Read almost any paywalled article for free (ESPN+. NY Times, Washington Post, etc)

Hi guys, I wanted to help you all out here since I'm sure everyone hates paywalled articles.

Here is a very easy way to read any article behind a paywall.

1) Copy and paste the URL of the article which isn't letting you read it

2) Type archive.ph/ in front of the URL. For example, to read this ESPN+ article at https://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/36305183/mlb-2023-season-first-month-grades-all-30-teams, you would go to URL https://archive.ph/https://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/36305183/mlb-2023-season-first-month-grades-all-30-teams

3) It will generate a link for you to click to read the article. Click that link, and you will see the full article!

4) If no archive exists for the article, you won't get a link, but you will be given the opportunity to generate one. Click the button to do so, and wait a bit, in that case, and you'll get a link soon!

5) Once you generate the free article, it will have a short URL to share with friends. For example, that baseball article I shared above would now be found at: https://archive.ph/8yVtN

Enjoy!

Did you guys also steal the newspapers off of the porches of people who subscribed to receive one?

If you don't want to pay, then just don't read. If not enough people subscribe, then they will eventually eliminate the paywall and make money via ads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Did you guys also steal the newspapers off of the porches of people who subscribed to receive one?

If you don't want to pay, then just don't read. If not enough people subscribe, then they will eventually eliminate the paywall and make money via ads.

---

If it’s not illegal, is it a crime?

Sure some of us have some ethical beliefs against this. Just like retail theft in San Francisco, it’s not a crime under $950 but most of are not flying there to steal $949 worth of stuff. But plenty will when it’s not illegal as we are seeing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

If it’s not illegal, is it a crime?

Sure some of us have some ethical beliefs against this. Just like retail theft in San Francisco, it’s not a crime under $950 but most of are not flying there to steal $949 worth of stuff. But plenty will when it’s not illegal as we are seeing.

---

I might have misunderstood what I read, but isn't the SF thing just that they are not prosecuting it? I can't imagine that it's perfectly legal to walk into a place and take whatever you want, to a point; it just seems like they aren't doing anything about it if one does.

The ethics of it are of no concern to me. In terms of legality, I should imagine that it would constitute a form of digital piracy, but even if it did, that is of no concern to me.

I made my post for three reasons:

1.) I thought it was a funny joke.

2.) Some people who are doing this (not meaning anyone in this thread, afaik) claim to have really strict ethical standards in other ways, so I find the hypocrisy amusing.

3.) I think simply not patronizing sites with paywalls is a more effective way to get them to remove paywalls than attempting to circumvent the paywalls. I'd be more interested in seeing the paywalls removed and replaced with an ad-based model.

If the New York Times, which absolutely blows, wants me to pay to read it...I guess they just don't want me to read it. It's tough enough to read that trash for free.

Honestly, I just wish Google would default to not listing sites that have paywalls when you do a search. It's extremely annoying when you're trying to research something.

That all said, I still won't use this. I'd just as soon only read stuff that the sites in question do not have paywall blocked.

Also, fuck ESPN.

Agree Fuck ESPN

On the other point, it is technically still a crime but if it isn’t prosecuted is it a crime?

“We probably shouldn’t call it shoplifting anymore, since that term connotes the idea of a person trying to conceal their crime. In San Francisco, there is no attempt to conceal theft, and there is almost never any effort by store employees, including security personnel, to confront the thieves. The most they do is record the thefts with their cell phones.

Why is shoplifting so rampant? Because state law holds that stealing merchandise worth $950 or less is just a misdemeanor, which means that law enforcement probably won’t bother to investigate, and if they do, prosecutors will let it go.”

Since it’s common knowledge it is NOT investigated and not prosecuted in San Francisco, therein lies the debate.

https://www.hoover.org/research/why-...gal-california

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

Agree Fuck ESPN

On the other point, it is technically still a crime but if it isn’t prosecuted is it a crime?

“We probably shouldn’t call it shoplifting anymore, since that term connotes the idea of a person trying to conceal their crime. In San Francisco, there is no attempt to conceal theft, and there is almost never any effort by store employees, including security personnel, to confront the thieves. The most they do is record the thefts with their cell phones.

