3 ms·

The software analogy is an interesting one. It is generally accepted that software, when ran on a computer, embodies a device or service that is fundamentally d

The software analogy is an interesting one. It is generally accepted that software, when ran on a computer, embodies a device or service that is fundamentally different from the same data simply displayed in an editor as computer code. Click-through EULAs are widely recognized and enforced by courts, quite the opposite of email disclaimers. So in a sense, you do have the right to download any computer code you find on the internet, if legally published by it's author. You can print it out and study it's behavior and the author has no way to restrict that since they themselves published the information. But you typically cannot run it or modify it outside the license terms. The distinction hinges on the interpretation we give to the data, and I guess that opens a fatal flaw in my argument: while a HTML version of the article constitutes a document that can be downloaded and read regardless of any disclaimers attached, a binary blob that must be run to deobfuscate the text is in effect a program. And since the hallmark of computers is their ability for general programming, it's quite easy for publishers to force you to run a program and accept it's licensing terms before providing the information you seek.

ovao 8y ago
The technical and legal sides to this discussion are interesting, but I think they're really secondary to the moral side. I think we can both pretty easily agree that paywalls suck. They're a short-term solution to a problem whose long-term solution isn't clear, and they're probably only marginally useful at that. I also think we can agree that the web is a interesting mix of a kind of quasi-public space and privately-owned space, and that means that discussions about what's 'fair' to access and what isn't are a bit nuanced. Ultimately, though, regardless of the nature of the content — whether it's text, or images, or code — if a publisher pays to produce content and pays to host that content, does that publisher not have some right to control access to that content? The protocols we use to access it are open, and we pay to access at least some of the interconnects responsible for ultimately delivering it to our browsers, but that alone doesn't confer any access rights. HN, for example, could ban any IP address with which your account's been associated, at the server/proxy level, at any time, and without subverting that you'd have no real recourse. Generally I feel that the existence of piracy suggests that there are merely under-served customers, and I think that applies here also. Publishers should be coming up with better ways to let users pay for content and try to add real value to that. However, being denied access to the Times and so on does not make your life impossible, or even particularly difficult.

ovao 8y ago

The technical and legal sides to this discussion are interesting, but I think they're really secondary to the moral side. I think we can both pretty easily agree that paywalls suck. They're a short-term solution to a problem whose long-term solution isn't clear, and they're probably only marginally useful at that. I also think we can agree that the web is a interesting mix of a kind of quasi-public space and privately-owned space, and that means that discussions about what's 'fair' to access and what isn't are a bit nuanced. Ultimately, though, regardless of the nature of the content — whether it's text, or images, or code — if a publisher pays to produce content and pays to host that content, does that publisher not have some right to control access to that content? The protocols we use to access it are open, and we pay to access at least some of the interconnects responsible for ultimately delivering it to our browsers, but that alone doesn't confer any access rights. HN, for example, could ban any IP address with which your account's been associated, at the server/proxy level, at any time, and without subverting that you'd have no real recourse. Generally I feel that the existence of piracy suggests that there are merely under-served customers, and I think that applies here also. Publishers should be coming up with better ways to let users pay for content and try to add real value to that. However, being denied access to the Times and so on does not make your life impossible, or even particularly difficult.