I love the New York Times. I read it every day. I send email links to friends and family all the time. A few months back, however, I noticed a change in how the emails were done. You used to be able to choose whether to send a brief synopsis and link or to send the whole article with a link. I always chose whole article because it was easier for those I was sending to. And for people like my hubby, who is on a firewalled out the ass server at work, it was the only way he could read the article. But then the NYT changed their options. Now there is no option. Synopsis and link is it. Annoying, yes, especially when I have to copy and paste the entire article if I want my hubby to read it. But, on occasion, when I want to have an article for my files, I just send myself the link.
Today, when I tried to access a link that's only 3 weeks old, guess what. The NYT wants $3.95 to let me see an article I already read. Bastards. Maybe I'm viewing this all wrong, considering I get to read the entire NYT online for free every day when there are folks who pay to have the print version delivered, but I'm pretty sure the NYT is flush with moolah and doesn't need nearly four freaking bucks for a two page article. I probably wouldn't pay even if it were only 50 cents, but still. $3.95? Ain't that a bit much? I buy the print version when I'm traveling and don't have Internet, or when I want to sit at a coffee shop and read the paper. I also get inundated by all the advertisers, and I probably buy some of what they are hawking. Yep, the NYT is doing A-okay without my $3.95 per article.
On the other hand, I get the last laugh. All I have to do is log into my university library and head for dear old Lexis Nexis and voila, free article. But you know what, that's a hassle and it isn't that important to me at the moment. Lesson learned though. From now on, I cut and paste if I want the damn article.