Why is shoplifting so rampant? Because state law holds that stealing merchandise worth $950 or less is just a misdemeanor, which means that law enforcement probably won’t bother to investigate, and if they do, prosecutors will let it go.”

Since it’s common knowledge it is NOT investigated and not prosecuted in San Francisco, therein lies the debate.

https://www.hoover.org/research/why-...gal-california

---

Haha! Definitely fuck them. The product is supposed to be sports content, not politics. I'd probably read ESPN if there were no other alternatives, and I do like political content and discussions; I just don't like it when my intent is to watch sports content and sports discussions. Liberal, Conservative; it doesn't matter...ESPN is supposed to be for sports.

As to the other point, jaywalking is not typically prosecuted. There are many, "Crimes," that are not prosecuted, even when known. Marijuana is another example, but that tends to be selectively prosecuted, at least, it was as early as a decade or two ago. I can't imagine that recreational really gets prosecuted anywhere now.

San Francisco can just be an example of what ideas don't work. Contrast with Walmart who will aggressively attempt to have shoplifters aggressively prosecuted for any amount that is over the legal minimum. It clogs up the court system and ends up giving people criminal records over something relatively trivial. I guess a no tolerance policy is better than whatever SF is doing, but the best answer is likely somewhere in the middle. When the taxpayer costs to police/prosecute are greater than the cost of the item in the first place, then you have to start to wonder. I do wonder if Walmart would pursue so aggressively if they had to foot the bill.

So...we will see where the line should be drawn.

In the meantime, people who, mostly, do not live in SF seem extremely concerned with what the Peoples' Republic of San Francisco is doing. I'd rather tend my own garden.

If all retail pulls out of San Francisco, then that will be a lesson to us all that letting people just walk in and take stuff, with impunity, is not a good model. Like so many funded scientific studies in other venues, common sense would have already informed most of us of this.

This same argument came up in the '80s and '90s regarding people pirating software.

But I feel that one had a lot more merit.

The problem with paywalls is that there are so many sites on the internet, all linking with one another, that you'd go broke if you paid for every article linked that you want to read.

So site A has an article, and they link an important fact cited in the article to site B, and then you click on it, and there's a damn paywall. So you can't get the history of what they are talking about.

If there were some kind of subscription package that gets you a big groups of sites together, that might be a lot more reasonable/manageable.

Look, I get it. These sites aren't producing written content for free, and the paywall is one of the ways they get paid. But it's just very tough on the average person browsing the web to run into this over and over. The web wasn't designed for this -- it was seen as a place where sites link each other and everyone can access the information.

It's an interesting discussion topic, but I don't think it's going to bankrupt any of these companies if a few people on PFA learn how to read this stuff they weren't going to pay for anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

This same argument came up in the '80s and '90s regarding people pirating software.

But I feel that one had a lot more merit.

The problem with paywalls is that there are so many sites on the internet, all linking with one another, that you'd go broke if you paid for every article linked that you want to read.

So site A has an article, and they link an important fact cited in the article to site B, and then you click on it, and there's a damn paywall. So you can't get the history of what they are talking about.

If there were some kind of subscription package that gets you a big groups of sites together, that might be a lot more reasonable/manageable.

Look, I get it. These sites aren't producing written content for free, and the paywall is one of the ways they get paid. But it's just very tough on the average person browsing the web to run into this over and over. The web wasn't designed for this -- it was seen as a place where sites link each other and everyone can access the information.

It's an interesting discussion topic, but I don't think it's going to bankrupt any of these companies if a few people on PFA learn how to read this stuff they weren't going to pay for anyway.

---

I think we're in a very transitory time right now.

There was once a time, not that long ago, if you wanted to read the NYT, Wall Street Journal, whatever, at all you either paid for it or have it physically handed to you by someone who had.

Eventually, the standard became that you had to have an accompanying website.

At a time when not as many people were using Internet, the website could almost serve as an add-on to, or an advertisement for, the physical product.

However, there are more internet users now than there were before...including a great many people who only read anything online, or via audiobook.

It's for that reason that we see many physical newspapers across the country going out of business, or when they stay in business, reducing the amount of print:

https://www.pewresearch.org/journali...et/newspapers/

As you can see, the circulation for physical print is at its lowest point ever since this started being tracked, and that's with a significantly greater population. Pretty soon, the vast majority of people still reading physical print will mostly be dead.

