'The New Yorker' Subscriptions Go Live on iPad

[gloss]

Actually I got the date wrong, but it's even worse, only through March 28.
I wonder what the difference is. I'm a long time subscriber and paid up through sometime in 2013.

Don't worry, nothing's wrong. The app only seems to go back as far as the date you first subscribed. My first issue available is April 11, which is the week I signed up.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Awesome! Will purchase.

Purchas like crazy.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Good news for me. I like the New Yorker, but hate how the print versions pile up in my tiny apartment.

 

[0815]

Thankfully my friend won't give up on the paper edition so we'll likely split the $70 cost, he'll take paper and I'll take digital. Probably quasi-stealing, right? Anyone else doing this?
Even at $60 for the year (ipad only) it's still awesome considering the previous price.

Yes, this is stealing - it is just wrong.

THIS is the reason why many companies won't give out free subscriptions to current subscribers - this is why people have to pay for digital and paper in many cases. This is stealing from EVERYONE, not that company that publishes - they just raise the price (and make everyone pay for your theft) or they will stop offering the free download and make again everyone else pay for your theft. It is abusing of the system and just theft - can't see anything good in your behavior.

 

[See Flat]

Thankfully my friend won't give up on the paper edition so we'll likely split the $70 cost, he'll take paper and I'll take digital. Probably quasi-stealing, right? Anyone else doing this?
Even at $60 for the year (ipad only) it's still awesome considering the previous price.

Not quasi-stealing. It is stealing.

 

[ericinboston]

Might as well as pay the $10 more for the print version so you can have a print version in hand or keep them for a few years or let your wife have the hardcopy while you read the iPad version. Magazines like the New Yorker aren't typically thrown out very quickly as folks like to hold on to them for awhile for various reference points.

I still think $60/year for a digital magazine is a lot of money especially compared to the $70/year print version. New Yorker is not going to have interactive articles like National Geographic or Discovery or Scientific American and those mags are $29/year for print (monthly instead of weekly of course is why the price is different).

Tell us again how they can justify charging that much to send a 3MB PDF file to my iPad?

 

[vbtwo31984]

Yes, this is stealing - it is just wrong.

THIS is the reason why many companies won't give out free subscriptions to current subscribers - this is why people have to pay for digital and paper in many cases. This is stealing from EVERYONE, not that company that publishes - they just raise the price (and make everyone pay for your theft) or they will stop offering the free download and make again everyone else pay for your theft. It is abusing of the system and just theft - can't see anything good in your behavior.

Would you consider it stealing if his friend would give him his copy of the print magazine after he's done reading it? How is this any different?

The subscription now includes 1 copy of the print magazine and 1 copy of the iPad version (attached to an Apple ID I assume, so might be few copies if you have a few iPads). They both still only get 1 copy of the print magazine and 1 copy of the iPad version. If he gets the iPad version, then his friend doesn't (unless they share the Apple ID).

 

[ericinboston]

Not quasi-stealing. It is stealing.

Ummm....no, it's not stealing.

There is nothing stopping me from giving my National Geographic to my sister the day after I get it or the year after I get it. If my "Subscription" happens to come with a digital version, there's still nothing illegal about me giving my paper version away. When my sub is up, the digital version clearly is disabled...do you think they come back to my house demanding the paper version back?

 

[0815]

Would you consider it stealing if his friend would give him his copy of the print magazine after he's done reading it? How is this any different?

The subscription now includes 1 copy of the print magazine and 1 copy of the iPad version (attached to an Apple ID I assume, so might be few copies if you have a few iPads). They both still only get 1 copy of the print magazine and 1 copy of the iPad version. If he gets the iPad version, then his friend doesn't (unless they share the Apple ID).

Difference: it's used and old news by the time he gets it .... the digital copy is by contract for the subscriber only, not for his best buddy.

 

[kitkat2]

Don't worry, nothing's wrong. The app only seems to go back as far as the date you first subscribed. My first issue available is April 11, which is the week I signed up.

It seems you're right, but it's only based on month and day, not the year. So I guess someone who began subscribing this January has access to all the issues from that point on, and someone who began subscribing in, say, March of 1995* only has access to the issues from that date this year. Seems a bit unfair.

At least I'm mostly caught up so it's not a huge deal to me personally, but still.

*Me, but I'm only guessing as to the year. It's been awhile.

 

[vbtwo31984]

The full, undiscounted, price of the print version may well be $69.95, but I have never seen them fail to offer a 'discounted' price. I paid $39.95 for the magazine last year, and I don't remember ever paying a price that's much different to that.

