4 ms·

I've never understood how paywall bypass addons can be considered ethical. Even if you hate paywalls, it's the publisher's decision to use them. If I were to ta

by beart 8y ago

I've never understood how paywall bypass addons can be considered ethical. Even if you hate paywalls, it's the publisher's decision to use them. If I were to take a newspaper from a news stand without paying because there's an article I want to read but I don't want to pay, is that much different? I'm honestly asking what the justification is for people who use these addons. Do you not consider it unethical or do you not care? To clarify the tone of this post, I'm not trying to judge the value of someone's character based on if they bypass paywalls, I'm really just interested in other perspectives on this.

dleslie 8y ago
Remember when there were scandals in the early days of digitization where redacted government documents were easily revealed because the redaction was performed by layering a black rectangle on top of the PDF text? The text was there to read for anyone savvy enough to remove the rectangles. The solution, of course, was to remove the text from the PDF altogether. Paywalls are a similar sort of measure: if publishers don't want their content to be available without payment then they ought not serve it publicly. Similarly, if they don't want users using adblock then they ought not serve the content to those who fail to load the ads. Is it ethical to bypass flimsy DRM? The bits are on the user's computer and are processed by the user's software at the user's discretion. Publishers _may_ have no right to exert control upon the user's property; and I suppose whether they do is the crux of concern.
Karunamon 8y ago
>is that much different? Well, considering we're talking about physical vs digital, it's inherently different. But let's ignore that; it's still not even close. You send content to my browser, my agent acting on my behalf, and it is up to me how I render that content. If that bothers you, don't send me the content. You as a publisher have no inherent right, be it moral, ethical, or legal, to have content displayed a certain way on my screen.
jccalhoun 8y ago
I use it because I am not a regular reader of any paywalled site. If I end up at one it is because I saw a post about it or it showed up in a search result. At that point I don't even know if the article is any good so I'm not going to jump through hoops to view the article. Is it ethical? Probably not but since it is at most something like 1 article a month that I read from any of these sites then I can justify it to myself.
- qw 8y ago
  Many of the sites allow you to read a number of articles for free. If you exceed that number, it means that you find the content interesting. I think you should probably pay for it in that case.
ballenf 8y ago
Just to give one example where I consider it ethical: the WSJ doesn't paywall articles if they originate from FB and it's simple to simulate this link. These bypasses aren't "hacking" the sites in any normal sense. They are using publisher-created methods of accessing articles that any person could do if they had enough time and knowledge of the particular side channel. In short, unless the bypass is truly hacking the site (using compromised credentials, e.g.), the argument is altruistic more than moral: "giving as much money as possible to good journalism."
- tzs 8y ago
  Did you just essentially argue that it is ethical because it is easy?

by beart 8y ago

dleslie 8y ago

Remember when there were scandals in the early days of digitization where redacted government documents were easily revealed because the redaction was performed by layering a black rectangle on top of the PDF text? The text was there to read for anyone savvy enough to remove the rectangles. The solution, of course, was to remove the text from the PDF altogether. Paywalls are a similar sort of measure: if publishers don't want their content to be available without payment then they ought not serve it publicly. Similarly, if they don't want users using adblock then they ought not serve the content to those who fail to load the ads. Is it ethical to bypass flimsy DRM? The bits are on the user's computer and are processed by the user's software at the user's discretion. Publishers _may_ have no right to exert control upon the user's property; and I suppose whether they do is the crux of concern.

Karunamon 8y ago

>is that much different? Well, considering we're talking about physical vs digital, it's inherently different. But let's ignore that; it's still not even close. You send content to my browser, my agent acting on my behalf, and it is up to me how I render that content. If that bothers you, don't send me the content. You as a publisher have no inherent right, be it moral, ethical, or legal, to have content displayed a certain way on my screen.

jccalhoun 8y ago

I use it because I am not a regular reader of any paywalled site. If I end up at one it is because I saw a post about it or it showed up in a search result. At that point I don't even know if the article is any good so I'm not going to jump through hoops to view the article. Is it ethical? Probably not but since it is at most something like 1 article a month that I read from any of these sites then I can justify it to myself.

qw 8y ago
Many of the sites allow you to read a number of articles for free. If you exceed that number, it means that you find the content interesting. I think you should probably pay for it in that case.

ballenf 8y ago

Just to give one example where I consider it ethical: the WSJ doesn't paywall articles if they originate from FB and it's simple to simulate this link. These bypasses aren't "hacking" the sites in any normal sense. They are using publisher-created methods of accessing articles that any person could do if they had enough time and knowledge of the particular side channel. In short, unless the bypass is truly hacking the site (using compromised credentials, e.g.), the argument is altruistic more than moral: "giving as much money as possible to good journalism."

tzs 8y ago
Did you just essentially argue that it is ethical because it is easy?