For physical print, you made most of the money via advertising; not subscribers. Honestly, you were just printing money if you could get to breakeven on the physical papers themselves; advertising is where you were printing money.

Naturally, what the advertisers would pay for ads was based on circulation. The more eyes who were going to see the paper, the more you got paid.

That's why items such as the Green Tab could operate profitably, despite being free, and also why newspapers would have the weekly free thing that would just include the classifieds. They could distribute that much for free.

Imagine if casinos were all going to be told that the entire industry, in twenty years, was going to have just over 40% of the customers/revenue that they have now! What would casinos do? They wouldn't know what to do. That's the exact case with physical print right now.

Fortunately, physical print companies have the internet to work with, so they can try to survive/profit that way. Naturally, some of them simply don't know the best way to go about doing that yet, so different media outlets are trying different tactics.

That's why I think the best way to get rid of the paywall model is not to digest content that needs to be paid for.

As you correctly point out, not everything can have a paywall or it is unaffordable. I agree with that.

Of course, that's no different than saying that someone in the 1990's would have driven themselves to bankruptcy if they paid the advertised price for magazines subscriptions, and newspapers, for every publication in the country.

So, if some of the companies can make paywall/subscriber based model work, then I say, "Good for them." I just have no interest in paying for it.

I think others, if not most, will eventually find their way to an advertisement-based model.

I think another possible option for them would be to link up with streaming companies, so if someone subscribes to a particular streaming company, then they also get a subscription to ESPN, NYT, WSJ...whatever...at no additional cost.

Or, what you said with packages, which is another thing they might eventually do.

It's tough to change with consumer preferences even when something doesn't change as rapidly as this did. 60% of the customer base for the entire product gone in two decades. Goddamn.

Most people probably know this but for sites that allow a limit of free articles just switch browser to incognito and you get unlimited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Did you guys also steal the newspapers off of the porches of people who subscribed to receive one?

If you don't want to pay, then just don't read. If not enough people subscribe, then they will eventually eliminate the paywall and make money via ads.

---

Paywalls are a scam end of story. This shit used to be free online to anybody to read but theyve killed their subscription base for the paper product and then demand ridiculous sub fees to read articles online. If it was a small cost maybe people wouldnt give a shit but when you want the same cost to read online what it costs them nowhere near to provide (no printing costs no delivery costs other then a little data bandwidth) its basically a moneygrab for the leftist media outlets to make guys like Bezos (who owns the Washington Post) more money then hes already making with Amazon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Did you guys also steal the newspapers off of the porches of people who subscribed to receive one?

If you don't want to pay, then just don't read. If not enough people subscribe, then they will eventually eliminate the paywall and make money via ads.

---

Paywalls are a scam end of story. This shit used to be free online to anybody to read but theyve killed their subscription base for the paper product and then demand ridiculous sub fees to read articles online. If it was a small cost maybe people wouldnt give a shit but when you want the same cost to read online what it costs them nowhere near to provide (no printing costs no delivery costs other then a little data bandwidth) its basically a moneygrab for the leftist media outlets to make guys like Bezos (who owns the Washington Post) more money then hes already making with Amazon.

---

They're not a scam. There is offer, consideration and then either acceptance or refusal.

The one thing that the print industry got wrong is that they created a standard, as you essentially point out, that creates an expectation that online media should be free and NOT be a subscription model. I definitely do not hold the media sites responsible for (their own) dwindling paper market; many people simply do not consume physical written media anymore. It was move to the internet, at least in part, or die. It's not as if they had a market and lost it because they fucked up; the market left of its own accord for a replacement product that is considered to be superior. Horse buggy repairmen aren't doing so hot, either.

I agree that the prices might be more than can be justified, but since I am simply not going to read the Washington Post, and will therefore pay nothing, the prices are immaterial to me. Besides that, these companies should have a little forgiveness to tinker around with finding different revenue-producing models, or perhaps to adjust prices downward.

As I said, it's a very transitional period right now. It's not often that you see a very long-standing industry essentially depleted by 60% within a twenty-year span. It's going to take some time to figure out.

Either way, if not enough people buy, then they'll have to figure out something else; it's that simple.

In the meantime, I don't think that enables me to feel entitled to reading their content for free. I certainly couldn't read their content for free in the 90's, unless I was in a doctor's office, or something.

