JSTOR Tests Free, Read-Only Access to Some Articles
chronicle.com
chronicle.com
(Yes, they mean "no downloads", but it's a rather ridiculous way of phrasing that. And if you can read it, you can save it for later.)
I would continue by asking who on Earth let people with such poor technical knowledge run a major academic publisher, but I have a funny story about an internship several years ago at another academic publisher.
Circa 2005, IIRC, I sat in on a sales meeting where I was told that the company was seriously considering requiring institutions to buy microfilm copies of journals in order to get online access, as their margins were higher on microfilm. Or something like that.
That being said, I don't really care what their Web interface looks like, but the wording used in this press release is not related to reality, and that bothers me.
>> "Register & Read Beta is a new, experimental program to offer free, read-online access to individual scholars..."
I dont think it's too geeky to point out that the use of "read-online access" indicates a poor understanding of digital tech and rights management and the web in general. Reminds me of the article posted the other day about how the no-fly list might be circumventable with a DOM editor.
At least I know I would, and I've paid a fair bit to JSTOR this past year...