Even if you don't subscribe and can't read the article, the discussion could be interesting as there are probably many subscribers in this group. It might even

Even if you don't subscribe and can't read the article, the discussion could be interesting as there are probably many subscribers in this group. It might even prompt someone to subscribe. And of course you can search for the same news from a different venue if your interest is piqued; no one has a monopoly on the news itself. In the case of WSJ and NYT, they've provided an approved (by them) way to read paywalled content for free: by visiting via the google "trick." A post of the google search, like ars did, is enough. It's one thing for a subscriber, or google trickster, to post a quote; I think that's generally accepted practice, Murdoch and AP notwithstanding. In the context of struggling content providers and blustering media owners it's at least ironic to post an entire article.