottom line considerably, and it might help the Post keep from dumbing down its own pitiful website even more than it already has. (And BTW my subscriptions to those two papers run me about $1120 a year, so it's not as if I'm some sort of congenital mooch.
WRT the Cowlishaw article, my feeling is that since 99% of current newspapers only use paywalls either for (a) "premium" product or (b) archived content over 30 days old, then there should be more than enough content from non-paywall sites to satisfy our taste for worthwhile commentary. I notice that BTF almost never posts excerpts from premium BP articles, for instance, and that seems to me to be a worthwhile decision. There's nothing wrong with paywall sites, but I don't feel that it should be BTF's job to publicize these sites if they're not willing to reciprocate and at least allow Primates to view CURRENT content in its entirety, either directly or via google URLs.
But anyhoo, if a Primate simply links to the full article via the google-searched URL, then since the paywall site is getting the eyeballs, it's more than making up for any lost subscriptions, given the fact that nobody here is likely to be subscribing to the Dallas Morning News anytime soon, no matter what. It's not the lack of text in the excerpts that bothers me, because that takes away from any linked website's page hits. What bothers me is the lack of an accessible URL where they get the page views.
Again, if they don't want to allow such a link, fine. But so far I've only seen that they object to the copying-and-pasting of more than a brief excerpt of text, a policy I can fully understand.
I think a lot of the griping about paywalls is that they charge for what was formerly free. If broadcast TV and AM/FM radio stations began encrypting their signals and charging subscription fees, the public would be outraged... even if the providers could credibly claim that their hands were forced by exigent circumstances. (Newspaper/magazine sites are something of an exception because people have been accustomed to purchasing the physical media. But even news sites had been free for some time.)
I avoid pay sites because I don't want to support a development that will make the Web less accessible (or even inaccessible) to me. But I'm not going to do anything unethical to breach paywalls. The providers certainly have every legal right to use the damned things. That being said, universal paywalls may be inevitable because Internet advertising is so dysfunctional. AM radio stations don't bill me because they can support themselves with advertising that does not interfere with access to or enjoyment of their content, compromise their design/aesthetics , compromise their technical performance or serve as a front for intrusive and unethical activity. Internet content providers? Not so much...
I just wonder if we're heading towards a tragedy of the commons situation, with providers making individually smart choices (using paywalls to meet revenue shortfalls) that are collectively dumb (driving away many viewers who don't want an Internet bill that's as big as their light bill).
I wonder if it's just not wanting to fight with Google. I can imagine Google responding to a lawsuit by saying something like "okay, so we'll change our algorithm so that we never display results from your site." That sounds much worse than simply tolerating some free copies of articles.
I'm still shocked that anyone makes significant money with a pay wall for articles. What percentage of ESPN subs are add-ons from magazine subs? I was an Insider for a few years because there was so insanely low price on a subscription with a free gift. I think it was a team hat and a 4-year magazine sub for something like $16.
Well I think some of the sites in my favorites list would merit the money, and others I'd drop.
Except over 70% of homes do pay for TV via cable/satellite/other.
I think what you're talking about probably wouldn't happen. Lots of sites would never survive with a paywall, because the content they provide simply isn't compelling enough.
I'm pretty sure than would result in immediate anti-trust action by the Justice Department.
When you have 65% of a market, you can't do stuff like that.
Really? The NY Times is actually forcing people to subscribe? All it is a bunch of HTML code tacked on to the URL. All you have to do is just re-paste the URL without the code.
Most people don't know, but you can get free basic SD cable channels if your TV has QAM installed.
Dan has to roll his eyes at the notion of having to babysit Andy.
I'd pay $40 a month just to not watch anything in SD. No human should have to go through that.
Well, the Times and a handful of other truly "premium content" sites do, but the problem is that only a relative handful of non-professional and specialized websites have content that's truly premium. I'm willing to pay $5 or so a month for sites like BB-Reference and BTF, because BB-Ref is basic to an understanding of basebal, and BTF is basic to the conversation about the game**. And as long as the Times and the Post publish print editions, I'll be shelling out a lot more than that for total access to their product.
