And in about 4 lines of code I can use a timeout or <i>PeriodicalExecuter</i> to periodically check the the visibility of these elements and revert them if necessary.<p>I can have it deployed on <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common.js" rel="nofollow">http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common.js</a> which is on every page within the next 20 minutes (if I skipped code review etc). Any developer here at the Times could do that and anything else that was required.<p>The point is I won't.<p>We'd rather fix bugs that affect our readers and work on making the site better. Thats much more rewarding.<p>However if you feel that the Times content is worth writing a new browser extension for, or all the hours you spend keeping on top of updating code as we change DIV id and class names.... then maybe, just maybe, there might be something on the Times site of value?<p>Maybe worth (dare I say it...) actually paying for.... ? <i>Gasp!</i><p><i>UPDATE: Hi NiemanLab & This is just my own personal opinion :)</i>
Pretty disturbing how eager and willing HN readers are to circumvent the NYT paywall. Who cares how easy it is, if you like what they have to offer and want to see more of it, pay them for it. It costs money to produce quality content like that. It's not like the majority of the money is going to a bunch of crooks like in the music industry. It's like people that listen to public radio every day that don't support their local member stations, even though they have the money to do so...despicable!
Lengthy discussion of the same story from 21 hours ago:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2352023" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2352023</a>
Another way to defeat the paywall is to use a link on Twitter. <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/freeNYTimes" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/#!/freeNYTimes</a> uses the NY Times API to share all stories that the paper publishes online.
Isn't it better to put up some CSS asking for money than to impose all sorts of DRM to annoy your paying customers? I for one, am more willing to (continue to) pay for a NYT subscription knowing that the payfence is very lightweight.