8 ms·

Am I alone in feeling like this is akin to a tutorial on how you can shoplift without getting caught? WSJ, for better or worse, does not want to give you conten

by mbroshi 11y ago

Am I alone in feeling like this is akin to a tutorial on how you can shoplift without getting caught? WSJ, for better or worse, does not want to give you content without your paying for it. If you take that content without paying, you are stealing. Just because you have figured out how to get past their security does not mean it's not stealing. (See the second precept here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
elaineo 11y ago
I don't disagree with you. But, given the nature of this forum, I think that the information content has merit. What people choose to do with the information is another story...
azakai 11y ago
Legally it might, I don't know. Morally, I'm not sure. 1. If they allowed all bots but disallowed all non-bots, that would raise questions of what defines a "bot". Couldn't I write a personal bot that fetches the story for me? As a browser addon, even? 2. It's even more complex since allowing bots means they allow tools that provide the information to third parties, as the bots are not intended for private use by the bot maker. So the door is already open. 3. But in practice, it seems they favor certain bots. Is it ok that the WSJ lets Google do things Google's competitors cannot? Try to use the "web link" trick from HN on any other search engine, and it doesn't work in my experience. That seems anti-competitive and discriminatory in favor of the existing dominant entity in this space, Google.
- mankyd 11y ago
  > If they allowed all bots but disallowed all non-bots, that would raise questions of what defines a "bot". Maybe, but I think its a pretty easy distinction. They aren't even allowing all bots - they're allowing a white list of them. You're not just writing your own bot to get around it, you're pretending to be someone else's bot. > But in practice, it seems they favor certain bots. Is it ok that the WSJ lets Google do things Google's competitors cannot? That's the really important question. I personally have no context for answering except to say that I can see both sides argued. If you view their website as a physical store / private establishment, then I assume that they have every right to establish who has access to what and under what conditions. Of course, that hampers a lot of legitimate use cases along the way.
  - sturgill 11y ago
    > If you view their website as a physical store / private establishment, then I assume that they have every right to establish who has access to what and under what conditions. Not true. There are very specific laws about not being able to discriminate against protected classes of people. Bars have to serve minorities, bakeries have to cater to same sex marriages, etc. Where you draw the line of legislated equality within private property rights is pretty intriguing. I have don't have any answers, but lean heavily towards the libertarian bent.
    - mankyd 11y ago
      That's fair, though private establishments are still allowed to distinguish based on other criteria such as membership, partnership, etc. I didn't meant to be super specific. I'm merely pointing out that they are allowed to establish barriers to entry.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ikeboy 11y ago
WSJ is violating Google's rules referenced here: https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en
- mod 11y ago
  So? Is this a "two wrongs make a right?" More importantly, is violating "Google's rules" suddenly a violation of law?
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    This would never go to court, but if it did, I could see a jury being sympathetic. You could sort of argue that WSJ had an obligation to Google to allow referred users to view the pages, and that Google passed that right onto the user, so you were contractually authorized to access it. IANAL and this is most likely wrong, but kind of plausible to my NAL mind.
  - RubyPinch 11y ago
    I don't think its wrong to browse a site's content that they have advertised as publically available? If they are advertising incorrectly, they should fix that.
    - redukt 11y ago
      False advertising is also illegal
njharman 11y ago
No content is being given or taken. This is restriction on distribution / copying. Massively different ethics than stealing despite what the Copyright Cabal wants you to think. The only loss is the energy/bandwidth/cycles WSJ servers spent answering your request. Which, I believe, has been basis of computer "fraud" cases.
- zodiac 11y ago
  > Which, I believe, has been basis of computer "fraud" cases. This can't be true. Surely the argument for why, say, a WSJ-paywall-bypassing-tool causes damage (in the legal sense) to WSJ is that it allows people who would otherwise pay for content to get it for free, thus depriving WSJ of income. Moreover, I don't think prosecutors need to prove that you caused harm in order to charge you with computer fraud, since, for example, CFAA falls under criminal law.
  - type0 11y ago
    > it allows people who would otherwise pay for content to get it for free But the sole existence of this trick and the person that would use it is exactly someone who would not pay, therefore your argument does not hold. And stealing it is not, it is more like listening to the outdoor rock concert beside the fence because you don't want to pay, inconvenient- sure, so plenty of people would still pay. Cloaking is against Googles rules so it is WSJ that's dishonest.
    - zodiac 11y ago
      I'm not arguing that bypassing the WSJ paywall causes damage to WSJ - I'm personally not sure that it does. What I'm arguing for is that if for some reason WSJ needed to prove in court that a paywall-bypassing tool causes them damage, they would use the it-deprived-us-of-potential-revenue argument that I outlined, rather than the it-forced-us-to-waste-electricity argument. You're right that the it-deprived-us-of-potential-revenue argument might not work in this case, in the sense that it is very possible that there does not exist a person who would have paid for a WSJ subscription but, because of the paywall-bypassing tool, did not.
RIMR 11y ago
> abstain from taking what is not given I'm not taking, I am simply absorbing information. That information will still be there when I am done reading it. Have I really stolen, or did I just refuse to give someone money on demand?
jhildings 11y ago
Stealing would imply that they no longer are in possession or in control of the content, which of course is false. Copying illegaly however, yes

by mbroshi 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

elaineo 11y ago

I don't disagree with you. But, given the nature of this forum, I think that the information content has merit. What people choose to do with the information is another story...

