Join 3,427 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


im getting overwhelmed
September 26, 2006 8:00 AM   Subscribe

like words? stimulate your mind with the salon directory, new york times topics, the archive of every single time magazine, past issues from the new york review of books or just take a break and stare at pages and pages of google images
posted by petsounds (19 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
You shouldn't feel too overwhelmed, the NYTimes and NYRev stuff is mostly subscription only.
posted by OmieWise at 8:12 AM on September 26, 2006


The Time back catalogue is very cool. I thought I saw it here before? No matter.
The elzr image site is potentially good but that ajaxy mouseover guff/movement does not for a pleasant time make, imho. 100 images a page beats googleimages, although I haven't checked out firefox plugins on that front for a while. I will play around some more.
Thanks petsounds.
posted by peacay at 8:54 AM on September 26, 2006


it makes me mad how few magazines, especially literary and cultural magazines, offer their online archives for free. even progressive 'people's papers' like the nation charge for past articles. its just selfish and stupid. information should be free. if you really want your ideas to spread make it so all of the public has access to them, not just those with money. compared to the millions magazines and newspapers make on advertising im sure the online subscription revenue is insignificant in any case
posted by petsounds at 9:04 AM on September 26, 2006


i meant DONT offer their archvies for free
posted by petsounds at 9:15 AM on September 26, 2006


They may not be free online at your fingertips, but many of them are free at your local library. And many public libraries allow card holders to search their online databases from home. So while it might take a little extra work, the information is (usually) available.
posted by likorish at 9:21 AM on September 26, 2006


petsounds - stet
posted by kcds at 10:02 AM on September 26, 2006


petsounds - Capitalization
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:36 AM on September 26, 2006


I cannot fathom why anyone believes that "information wants to be free." Information has no desires, and its availibilty is a product of industry. The phrase would more literally reflect the attitude behind it if it were worded:

"I don't value the work of certain people."

or even more simply:

"Me want, give now!"
posted by mzurer at 10:59 AM on September 26, 2006


mzurer, people don't pay as much attention when you have to pay for it. If the intention of the magazines is to generate revenue you'd think putting up archives for "free" would be a good idea. Not only does it create immediate add revenue, it drives attention to the magazine and encourages new subscribers. Many online newspapers have figured this out. In a world where information is so freely abundant, the only limiting factor is peoples time and attention - eyeballs - you want to capitalize on that as much as possible.

The other thing is why don't more magazines do what New Yorker did and have a rolling DVD subscription for every back issue. I'd love to have it for National Geographic for example.
posted by stbalbach at 11:08 AM on September 26, 2006


mzurer, people don't pay as much attention when you have to pay for it.

Care to back that up? Personally I tend to pay more attention to information from what I consider reputable sources, and for me, that tend to correlate with professional endeavours like The New York Times. I use Wikipedia very frequently, but I treat it like a tape measure with no half inch marks and numbers that are occasionally out of order.

Not only does it create immediate add(sic) revenue, it drives attention to the magazine and encourages new subscribers.
Again, care to back that up?

There is an abundance of information available for free on the internet. The amount of free, accurate information is a different story.

And I still don't know why information would want to be free. Whether or not is good business sense to make archives available online is a debatable point. They presumably are making money off charging for access, or they have decided that not charging would injure their other revenue streams, such as home delivery and advertising in the physical editions.
posted by mzurer at 11:24 AM on September 26, 2006


i certainly dont value the industry of art, it disgusts me. there are millions of people who write all over the world who would love for their work to be seen. people try to get their stories in the new yorker not for the pocket change but because they know it will get their ideas to a widespread audience. the whole point of these magazines, as opposed to blogs or zines or any-number-of ways people publish words, is to distribute the most important ideas and debates to as wide and audience as possible
posted by petsounds at 11:29 AM on September 26, 2006


petsounds, not only do you not value the industry of art, you don't even value the art. If the writers of the works you want to read in the New Yorker were not paid for their effort, you would never see them. Because in 99% of the cases, if they could not actually earn money creating it, they would not have time to perfect their craft. They would be too busy earning their livings. There are already distribution channels in place for authors who have not been accepted for publication in The New Yorker. One is the internet. If you can't be bothered to find those authors who present their works online for free, then you not only prefer to not spend money to find art, you're not even willing to spend time. There is already an apparently overwhelming amount of material for you to ponder, for free, and yet it disgusts you that human beings would like to be paid for their efforts.