But sites like that are in a distinct minority, and if all sites started putting up paywalls, I think you'd find that the vast majority of them would soon disappear. I'm sure I've got nearly a thousand bookmarks, and if they all had paywalls I'd probably ditch all but maybe a dozen at the very most. Out would go YouTube, out would go any magazine but the 4 or 5 I have a print subscription to, out would go the websites of museums, and so on. Which is why as much as online advertising can be annoying, if that's what it takes to keep the internet alive, then unless I want to be a complete sponge or a hypocrite, I have little or no cause to complain.
**the non-baseball discussions are a bonus
---------------------------------------------
Really? The NY Times is actually forcing people to subscribe?
Only after the first 15 or 20 articles in a calendar month, which continue to be free. Since they instituted this modified paywall earlier this year, both their web revenue and their print circulation have gone up.
All it is a bunch of HTML code tacked on to the URL. All you have to do is just re-paste the URL without the code.
I'm sure I could get around it, but since the Times is a basic social utility, I have no inclination to do so. It's a bargain at any price, and for $15.40 a week delivered to your doorstep with access to 160 years of their archives, it's a steal. I mean Jesus, that's what some people pay for two ####### packs of cigarettes, or one designer cocktail.
---------------------------------------------
It is absolutely shocking to me that anyone thinks copy/pasting the entire text of an article is in any way either socially acceptable or legally acceptable. Really? And I don't consider Andy to be one of the lunatic outliers of this site. Andy, you may want to reconsider your opinion on this one.
As I explained above, I'm not going to do it again in the future.
Sort of like I roll my eyes at the thought of your ever paying attention to anything beyond what you want to read. I've already stated several times now that I'd refrain from copying text in the future, but it must have escaped your selective attention.
That's hilarious.
That's Mr. Nieporent to you.
Not for free, you can't.
You can, for a low fee, get your local stations. Locals are supposed to be unencrypted, but depending on where you live and who your cableco is, everything else is likely encrypted nowadays, requiring either a set-top box or CableCard(*) -- and a subscription.
I know of no legal scenario where you can just grab a cable, connect it, and get free basic cable channels, even in SD.
*A CableCard can slot into certain TVs and DVRs and allow tuning of encrypted channels that you are subscribed to. It was meant to be a grand standard that would free everyone from having to use the cable company's equipment, but it's fizzled.
That's hilarious.
I'd imagine that it would be to you, sort of like the way the appeal of the Catholic Church is incomprehensible to many other people. Ideologues are always experts at nitpicking at institutions that they have no interest in learning enough about to take their criticism beyond the level of snark. I don't even want to imagine what your idea of a better newspaper than the Times might be.
------------------------------
I appreciate all of the above, SoSH, especially the part about not wanting to aggravate the DMN,
That's Mr. Nieporent to you.
As Groucho might have put it, you've said the secret word. I was thinking of Our Hero when I typed that particular abbreviation, and I was wondering who'd be the first to comment on it.
I'm sure everyone thought about it immediately.
I'm not arguing that it's not a good newspaper, if you are sympathetic to their worldview, I'm laughing at the idea that it's a "basic social utility". If they go out of business, the country will still get ample coverage of the news.
Whatever evils it may commit, real, or those that exist solely in its enemies imaginations, the Catholic Church does more social good in a single month through its charitable work, than the NY Times has done in its entire history. If you want to talk about "social utility", think about the additional burden on gov't and taxpayers if the Catholic Church (and affiliated entities) stopped its charitable work.
I find the Wall Street Journal a far superior newspaper, even though I don't subscribe to their complete laissez faire economic mindset, but that's a matter of taste, isn't it?
There's no reason not to encourage it. If you can get the whole article by clicking through on Google search results, that's because the DMN wants you to be able to do that. It's not a trick. You're not putting one over on the DMN. It's part of the model.
I'm not arguing that it's not a good newspaper, if you are sympathetic to their worldview, I'm laughing at the idea that it's a "basic social utility". If they go out of business, the country will still get ample coverage of the news.
Ample, perhaps, depending on your definition, but severely diminished, as you'd be not only losing the Times's specific coverage of the world, but it'd be an indication that there's no market for a self-sustaining serious general interest newspaper. Not that this is likely to happen withing the lifetime of anyone reading this.
Whatever evils it may commit, real, or those that exist solely in its enemies imaginations, the Catholic Church does more social good in a single month through its charitable work, than the NY Times has done in its entire history. If you want to talk about "social utility", think about the additional burden on gov't and taxpayers if the Catholic Church (and affiliated entities) stopped its charitable work.