Also, ad blockers. Fuck ad blockers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Paywalls are a scam end of story. This shit used to be free online to anybody to read but theyve killed their subscription base for the paper product and then demand ridiculous sub fees to read articles online. If it was a small cost maybe people wouldnt give a shit but when you want the same cost to read online what it costs them nowhere near to provide (no printing costs no delivery costs other then a little data bandwidth) its basically a moneygrab for the leftist media outlets to make guys like Bezos (who owns the Washington Post) more money then hes already making with Amazon.

---

They're not a scam. There is offer, consideration and then either acceptance or refusal.

The one thing that the print industry got wrong is that they created a standard, as you essentially point out, that creates an expectation that online media should be free and NOT be a subscription model. I definitely do not hold the media sites responsible for (their own) dwindling paper market; many people simply do not consume physical written media anymore. It was move to the internet, at least in part, or die. It's not as if they had a market and lost it because they fucked up; the market left of its own accord for a replacement product that is considered to be superior. Horse buggy repairmen aren't doing so hot, either.

I agree that the prices might be more than can be justified, but since I am simply not going to read the Washington Post, and will therefore pay nothing, the prices are immaterial to me. Besides that, these companies should have a little forgiveness to tinker around with finding different revenue-producing models, or perhaps to adjust prices downward.

As I said, it's a very transitional period right now. It's not often that you see a very long-standing industry essentially depleted by 60% within a twenty-year span. It's going to take some time to figure out.

Either way, if not enough people buy, then they'll have to figure out something else; it's that simple.

In the meantime, I don't think that enables me to feel entitled to reading their content for free. I certainly couldn't read their content for free in the 90's, unless I was in a doctor's office, or something.

Also, ad blockers. Fuck ad blockers.

---

During the early stages of COVID, the New York Times found themselves in a funny spot.

They had a paywall, yet they were getting criticism for preventing their extensive COVID coverage from reaching the masses. It made them look bad -- almost like their greed was worth sacrificing lives which could be saved by reaching the masses with important information of a novel killer virus.

The Times decided they would suspend the paywall, but only for COVID articles.

This was noble, until I tried to go read one, and found instead of a paywall there was an e-mail wall. You had to register in order to read. Groan. That's such a pain in the fucking ass, and it put a big barrier for those who needed the info the most (very old people, who tend to be very computer illiterate, and are not good at registering accounts for online services).

This just pissed me off. If you're going to deem the info important enough to give to the public for free, then give it for fucking free. Put ads if you want, but don't make people register an e-mail in order to get it.

I still would love to see some kind of Paywall Pass where a lot of companies cooperate, and you pay some reasonable subscription fee per month. I think a lot of people would. The paywall model just doesn't work for most people, for reasons I stated earlier. If I subscribe to the LA Times and then still can't read an important article they link from the Boston Herald, I'm still not getting the full story. And I'm not subscribing to the Boston Herald, being from LA.

This is why I don't feel bad using Rally's trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Paywalls are a scam end of story. This shit used to be free online to anybody to read but theyve killed their subscription base for the paper product and then demand ridiculous sub fees to read articles online. If it was a small cost maybe people wouldnt give a shit but when you want the same cost to read online what it costs them nowhere near to provide (no printing costs no delivery costs other then a little data bandwidth) its basically a moneygrab for the leftist media outlets to make guys like Bezos (who owns the Washington Post) more money then hes already making with Amazon.

---

They're not a scam. There is offer, consideration and then either acceptance or refusal.

The one thing that the print industry got wrong is that they created a standard, as you essentially point out, that creates an expectation that online media should be free and NOT be a subscription model. I definitely do not hold the media sites responsible for (their own) dwindling paper market; many people simply do not consume physical written media anymore. It was move to the internet, at least in part, or die. It's not as if they had a market and lost it because they fucked up; the market left of its own accord for a replacement product that is considered to be superior. Horse buggy repairmen aren't doing so hot, either.

I agree that the prices might be more than can be justified, but since I am simply not going to read the Washington Post, and will therefore pay nothing, the prices are immaterial to me. Besides that, these companies should have a little forgiveness to tinker around with finding different revenue-producing models, or perhaps to adjust prices downward.

