"We certainly have talked to just about everyone," Ventresca says, adding that some negotiations have been held up by disagreements over wholesale price. "This offers a good, positive economic return for the publishers, but there's always a question of where that should be."

There's also a question of whether publishers should be wary of handing over a portion of their sales to a rival. Ventresca insists that his unit won't discriminate against non-Time Inc. titles—mostly.

"In a jump-ball situation, then yes, Time Inc. titles would get some preference" when it comes to, say, promotion on Maghound's website, he says. "But Maghound will be trying to maximize Maghound's revenues, not Time Inc.'s revenues," he adds. "We're viewing this very much as an industry initiative."

Some observers are skeptical about how much difference it will make to the industry's long-term fortunes, however.

"It's kind of marginal," says one circulation analyst who asked to remain anonymous because he has not been fully briefed on Maghound's plans. "My feeling is people who sign up will forget about it and the magazines will keep coming whether they want them or not."

It's worth noting that the services Ventresca cites in explaining Maghound—iTunes, TiVo, and Netflix—all deliver digital products. (Netflix mails its DVDs, but has said its future lies in streaming video over the Web.)

Are ink-and-paper magazines a hopeless anachronism in this context? Maybe, but many publishers are taking a flier rather than risk missing out on a source of cash and readers, however ultimately insignificant it might turn out to be.

Peter Winn, director of planning and development at Bonnier Corp., which publishes Parenting, Popular Science, Ski, and other magazines, says he thinks it's important to the industry for all major publishers to get behind Maghound. Bonnier is making 32 of its 40-plus magazines available.

"Is it going to replace how we do circulation?" Winn asks. "I don't think anybody knows the answer to that question yet."