3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
njharman 11y ago
Yeah I spent 10min looking and couldn't find anything. Maybe I'm remembering a "what if" from early days cypherpunk stuff. Prosecutors never (want to) just charge one thing. They want a laundry list of dozen or more crimes so they can coerce suspect into pleading guilty. The, "theft of resources" would just add to the pile.

by zodiac 11y ago

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.

njharman 11y ago

Yeah I spent 10min looking and couldn't find anything. Maybe I'm remembering a "what if" from early days cypherpunk stuff. Prosecutors never (want to) just charge one thing. They want a laundry list of dozen or more crimes so they can coerce suspect into pleading guilty. The, "theft of resources" would just add to the pile.