You may not like it, but the whole point of those magazines is is not "to distribute the most important ideas and debates to as wide and audience as possible."* I would go as far as to argue that the whole point of those magazines is to present a venue in which artists are able to compensated for their work. You, quite simply, do not value their work. I do, and that is why I subscribe to the magazine.

*I added the correct puncuation. You don't seem even to value the clear communication of your own ideas...

posted by mzurer at 12:08 PM on September 26, 2006


petsounds writes "i certainly dont value the industry of art..."

What? Your comment makes no sense at all. What is that you're trying to say? Keep in mind that populism and quality aren't always the same thing.
posted by OmieWise at 12:24 PM on September 26, 2006


i think one could argue that the death of newspaper subscriptions and rise of blogs and free websites is a sign that information does want to be free. in my own case as it turns out you are right but thats only because im a nutcase anti-capitalist. :D i do believe everything should be free. i dont respect artists who make art in order to make money and get rich. i grew up reading zines and listening to home cassette tapes-- music people made and gave away because they were in love with it. it was free but much better than most of the commercially produced profit-driven crap people pay for. however this is a derail because it has more to do with me personally than with the issues, topics, and facts at hand
posted by petsounds at 12:28 PM on September 26, 2006


omiewise, i was responding to mzurers claim that my belief that newspaper archives should be free means i dont value writers (ie. that writers are in it for the money). sorry to be so confusing. i may have even confused myself
posted by petsounds at 12:35 PM on September 26, 2006


petsounds: i dont respect artists who make art in order to make money and get rich.

What about artists who make art in order to make money and pay off their ruinous art school loans? Or raise a family? By and large, journalism, art, and literature are nowhere near as lucrative as you seem to think.

stbalbach: If the intention of the magazines is to generate revenue you'd think putting up archives for "free" would be a good idea. Not only does it create immediate ad revenue, it drives attention to the magazine and encourages new subscribers.

That's true—for the moment. For now, websites can serve as effective loss-leaders for print enterprises. But every day brings us closer to the moment when e-ink and flexible ultra-fidelity screens become cheap and effective enough to supplant ink and paper. When that happens, the loss-leader model will collapse, and all the long-tail Google AdSense in the world won't be safety-net enough to catch the plummeting body of the mass media. Perhaps that's why certain "dinosaurs" are sticking with the subscription model for the time being.
posted by Iridic at 8:15 PM on September 26, 2006


By he way, do the magazine share their proceeds from electronic subscribers with the authors by way of residuals or in some other form? TV and movies and records all are required to make such payments. Has any writer who has published work in any magazine or newspaper ever received such payments for downloads?
posted by donfactor at 6:19 AM on September 27, 2006


i think one could argue that the death of newspaper subscriptions and rise of blogs and free websites is a sign that information does want to be free

Information is not some sort of human with wants or needs. I think it's a sign that consumers want things to be free. I know I do. :) That's different from saying I think it's a good idea if creators are forced to make everything freely copyable immediately.
posted by grouse at 4:06 PM on October 22, 2006


Has any writer who has published work in any magazine or newspaper ever received such payments for downloads?

Not repeat fees per-download, but once or twice I've received a small additional fee for work that has first appeared in print and later been put online. Most of the time, though, the newspaper or magazine holds the copyright on a piece of writing and are therefore free to republish online without paying. (The copyright thing is pretty annoying - I'd like to make everything I write freely available, but can't because I don't own it, so all of my work ends up behind a paywall.)
posted by jack_mo at 7:12 AM on October 23, 2006


« Older Keith Olbermann's Edward R. Murrow* moment: A Text...  |  The small-sized fondling robot... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments