Paywall

Those who see potential in paywalls include investor Warren Buffett, former Wall Street Journal publisher Gordon Crovitz, and media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

[21] A NYU media theorist, Clay Shirky, was initially a skeptic of paywalls, but in May 2012 wrote, "[Newspapers] should turn to their most loyal readers for income, via a digital subscription service of the sort the [New York Times] has implemented.

Financial blogger Felix Salmon wrote that when one encounters a "paywall and can't get past it, you simply go away and feel disappointed in your experience.

"[26] Jimmy Wales, founder of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, argued that the use of a "hard" paywall diminishes a site's influence.

"[34] By March 2014 the site had over 60,000 digital subscribers; at that time, the Globe announced that it would replace the hard paywall with a metered system allowing users to read 10 articles without charge in any 30-day period.

The Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory believed that an ability to sample the site's premium content would encourage more people to subscribe to the service.

At the same time, McGrory also announced plans to give Boston.com a more distinct editorial focus, with a "sharper voice that better captures the sensibilities of Boston", while migrating other content by Globe writers, such as blogs from Boston.com to the paper's website, but keeping them freely available.

[36][37] In countries like Italy, Austria, France and Denmark, it is lawful as long as the website provides the user with the option of accessing equivalent content or services without giving their consent to the storage and use of cookies or other tracking tools, and the subscription to the site has a modest and fair cost so that it does not constrain the user’s free choice.

Most discussion of paywalls centers on their success or failure as business ventures, and overlooks their ethical implications for maintaining an informed public.

[14] For the "hard" paywall specifically, however, there seems to be an industry consensus that the negative effects (loss of readership) outweigh the potential revenue, unless the newspaper targets a niche audience.

"[43] Even those who do not believe in the general success of paywalls recognize that, for a profitable future, newspapers must start generating more attractive content with added value, or investigate new sources of earning revenue.

They argue that since 90 percent of advertising revenues are concentrated in the top 50 publishers, smaller operations can not necessarily depend on the traditional ad-supported free content model the way that larger sites can.

[46][47] In May 2019, research by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford showed that despite the controversies surrounding paywalls, these were on the rise across Europe and the United States.

[48][49] General user response to the implementation of paywalls has been measured through a number of recent studies which analyze readers' online news-reading habits.

[51] Based on the poor reception of paid content by the participants, the study concludes with a statement similar to those of the media experts, stating, with the exception of prominent papers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Times, that given the "current public attitudes, most publishers had better start looking elsewhere for revenue solutions.

"[42] A study by Elizabeth Benítez from the World Association of News Publishers surveyed 355 participants in Mexico, Europe and the United States.

According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (Simon and Graves 2019), €14.09 is the average monthly subscription price across six European countries and the United States.

The study found that on paywalled articles that displayed a standfirst ("deck" in US-English) or introductory paragraph, the likelihood of visitors clicking on the “subscribe now” button was significantly reduced.

In the U.S., it has been observed that the use of paywalls by high-quality publications has enhanced the reach of non-paywalled online outlets that promote right-wing perspectives, conspiracy theories, and fake news.

[59][60][61] The use of a paywall to bar individuals from accessing news content online without payment, brings up numerous ethical questions.

When Hurricane Irene hit the United States' east coast in late August 2011, The New York Times declared that all storm related coverage, accessed both online and through mobile devices, would be free to readers.

[15] In addition to erecting paywalls, newspapers have been increasingly exploiting tablet and mobile news products, the profitability of which remains inconclusive.

[72] An open API (application programming interface) makes the online news site "a platform for data and information that [the newspaper company] can generate value from in other ways.

"[14] An open API keeps news content free to the public while the newspaper makes a profit from the quality and usefulness of its data to other businesses.

The open API strategy can be commended because it takes the pressure off of the news room to continually investigate and explore new means of revenue.

[75] In November 2018, Mozilla removed Bypass Paywalls, a paywall-bypassing browser extension, from the Firefox add-on store for violating its terms of service.

[76] The browser extension Bypass Paywalls Clean was also removed from the Firefox add-on store in 2023,[77] as well as the GitLab and GitHub software hosting services in 2024.

[78] In New York University Law Review, Theresa M. Troupson compares differing interpretations in Chamberlain v. Skylink and MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment for the purpose.

In the first, Federal Circuit court held that circumventing an access protection measure violates the DMCA only if the act is reasonably related to an infringement, such as making or distributing copies of an article without a license.

In the latter, the Ninth Circuit court held that the act of circumvention itself, is prohibited under DMCA irrespective of whether it results in copyright infringement.