You give the Times the amount of money that the Catholic Church has, and then we'll start comparing. But as a general proposition, the world would be a lot worse off without a free press than it would be without any specific branch of organized religion. And I don't say that from any particular stance of hostility, only by seeing what countries without a free press are like.
I find the Wall Street Journal a far superior newspaper, even though I don't subscribe to their complete laissez faire economic mindset, but that's a matter of taste, isn't it?
I suppose, but let's compare apples to apples, since the WSJ has European and Asian editions that most domestic subscribers seldom look at. Its U.S. print edition doesn't provide a fraction of the news that the Times does, as you can see at a glance by comparing its front page to that of the Times---or even more easily, by just picking up the two papers and going through them both a week at a time. The WSJ has reduced its international and domestic non-business and non-political coverage since the Murdoch takeover, and in general its stories have become shorter. Their editorial and opinion pages have nothing to do with that assessment, since they've remained pretty much the same since the Bartley years. The slant of its news coverage is always going to be in the eyes of the beholder no matter what paper you're talking about.
-------------------------------
Aw c'mon guys, it's Christmas.
Hey, I already did my part for that in post #26, but I'll do it again if you missed it.
Hey, I already did my part for that in post #26, but I'll do it again if you missed it.
Just call me the master of the obvious.
What's the difference between what the library does with, say, its copy of the Washington Post, and with Andy copying and pasting from his subscription to it the next time Repoz links to an article behind the Post's paywall?
For myself, perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I just can't see paying for online text when there's a paper version. I'll buy a paper newspaper, but online access just doesn't feel like it's worth money. Perhaps if there stops being a paper version, and I suppose there will, then I'll magically feel differently. The bigger deal is how much more the paper costs than it used to. That's the real reason why subscriptions have gone down. It used to be $.25 a day to buy the Washington Post. Now what is it, $1.50? There hasn't been that much inflation. And the content is dumbed down. I think that at least as much as the internet, what's hurt newspapers is that their content isn't worth as much as it used to be and costs more than it used to cost.
I've stopped listening to NPR as much as I used to, too, because it no longer seems to cover fine art. The music segments on All Things Considered are always about popular music now.
There is very little difference, if any. I don't expect that libraries would be allowed to exist under the current rules if they hadn't existed for so long already. In a regime where it's resoundingly thought that you should have to pay to read words as long as the entity that paid the person who wrote those words wants you to pay, the idea that you should be able to borrow and read for free a book that is being offered for sale by its publisher would be anathema if it were suggested as a new one rather than held over as a social norm. I live in fear that publishing companies will find a way to make libraries disappear.
The NY Times was a great newspaper, once (if you discount the occasional mis-step like the Walter Duranty follies). That was a long, long time ago; it's long since devolved into a self-congratulatory left-wing rag, kept alive by the smug self-love of its (diminishing) readership.
the appeal of the Catholic Church is incomprehensible
Slamming Catholics on Christmas, eh? Nice. You wanna kick Tiny Tim's crutch out from under him while you're at it?
Moron.
The law, and the way the internet works. The copy at the library is limited to one person at a time. A reprinted copy on another website is essentially unlimited. Let's say that BBTF decides that the Dallas Morning News is the best baseball outlet around. So every single article on their site gets linked in its totality here. Except now anyone who knows that can just come here rather than there to read the copy.
(side note, I think current IP law is pretty dumb and unworkable for the future)
Thanks to DMCA, if Dallas Morning News finds out that Andy's post is up there, they send a DMCA letter to Jim demanding it be taken down or else legal action be charged. If it happens enough times, and intent is shown (like if Andy were to do it with every article on their site or something, and Jim/Dan/Repoz tacitly encouraged it), then they could sue for damages.
However, having to deal with constant DMCA emails is a pain in the ass, so I think for Jim's sake, who doesn't charge us anything, we should avoid doing so in the future. (I realize Andy has already said he would do this, but this includes posting a link). Seriously, making The Jim deal with constant DMCA letters is a super big hassle, and it would be best that our community have a good reputation for things like this.
I love to kick Tim Tebow when he's down!
