4 ms·
It isn't quite the same, because these publications do offer their content for free... to the Google indexer. So they're kind of trying to have it both ways. T
by untog 8y ago
It isn't quite the same, because these publications do offer their content for free... to the Google indexer. So they're kind of trying to have it both ways.
That said, I agree with the broader point: if you value something that has a price on it then you really ought to pay for it at some point. You can object to anything you want ("there are still ads!", "why can't I pay per article?"), but it's all besides the point. There is a price attached and you can pay it or not pay it, but refusing to pay while still consuming it isn't really defensible, beyond "I can do it and you can't stop me".
- ttty 8y agoI'm not sure, but some paid software is provided for free to some reviews or other people... By the same line of thought... Is fine to pirate them?
- untog 8y agoFair point. I'm not really sure it's a comparison worth exploring too deeply as there are just too many differences. For instance, what's the pirated program equivalent of viewing just one article? I think (hope?) most people here would agree that a hack providing you with a full WSJ subscription would be inappropriate. But many are fine with a single article. Perhaps that's hypocritical, I dunno.
- panzagl 8y agoIf the reviewer normally reviews free games, and it was sent to the reviewer with a stated MSRP of $0, then it is misleading to try to charge everyone else after they read the review.