Yes, last year I signed up through Amazon for $40, but I just looked and Amazon now wants the full $70 for another year. It's possible that they'll get rid of the discounted prices (maybe if you wait until you get your last issue, they'll be desperate and send you a discount card?).

 

[ericinboston]

Difference: it's used and old news by the time he gets it .... the digital copy is by contract for the subscriber only, not for his best buddy.

And what about families...the family of 5 that buys 1 sub to Time Magazine...are they stealing because all 5 family members read it?...and maybe each person took 1 week to read it before passing it along. What about if they donate it 1 day after it arrives to their town library or school or dentist office?

You're thinking like the media giants back in 1998...the dinosaur business models just will not work these days...if media wants to exist online, the "only-the-eyes-of-the-account-holder-may-read-this" are just ludicrous. 1 concurrent session is a much more reasonable answer. "Used" and "old" are non existent terms for computer terminology.

 

[0815]

And what about families...the family of 5 that buys 1 sub to Time Magazine...are they stealing because all 5 family members read it?

Same household ... not a problem.

You're thinking like the media giants back in 1998...the dinosaur business models just will not work these days...if media wants to exist online, the "only-the-eyes-of-the-account-holder-may-read-this" are just ludicrous. 1 concurrent session is a much more reasonable answer. "Used" and "old" are non existent terms for computer terminology.

Guess I just don't the 'I am entitled to get everything free' generation .... I personally wouldn't care too much if the result of that wouldn't be that the honest people that pay for services ended up paying more and more because too many people think 'it's digital, that means I get get it for free because I can just copy it'

 

[fifthworld]

Yes, this is stealing - it is just wrong.

THIS is the reason why many companies won't give out free subscriptions to current subscribers - this is why people have to pay for digital and paper in many cases. This is stealing from EVERYONE, not that company that publishes - they just raise the price (and make everyone pay for your theft) or they will stop offering the free download and make again everyone else pay for your theft. It is abusing of the system and just theft - can't see anything good in your behavior.

I disagree. I've been longtime subscriber of several music magazines (paper) and never felt there is anything wrong in sharing them with my friends.

 

[vbtwo31984]

Difference: it's used and old news by the time he gets it .... the digital copy is by contract for the subscriber only, not for his best buddy.

So can I give my new and unused print magazine version to my buddy and read the digital copy myself? Or are you arguing that the digital version can only be in the hands of the person who holds the physical copy? Is it stealing for a husband to read the paper version and for a wife to read the digital version or is it stealing only when it's your buddy?

Is it now illegal for me to give my physical copy to anyone else because I still get to keep the digital version?

 

[fifthworld]

Might as well as pay the $10 more for the print version so you can have a print version in hand or keep them for a few years or let your wife have the hardcopy while you read the iPad version. Magazines like the New Yorker aren't typically thrown out very quickly as folks like to hold on to them for awhile for various reference points.

I still think $60/year for a digital magazine is a lot of money especially compared to the $70/year print version. New Yorker is not going to have interactive articles like National Geographic or Discovery or Scientific American and those mags are $29/year for print (monthly instead of weekly of course is why the price is different).

Tell us again how they can justify charging that much to send a 3MB PDF file to my iPad?

LOL. You are you evaluating the quality of content based on weight. If you like I can exchange my potato for your diamond ring.

 

[SilentCrs]

Good news for me. I like the New Yorker, but hate how the print versions pile up in my tiny apartment.

...maybe it'd be better to ditch the New Yorker and get a better apartment?

 

[ericinboston]

Same household ... not a problem.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's 1 person or many. You can't start pulling terms out of thin air...households...days of the week...how large a family is...geographic boundaries...etc.

I agree that it would be wrong to have a key code that would allow NUMEROUS CONCURRENT users to access the same material at the same time...but that's the author's fault for not implementing a computer architecture that bans concurrent access. It's quite easy to do and they would be completely idiotic to make a system that allows the same user id to login concurrently, say, 25 times.

If I shared my key with 100 people and the system only allowed 1 person in at a time, every time someone logs in they would kick off the other person. Again, this is simple computer software design that has existed for decades.

Besides, if you've ever been to college or high school, you'll know that friends let their friends borrow magazines every second of the day...whether they read it for 15 mins in the bathroom or 2 hours on the couch. There is absolutely nothing illegal or against the subscription about that. Of course there is, in reality, no way anyone could possibly monitor such actions.

 

[ericinboston]

LOL. You are you evaluating the quality of content based on weight. If you like I can exchange my potato for your diamond ring.

You quoted my entire post so I have no idea what statement you are actually referring to.