That's why the advance of technology has made the idea of charging money for information obsolete. It's amusing to watch the corporations run around trying to make it less obsolete. It's less amusing to watch them succeed by artificially retarding the social benefit of technological development.
what does Catholics have to do with a pagan holliday?
:)
I can see that happening to an extent. Like everything else these days, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, though in this case papers like the Baltimore Sun, which let itself be sold first to the Times Mirror and then to the ####### Tribune, and then started firing reporters and putting short term profits over everything else, have nobody but themselves to blame. IMO the reason that the Times and the Post (though the latter to a much lesser extent) still have the quality they do is because they don't let the inmates (their stockholders) control the asylum.
For myself, perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I just can't see paying for online text when there's a paper version. I'll buy a paper newspaper, but online access just doesn't feel like it's worth money.
But if you subscribe to the print edition of just about any newspaper I know of, online access and everything else almost always comes with it. When the Times put up a paywall, its print circulation increased, as the unlimited web access gave people incentive to subscribe to the paper.
I've stopped listening to NPR as much as I used to, too, because it no longer seems to cover fine art. The music segments on All Things Considered are always about popular music now.
I've noticed that, too. About the only public media I watch or listen to any more is The News Hour and WPFW (Pacifica), but that's only for their jazz and Caribbeana programs and not their news shows.
--------------------------------------
The law, and the way the internet works. The copy at the library is limited to one person at a time. A reprinted copy on another website is essentially unlimited. Let's say that BBTF decides that the Dallas Morning News is the best baseball outlet around. So every single article on their site gets linked in its totality here. Except now anyone who knows that can just come here rather than there to read the copy.
But they can already do that---and of course they already do that many more times----via google, and in both of those cases the Dallas Morning News is getting the benefit of the page hits. That wouldn't be true with copy-and-paste, but it would be if one of us just linked to the paper's unblocked URL page.
I'd say this is akin to showing someone how to use BitTorrent rather than simply sharing an illegal copy of content. I'm surprised to see this from Andy—I wouldn't have guessed he'd have an approach like this, but that's a reflection of my judgment—but this is no different than much of what goes on around here. Excerpts are regularly 25–50% of an article's content, sometimes much more. That's well beyond fair use and dismissive of the idea of what a pull-quote is meant to be. Heck, folks can't even properly cite sources based on how many articles are posted which have just a title rather than including the author and/or the publication. Here's the current top article:
Oakland Athletics Will Be Granted Permission To Move To San Jose, According To Report
Nope, no citation of where that piece originates. The second article regards the Orioles and Prince Fielder. The excerpt is 41% of the source article.
I take it you don't realize that Berkshire Hathaway owns nearly 22% of the Post, that Warren Buffet sits on their board, and it was his recommendation that they buy Kaplan, the education-focused company that has been the the bulk of the Post's revenues and profits for a number of years.
To hopelessly attempt to move the discussion back to the article, rather than the amount of the article we can read... this kind of vote strikes me as a great sign for Bagwell. Someone who didn't fully consider his candidacy last year, then looked at it more closely and changed his mind; no mention of steroids except in the context of their use by Bagwell's peers.
Which is what you expect from someone who debuts around 40% on the ballot and has a better case than you might notice at first glance.
I'd say this is akin to showing someone how to use BitTorrent rather than simply sharing an illegal copy of content. I'm surprised to see this from Andy—but that's a reflection of my judgment—but this is no different than much of what goes on around here. Excerpts are regularly 25–50% of an article's content, sometimes much more. That's well beyond fair use and dismissive of the idea of what a pull-quote is meant to be. Heck, folks can't even properly cite sources based on how many articles are posted which have just a title rather than including the author and/or the publication. Here's the current top article:
Oakland Athletics Will Be Granted Permission To Move To San Jose, According To Report
Nope, no citation of where that piece originates. The second article regards the Orioles and Prince Fielder. The excerpt is 41% of the source article.
I'm not sure what the problem is. Under what I'm proposing, doesn't the paper gets the page view? How can anyone not know where it's coming from? Again, I'm not talking about simply posting the text, but maybe I'm just not understanding what goes on. I get that the paper's not getting paid directly by the reader, but if that's the objection, then why are we even posting these paywall articles at all, especially since it's impossible in many or most cases to make any sort of a coherent comment on nothing but a brief excerpt.