azakai 11y ago

Legally it might, I don't know. Morally, I'm not sure. 1. If they allowed all bots but disallowed all non-bots, that would raise questions of what defines a "bot". Couldn't I write a personal bot that fetches the story for me? As a browser addon, even? 2. It's even more complex since allowing bots means they allow tools that provide the information to third parties, as the bots are not intended for private use by the bot maker. So the door is already open. 3. But in practice, it seems they favor certain bots. Is it ok that the WSJ lets Google do things Google's competitors cannot? Try to use the "web link" trick from HN on any other search engine, and it doesn't work in my experience. That seems anti-competitive and discriminatory in favor of the existing dominant entity in this space, Google.

mankyd 11y ago
> If they allowed all bots but disallowed all non-bots, that would raise questions of what defines a "bot". Maybe, but I think its a pretty easy distinction. They aren't even allowing all bots - they're allowing a white list of them. You're not just writing your own bot to get around it, you're pretending to be someone else's bot. > But in practice, it seems they favor certain bots. Is it ok that the WSJ lets Google do things Google's competitors cannot? That's the really important question. I personally have no context for answering except to say that I can see both sides argued. If you view their website as a physical store / private establishment, then I assume that they have every right to establish who has access to what and under what conditions. Of course, that hampers a lot of legitimate use cases along the way.
- sturgill 11y ago
  > If you view their website as a physical store / private establishment, then I assume that they have every right to establish who has access to what and under what conditions. Not true. There are very specific laws about not being able to discriminate against protected classes of people. Bars have to serve minorities, bakeries have to cater to same sex marriages, etc. Where you draw the line of legislated equality within private property rights is pretty intriguing. I have don't have any answers, but lean heavily towards the libertarian bent.
  - mankyd 11y ago
    That's fair, though private establishments are still allowed to distinguish based on other criteria such as membership, partnership, etc. I didn't meant to be super specific. I'm merely pointing out that they are allowed to establish barriers to entry.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ikeboy 11y ago

WSJ is violating Google's rules referenced here: https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en

mod 11y ago
So? Is this a "two wrongs make a right?" More importantly, is violating "Google's rules" suddenly a violation of law?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  This would never go to court, but if it did, I could see a jury being sympathetic. You could sort of argue that WSJ had an obligation to Google to allow referred users to view the pages, and that Google passed that right onto the user, so you were contractually authorized to access it. IANAL and this is most likely wrong, but kind of plausible to my NAL mind.
- RubyPinch 11y ago
  I don't think its wrong to browse a site's content that they have advertised as publically available? If they are advertising incorrectly, they should fix that.
  - redukt 11y ago
    False advertising is also illegal

njharman 11y ago

No content is being given or taken. This is restriction on distribution / copying. Massively different ethics than stealing despite what the Copyright Cabal wants you to think. The only loss is the energy/bandwidth/cycles WSJ servers spent answering your request. Which, I believe, has been basis of computer "fraud" cases.

zodiac 11y ago
> Which, I believe, has been basis of computer "fraud" cases. This can't be true. Surely the argument for why, say, a WSJ-paywall-bypassing-tool causes damage (in the legal sense) to WSJ is that it allows people who would otherwise pay for content to get it for free, thus depriving WSJ of income. Moreover, I don't think prosecutors need to prove that you caused harm in order to charge you with computer fraud, since, for example, CFAA falls under criminal law.
- type0 11y ago
  > it allows people who would otherwise pay for content to get it for free But the sole existence of this trick and the person that would use it is exactly someone who would not pay, therefore your argument does not hold. And stealing it is not, it is more like listening to the outdoor rock concert beside the fence because you don't want to pay, inconvenient- sure, so plenty of people would still pay. Cloaking is against Googles rules so it is WSJ that's dishonest.
  - zodiac 11y ago
    I'm not arguing that bypassing the WSJ paywall causes damage to WSJ - I'm personally not sure that it does. What I'm arguing for is that if for some reason WSJ needed to prove in court that a paywall-bypassing tool causes them damage, they would use the it-deprived-us-of-potential-revenue argument that I outlined, rather than the it-forced-us-to-waste-electricity argument. You're right that the it-deprived-us-of-potential-revenue argument might not work in this case, in the sense that it is very possible that there does not exist a person who would have paid for a WSJ subscription but, because of the paywall-bypassing tool, did not.

RIMR 11y ago

> abstain from taking what is not given I'm not taking, I am simply absorbing information. That information will still be there when I am done reading it. Have I really stolen, or did I just refuse to give someone money on demand?

jhildings 11y ago

Stealing would imply that they no longer are in possession or in control of the content, which of course is false. Copying illegaly however, yes