3 ms·

Do you really want to be copying entire Murdoch articles?

greyman 17y ago
Not all of them, of course. Only in special cases when it is necessary, like this one...otherwise, how can we have a discussion about it when we can't read it?
- hyperbovine 17y ago
  otherwise, how can we have a discussion about it when we can't read it? Gee, how about by paying the organization that employed a reporter to write the story...... I swear, it's like half the internet has forgotten what it's like to buy something.
  - greyman 17y ago
    For normal usage like regular reading, I would agree with you, and also, it was not me who downmoded this comment. But this is a special occasion - someone brought the link to this article to our community here to discuss, so naturally I want to read the article. But that does not mean, that I want to became a paying customer of WSJ...as an European, I even do not know that much about it. Then, if it is not possible to legally read the text without paying, then I would suggest to not submit such content here to HN. Let the paying customers to discuss that stuff between themselves, then.
    - nfnaaron 17y ago
      Even if you don't subscribe and can't read the article, the discussion could be interesting as there are probably many subscribers in this group. It might even prompt someone to subscribe. And of course you can search for the same news from a different venue if your interest is piqued; no one has a monopoly on the news itself. In the case of WSJ and NYT, they've provided an approved (by them) way to read paywalled content for free: by visiting via the google "trick." A post of the google search, like ars did, is enough. It's one thing for a subscriber, or google trickster, to post a quote; I think that's generally accepted practice, Murdoch and AP notwithstanding. In the context of struggling content providers and blustering media owners it's at least ironic to post an entire article.
      - greyman 17y ago
        OK, you are right. I didn't want to encourage anyone to post copyrighted material here in full (although I don't see much difference between copying it and provide a google trick, but that's not important.) So far so good, if many HN members are WSJ subscribers, of course let's them to discuss that stuff here, no problem from my side.

Not all of them, of course. Only in special cases when it is necessary, like this one...otherwise, how can we have a discussion about it when we can't read it?

hyperbovine 17y ago
otherwise, how can we have a discussion about it when we can't read it? Gee, how about by paying the organization that employed a reporter to write the story...... I swear, it's like half the internet has forgotten what it's like to buy something.
- greyman 17y ago
  For normal usage like regular reading, I would agree with you, and also, it was not me who downmoded this comment. But this is a special occasion - someone brought the link to this article to our community here to discuss, so naturally I want to read the article. But that does not mean, that I want to became a paying customer of WSJ...as an European, I even do not know that much about it. Then, if it is not possible to legally read the text without paying, then I would suggest to not submit such content here to HN. Let the paying customers to discuss that stuff between themselves, then.
  - nfnaaron 17y ago
    Even if you don't subscribe and can't read the article, the discussion could be interesting as there are probably many subscribers in this group. It might even prompt someone to subscribe. And of course you can search for the same news from a different venue if your interest is piqued; no one has a monopoly on the news itself. In the case of WSJ and NYT, they've provided an approved (by them) way to read paywalled content for free: by visiting via the google "trick." A post of the google search, like ars did, is enough. It's one thing for a subscriber, or google trickster, to post a quote; I think that's generally accepted practice, Murdoch and AP notwithstanding. In the context of struggling content providers and blustering media owners it's at least ironic to post an entire article.
    - greyman 17y ago
      OK, you are right. I didn't want to encourage anyone to post copyrighted material here in full (although I don't see much difference between copying it and provide a google trick, but that's not important.) So far so good, if many HN members are WSJ subscribers, of course let's them to discuss that stuff here, no problem from my side.