As I said, it's a very transitional period right now. It's not often that you see a very long-standing industry essentially depleted by 60% within a twenty-year span. It's going to take some time to figure out.

Either way, if not enough people buy, then they'll have to figure out something else; it's that simple.

In the meantime, I don't think that enables me to feel entitled to reading their content for free. I certainly couldn't read their content for free in the 90's, unless I was in a doctor's office, or something.

Also, ad blockers. Fuck ad blockers.

---

You get what you pay for should be tattooed
on every new born. Next time the less expensive option you
settled on disintegrates, don’t complain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

During the early stages of COVID, the New York Times found themselves in a funny spot.

They had a paywall, yet they were getting criticism for preventing their extensive COVID coverage from reaching the masses. It made them look bad -- almost like their greed was worth sacrificing lives which could be saved by reaching the masses with important information of a novel killer virus.

The Times decided they would suspend the paywall, but only for COVID articles.

This was noble, until I tried to go read one, and found instead of a paywall there was an e-mail wall. You had to register in order to read. Groan. That's such a pain in the fucking ass, and it put a big barrier for those who needed the info the most (very old people, who tend to be very computer illiterate, and are not good at registering accounts for online services).

This just pissed me off. If you're going to deem the info important enough to give to the public for free, then give it for fucking free. Put ads if you want, but don't make people register an e-mail in order to get it.

I still would love to see some kind of Paywall Pass where a lot of companies cooperate, and you pay some reasonable subscription fee per month. I think a lot of people would. The paywall model just doesn't work for most people, for reasons I stated earlier. If I subscribe to the LA Times and then still can't read an important article they link from the Boston Herald, I'm still not getting the full story. And I'm not subscribing to the Boston Herald, being from LA.

This is why I don't feel bad using Rally's trick.

---

Given that they are one of the leftmost print media organizations, that seems a little ironic, doesn't it? They don't want to give people unwilling, or unable, to pay, information that they deem to be vital without the expectation of something in return.

Anyway, it's not particularly surprising. NYT is really no different from Fox News, imo, in that they should not really be considered news, but rather, a news product that is specifically designed to appeal to a target market.

I do agree with you on a bundle package, of sorts. I wouldn't be surprised if they get there eventually. The whole news model is going to be a lot of trial and error when it comes to websites. Many local news sites seem to do fine on just the ad revenues, so little question that it's a money thing.

Still, in the context of 25+ years ago, if I wanted to read NYT, then I'd have had to know someone who subscribed to NYT...and where I grew up? Nah, don't think so. lol

I will give you guys another trick on how to dodge paywalls.

Note that the archive.ph trick I mentioned in the OP does not work for articles which are either very old or sites which are small or lightly visited. The archive.ph trick is good for major sites but not so good for local news. I see Druff already mentioned this, and he is right.

Well here is another way.

You know how those sites have that annoying pop up demanding you subscribe? Often what those sites do is display the full article, but quickly cover it with a pop up you can't close. You can stop this by turning off Javascript.

On Chrome, click the three dots on top, select Settings, and then in the Settings Search bar type Javascript.

Then go down to where it says Site Settings, and click on it. Scroll down and near the bottom you will see Javascript. Click on that box and select "Don't allow sites to use Javascript".

That's it. Then go to the URL you want to jump the paywall, and it might work. Leave that settings window open and change it back when you're done, so you don't screw up the functionality of other sites.

imagine not paying people for their labor sweet website todge

i literally send todd 18 dollars a month cuz he operates this at a loss and this is what you advocate its just an xbox gamepass subscription yall help t out

The other thing not mentioned is that a lot of people are reading from bottom up instead of top down. You used to get a print publication and well that was what you had to read. For me that hasn't been true for many years. So when I am sent to a site to read 1 article there is no way in hell I'm going to subscribe. So I just don't read it and try to remember to not visit that site anymore. I've lost access to some good ones lately.

I'll remember this thread though next time I really wish to read something.

It is a shame there has never been a decent micro-transaction framework for the internet. I wouldn't mind paying $1 for a well written indepth article but no more $.10 for trash news coverage of some event.

The fact is I will never read a website like a magazine. I have a NYT subscription just because of how much they produce and the quality. $4 a month but that is as far as I'll go. Even the NYT subscription should be cancelled as I never use it.