IMO the reason that the Times and the Post (though the latter to a much lesser extent) still have the quality they do is because they don't let the inmates (their stockholders) control the asylum.
I take it you don't realize that Berkshire Hathaway owns nearly 22% of the Post, that Warren Buffet sits on their board, and it was his recommendation that they buy Kaplan, the education-focused company that has been the the bulk of the Post's revenues and profits for a number of years.
I've seen the Post go into plenty of questionable territory in the past few years, and you've cited one of the more egregious examples, as there turned out to be a lot less to Kaplan than met the eye. But the paper is still controlled by the direct heirs of the Graham estate. It's still independently owned and run in a way that the vast majority of American newspapers currently are not, and it doesn't have to jump through hoops just to please short term investors. The quality gap between the Times and the Post has grown considerably in recent years, and it's widening every day, but that's more the fault of bad decisions by the Graham heirs, and of the demographics of the Post's readership,** than it is of the structure of the ownership per se.
**Good reporting costs money, and with a Times weekly subscription rate of $15.40 compared to the Post's $6.38, added onto the Times's larger circulation, it's not hard to see why the quality gap is widening to the point of a chasm in many departments.
To hopelessly attempt to move the discussion back to the article, rather than the amount of the article we can read... this kind of vote strikes me as a great sign for Bagwell. Someone who didn't fully consider his candidacy last year, then looked at it more closely and changed his mind; no mention of steroids except in the context of their use by Bagwell's peers.
A spike in Bagwell's percentage would be a nice belated stocking stuffer, and a rebuke to people like Bryant Gumbel.
It's certainly possible that there's some element to all this that I'm missing, but it seems as if the paywall is meant to provide online access only to those who pay. This would be in contrast to how the NY Times clearly wants non-subscribers to have some access. Now, maybe the DMN folks explicitly want Google to be able to provide access. But speaking for myself, I'd rather see folks error on the side of caution until we know for certain. Quickly looking around now, this article about the DMN paywall suggests 1) Google News is not a desired means to circumvention, and 2) page views from non-subscribers are economic losses.
That's a separate issue, and I agree that it doesn't make much sense to post articles behind paywalls. At the least, I would hope submitters honor the stated expectation of putting "RR" after a title so folks know (it's in the sidebar of the post-submission page).
Bingo.
The Times has been happy with the amount of online pay subscribers they are getting, which is a combination of people who respect the product enough and who can afford it/plus people who know there's a way to get around it, but time is precious and they have plenty of money - and people who walk into car dealerships and ask who to make the check out to after they plug in the sticker price to the check lines.
You'd be surprised how many people that adds up to.
Meanwhile, the hardcore followers who jack up page views - but who can't or won't pay - still jack up page views.
Indeed, it's high time that the practice of patronage made a comeback, and the internet makes that easier than ever. It's working well for BBTF, or at least I hope it is. (I've not donated yet, but I plan to as soon as I make more than $9,000 a year . . .)
While we don't peruse every thread for infringement, if I happen to see it, I really do have to remove it. This isn't the NY Times, but it also isn't just some random obscure blog. It'd be pretty hard to argue good faith and not remove an entire copied post when it's seen (this goes for free sites as well as paywalled ones).
No quarrel with removing my post #8, and as I said, I wouldn't do it again. But just to be clear, what about providing a link to the article's URL, meaning the one reached via google? That way the source gets the page views, while at the same time we have more than a brief excerpt to read. What bothers me most about the paywall articles is that it's often impossible to make an intelligent comment about them without reading the whole thing. In a case like this Cowlishaw article, once you get past what Repoz copied about Bagwell and Morris, all you've got is a list of 4 names with no explanation of the reasoning. I fail to see any point in posting an article like that in such an abbreviated form if you don't even have a chance to read the whole thing.
Of course we could always just open up a new window in our browsers and access the article independently via google, but that seems like little more than putting on a show just to keep the appearance of purity.
They won't let you pay for it?
They won't let you pay for it?
Yes, Howie, they'll "let you pay for it". How white of them. That doesn't address the point of why BTF should be shilling for paywall sites in an open and non-paywall discussion forum. If we're going to be able to discuss an article intelligently, and not just on the basis of the brief excerpts that Repoz or anyone else is allowed to copy without having the suits jump all over them, there shouldn't be a monetary requirement involved. AFAIC any paywall article posted here should include at the very minimum a notice that the full article is accessible through google.
