A variation on a theme (<a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=992927" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=992927</a>). This one says that the WSJ is getting it wrong because you have to subscribe to read the story because the story or equivalent is widely available. Baron is right in the global sense, but wrong in the specific. The NYT cant force you to subscribe, because, except for some of their columnists, their content is available everywhere. They even syndicate it themselves. The WSJ is actually a counter example to Baron's point. The WSJ actually makes money on their web site. People actually subscribe because of the WSJ's reputation for its business reporting.<p>OTOH if a publication doesnt have the reputation and immediate need to know content of the WSJ, a walled garden will ensure its demise. Other publications that could (and do) survive on a subscription basis: Physician Desk Reference (even tough all its information is publicly available), Lexus, Nexus, and Bloomberg.