Re-quote and I'll reply.

 

[Lesser Evets]

If the magazine racket decided to move in force to iPad, they might have found revenues better, not because of more subscribers but because of lack of all the money bleeding out to print and distribution and mailing, etc. etc.

iPad signaled the end of 95% of printed periodicals. It will slowly wind down over the twenty-teens. Book stores will slowly wrinkle up. There is a much better way to handle space and material: allow viewing with devices, print to buy with POD machines. Imagine that those giant B&Ns can be about 1/6th the size and no inventory sitting on shelves and returned. A better world in many ways.

Good to see Conde Nast is going full-stream for the iPad.

 

[NebulaClash]

We may not like the way these media companies operate under what, to us, seem like old-fashioned ideas that are out of step with today's world. Unfortunately, the copyright laws are just as old-fashioned and out of step. You don't like the current situation? Stop whining about the companies and instead get copyright law changed (good luck). That's the real problem.

So yes, it's stealing. Hey, the publishers don't even like the fact that libraries loan books for free! They certainly don't want you to share your books, although in paper form there's nothing they can do about it, and the laws have noted exceptions for everyday use of paper books that allow you to sell your book second-hand to someone else (they hate this, but the law carves out such exceptions).

Complain all you want, but it's irrelevant until the copyright laws change. The law says what you can and cannot do, and all the college debating in the world won't change that simple fact. You might not like how the law is worded, but you can't simply wave it away just because you get offended.

 

[Cavepainter]

Same household ... not a problem.

So if a college fraternity of 20 people had one subscription, that would be ok?

 

[fifthworld]

We may not like the way these media companies operate under what, to us, seem like old-fashioned ideas that are out of step with today's world. Unfortunately, the copyright laws are just as old-fashioned and out of step. You don't like the current situation? Stop whining about the companies and instead get copyright law changed (good luck). That's the real problem.

So yes, it's stealing. Hey, the publishers don't even like the fact that libraries loan books for free! They certainly don't want you to share your books, although in paper form there's nothing they can do about it, and the laws have noted exceptions for everyday use of paper books that allow you to sell your book second-hand to someone else (they hate this, but the law carves out such exceptions).

Complain all you want, but it's irrelevant until the copyright laws change. The law says what you can and cannot do, and all the college debating in the world won't change that simple fact. You might not like how the law is worded, but you can't simply wave it away just because you get offended.

Not sure I follow you here. First you go about how the copyright law control how we can share content. Than you call it stealing. Than you tell that the law permit it, so under certain exception it's not stealing, even if the publisher don't like it. So, what do you really know about it?

 

[ericinboston]

We may not like the way these media companies operate under what, to us, seem like old-fashioned ideas that are out of step with today's world. Unfortunately, the copyright laws are just as old-fashioned and out of step. You don't like the current situation? Stop whining about the companies and instead get copyright law changed (good luck). That's the real problem.

So yes, it's stealing. Hey, the publishers don't even like the fact that libraries loan books for free! They certainly don't want you to share your books, although in paper form there's nothing they can do about it, and the laws have noted exceptions for everyday use of paper books that allow you to sell your book second-hand to someone else (they hate this, but the law carves out such exceptions).

Complain all you want, but it's irrelevant until the copyright laws change. The law says what you can and cannot do, and all the college debating in the world won't change that simple fact. You might not like how the law is worded, but you can't simply wave it away just because you get offended.

I agree...however, there is nothing illegal about paying for a print sub that also gives you a digital version that you can access and sharing the "account" with a relative or friend. It may be against the Terms And Conditions of the subscription (and even then, how are they going to accurately monitor it?). It's an account. It can (99% of the time) be accessed by only 1 device/computer at a time. And, given that most people (or families) own numerous devices and are likely accessing the account from various geographic locations (hey, 1 mile away from your home is still diff than your home address), it's very hard for the system admin to truly monitor inappropriate activity.

The copyright laws ARE archaic and broken...for everything that is music, movies, magazines, etc. A very high percentage of people agree the laws are broken. Media vs. medium vs. licensing vs. download vs. "access" etc.

Even if I am wrong about the legality, the vast vast majority of consumers agree that "if something is mine, I can do with it as I please". The laws will change...and likely before 2020 as so much as been in limbo since the mid 90s that it's just not worth the battles and frustration anymore.

 

[fifthworld]

Not sure I follow you here. First you go about how the copyright law control how we can share content. Than you call it stealing. Than you tell that the law permit it, so under certain exception it's not stealing, even if the publisher don't like it. So, what do you really know about it?

Here what I found: The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."