Ian - it’s because we want to know what wines we need to stock up on and stash away without tasting for ten years. We don’t want all the content dude, just the scores for heaven’s sake. Seems like a waste to pay for all that other stuff when it’s just some numbers we need.
There a tons of things that can be discussed in a bulletin board about the content of this and other reports without breaking/infringing copyright law, or for that matter any moral code. if there is a post about the report you feel goes far beyond “fair use”, fine, complain. BUt nothing has been posted yet. All you have done is prevent a discussion on a group of wines and a wine region. Raison d’etre of this forum.
We did not publish any major reports on California this week. Our approach is to publish a mix of reviews, video and other articles in a streamed fashion, so we have something new for people to read or watch every day. This week, we had a video on the 2016 harvest in Napa Valley. We are currently giving readers who are paying users on CellarTracker two free months at Vinous. Wine Berserkers readers who are contributors to CT and want to see what Vinous is all about may want to take advantage of that offer, which is activated through your CT account. Our apps, for both iOS and Android, also have a lot of free information, including comprehensive vintage charts.
Why wait for the horse to leave the barn? IMO the request “what was reviewed well?” is one of the key reasons why one would subscribe to a wine reviewing publication, whether it be Vinous or WA or WS or JR or any other. That is, if you care “what was reviewed well?” at Vinous (or any other site), then I assume you plan to use that information to spend your money wisely. Since that is the raison d’etre of those sites, I gave my opinion that you owe it to them to share a bit of that money with them for all the work they put in to provide those reviews.
Now, if you think that my opinion posted here actually prevented something, then I am amazed, but pleased.