I received an email from my cousin today which included a reprint of an opinion piece by author and environmental activist David Suzuki. The article originally appeared in the Toronto Star Newspaper so I thought I would visit the paper's site and review the article as it originally appeared. No such luck. All I could retrieve from my search effort was a couple of sentences lifted from the article, and a summary.
I explored a little further, and it seems that in order to review the article, I would have to fork over some money. I've experienced this before, when I hoped to read another writer's older columns at the New York Times. I would have to become a subscriber.
I realize newspapers have to make money, and I certainly want them to, lest we lose their service. At the stand, I'm happy to pay for their excellent pages; nothing better than spending a weekend reading through the editorials, columns, special sections, etc. of a good, well-written newspaper. On the other hand, these are archives, and it's unlikely I will have the opportunity to locate an old paper, much less pay for it. I would sooner see advertising on their sites, similar to that which pays for the printed word , rather than having to pull out a credit card and pay to see an article that has long since gone the way of the recycle bin in the real world. Touchy subject, I know, but in the case of a newspaper, it's my understanding that most of the material that appears on their pages, including the above mentioned article, are copyrighted by the paper and the author has already received his/her fee.
I've paraphrased the article, in case your interested, in my other blog, which you can view at http://riotthill.blogspot.com or http://riotthill.spaces.live.com/. If you follow enviromental issues, I highly recommend a read of any of David Suzuki's books, or a visit to his web site.
In the meantime, I'll keep searching the web for archives that cost only my time and curiosity.