Do sites that discuss books only discuss free books? Do sites that discuss music only discuss free music? Do sites that discuss movies only discuss free movies?
Not linking to articles behind paywalls was, for most of the site's history, simply a practical concern - no need to bother unless it was necessary. As more stuff has moved behind paywalls, with big players like the NY Times now behind paywalls, this is starting to become less practical.
I wouldn't have a problem with that - without knowledge of Google's deals with media, I have no way of knowing if Google is infringing or not.
Haha, the dancing statements of someone trying to make doubly sure that he can't be held contributorily or vicariously liable for copyright infringement by posters.
Do sites that discuss books only discuss free books? Do sites that discuss music only discuss free music? Do sites that discuss movies only discuss free movies?
No, but surely you can see the difference here. 95% of media articles are freely accessible to anyone, including those from the New York Times.** That's not the case for currently in-print books, many or most out-of-print books, or any movies that aren't posted on YouTube.***
Not linking to articles behind paywalls was, for most of the site's history, simply a practical concern - no need to bother unless it was necessary. As more stuff has moved behind paywalls, with big players like the NY Times** now behind paywalls, this is starting to become less practical.
But just how true is that? That's a serious question. Do you have any empirical data as to how many papers and / or baseball websites have paywalls that don't allow any free views at all? I haven't noticed that with many general interest newspapers before this.
**The only time anyone here would be blocked by reading a full Times article would be if they were non-subscribers who've already exceeded their monthly limit of 15 or 20 freebies.
***Other movies are shown on TV, but you can't access them at your convenience unless you have a copy of your own in one format or another.
No quarrel with removing my post #8, and as I said, I wouldn't do it again. But just to be clear, what about providing a link to the article's URL, meaning the one reached via google?
I wouldn't have a problem with that - without knowledge of Google's deals with media, I have no way of knowing if Google is infringing or not.
And if any paper / website ever sends you a cease-and-desist order, I'm sure that you'd honor it, and I'd follow suit. But until then I don't see why it should be up to us to read their minds and go beyond the letter of the law. Again, by posting the google URL link, the paywall site is still getting page hits that enable them to maintain their ad rates, so it's not as if they're getting no benefit.
And what's wrong with that?
? You don't know what agreements Google and the DMN have with each other.
Beyond that, I don't have any problem with linking to paywall articles. Either pay for the access, or deal with the snippet. Or don't contribute to the thread.
It's not up to you. It's up to Jim and Dan.
? You don't know what agreements Google and the DMN have with each other.
You're right, and so what? Why should either I or anyone else presume that including a google URL link to the article is illegal?
Beyond that, I don't have any problem with linking to paywall articles. Either pay for the access, or deal with the snippet. Or don't contribute to the thread.
I'll use the google link and try to react to the entire article, not just a snippet. I'm not surprised that you'd find a snippet sufficient, since your attention span is usually limited to about two sentences of what anyone else ever writes. You wouldn't know the meaning of the word "context" without a dictionary and a translator with the patience of Job.
And if any paper / website ever sends [Dan / BTF] a cease-and-desist order, I'm sure that you'd honor it, and I'd follow suit. But until then I don't see why it should be up to us to read their minds.
It's not up to you. It's up to Jim and Dan.
Well, if you'd paid attention to what Dan wrote in #78, you might have realized that he'd already addressed this, and had no problem with what I'd proposed.
That's not the issue. You said that what you did was no more or less illegal than what Google does. But you have no way of knowing that; we _know_ that what you did was illegal. We don't know, without knowing what agreements Google and the DMN have with each other, whether what Google does is illegal.
If by that you mean copying the full text of the article, I've already acknowledged that, and said I wouldn't do it again. Since I've already repeated this several times now, what is it about you that won't let the matter drop?
But if by that you mean simply providing the google link is illegal, then for both my sake and Dan's sake, please tell us how you're so sure of that.
I'm not presuming anything one way or the other, but again, until the DMN complains, why should we presume illegality? And without presuming that illegality, why should we refrain from providing a link, the only purpose of which is to save people a step that they could easily do on their own? Does providing that one minor time-saving step really seem like a big thing to you? Apparently so, but it's for reasons that only you or your headshrinker might be able to explain.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main