7 ms·

How about stop the development? The fact that you can break the paywall (easily) doesn't give you the right to do it. Current laws (in that country) state that

How about stop the development? The fact that you can break the paywall (easily) doesn't give you the right to do it. Current laws (in that country) state that it's ilegal, so why do you insist in doing it?

dvogel 8y ago
It's far from clear that draw-on-top paywalls qualify for the protection offered by either the DMCA or the CFAA. Even if they did, the mechanisms by which this specific extension works are indistinguishable actions users take for many other reasons. The legal notice is a gamble that the extension author doesn't want to spend the money to find out the hard way.
dreamdu5t 8y ago
Paywalls aren’t enshrined by any law. You’re misinformed. the web is public, despite SV’s best attempts to subvert and exploit that. If you don’t want someone accessing information don’t publish it as a website that anyone can access.
- alexandernst 8y ago
  Okey. So how about respecting the right of those who use paywalls to get money for the content they create? Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free.
  - m52go 8y ago
    > Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free. Correct. Others have the holy right to charge, and I have the holy right to try getting around it.
    - alexandernst 8y ago
      Yeah. That's the point. I won't go into the subject of discussing if that is legal or not, but for sure it's not ethical. That said, you're free to try to get around easy "protections", Mozilla is free to take down your methods for doing that.
      - m52go 8y ago
        You could make moral arguments for and against the companies seeking these protections and even Mozilla itself. Ultimately businesses will always ruthlessly try to make more money, and software will ruthlessly seek a more efficient user experience. Often these objective clash. Spotify is the obvious example that seemed to offer a solution in the music space. But we have yet to discover such a solution in online publishing.
        alexandernst 8y ago
        Bypassing paywalls is a "more efficient user experience"? Wow... that's a whole new level...
        thatfunkymunki 8y ago
        It pretty easily meets the definition of efficiency- it allows users to do more, in less time, and utilizing less resources.
        alexandernst 8y ago
        How about paying? That will let you do more, in less time, and won't require an extra browser plugin, which means that it will use even less resources than using a plugin to bypass the paywall.
        kup0 8y ago
        Money = resources
  - cipherzero 8y ago
    In my opinion, the problem is because content owners/producers want a double standard. They want people to pay for access but they also want there content indexed so people can find it. So if this tool makes it so that the site treats me as an indexer than so what? Have you ever been in a conversation where someone talks about something and you said “hey I read this cool article on that, let me send it to you.” If so, guess what - you were the search engine for that conversation. Should you then have access to view the non-paywalled content? So yeah, I have no issue with this add on. If they didn’t want the double standard - to allow free access for some and not others - it is easily possible and in their full control to prevent add ons like these (think of any admin site or service for which you have to login before seeing/do anything.) Content producers have a choice and they’re choosing to be bullies. I have no moral or ethical qualms when it comes to dealing with bullies or double standards. Just my two cents.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    > Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free. Why not?
    - alexandernst 8y ago
      The same reason why I can't just get your lawnmower even if it's visible, in your backyard.
      - austincheney 8y ago
        A better comparison is dropping my lawnmower off in your backyard, teasing you with access, and then complaining when you touch it. You cannot reasonably expect to protect or restrict content with a flawed understanding of the medium in which that content is conveyed. If you don’t want me access it don’t put it on the web.
        alexandernst 8y ago
        Your lawnmower (your website) is in your backyard (your servers). If I go to your backyard (your servers) and I get/use your lawnmower (your website), I'm 1) trespassing privet property (the paywall) and 2) using something that I'm not allowed to use (your lawnmower, your website that requires me to pay for the content). No matter how easy is it for me to go into your backyard (bypass your paywall), it's still an offense.
        austincheney 8y ago
        If I can download your content by simply changing my user-agent identifier you don't have any security. In this context the backyard is the local computer and web browser. The lawnmower is the content in question. It is deposited and there. If you don't want the user to access your content then don't drop it into their backyard. The user isn't trespassing by accessing content left in their property. More simple, if you don't want the user to have it then don't give it to them.
- __d 8y ago
  Does that apply to online banking as well? If it's legitimate for a bank to hide your data behind a username and password, how is a journalism-provider any different?
  - cipherzero 8y ago
    Does your bank allow your account to be indexed by google?
    - __d 8y ago
      No. So is that's your fundamental issue with a paywall? Anything that's available to Google (and Bing, DDG, etc) should also be available to you at no cost? Restating that from the other perspective: if the information isn't universally available for no cost, it cannot be looked up via a search engine?
      - cipherzero 8y ago
        Uh yeah. I'm assuming you know how HTTP works, but if not, _basically_ you send a request to GET content, and the server makes a decision on what/whether or not to return. If that user shouldn't be able to see the content because they haven't logged in then its up to the server to decide. It's crazy to send them the content but tell them not to read it... back to your example would you expect your bank to do that? Here's all the account details and transactions but oops thats not your account. I'm guessing no, you'd hold your bank to a high technical standard. To be clear, if newspapers/journalists want to work out some special agreement with google (or partner/agreed upon indexers) so their requests are authenticated so that only they have access to the content - i think that is a better solution then pay walls and sending the article and saying "don't read this please"
        __d 8y ago
        I agree: it's a crazy strategy. And you're correct: if my bank sent my details to someone with a half-baked attempt to prevent them accessing the data they were given, I'd be getting a new bank. But regardless of how crazy this scheme is, I don't think it justifies taking advantage of that craziness to unwrap such content. I think it's reasonable to question the approach of banning the plugin too: the problem is the users' choice to use the plugin, not making it available. But ... when there's no justifiable use for the plugin, and the author clearly intends it to be used to view unauthorized content ... I can see that it's an attractive strategy to just ban it.
austincheney 8y ago
> The fact that you can break the paywall (easily) doesn't give you the right to do it. I would argue, from both legal and technology perspectives, the ability to easily break a paywall provides you the right to do so.
- eridius 8y ago
  Why? "The ability to do X gives you the right to do so" is not a moral argument in the slightest. In fact, it is inherently anti-moral, because the entire point of moral codes is "just because you can do X doesn't mean you should do X". I mean, if you can't do something, there's no point in prohibiting it, because it can't be done.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    Some of us are immoral, or at the very least amoral. Not everything has to be based on morals.
    - eridius 8y ago
      Talking about "the right to do so" is either a legal or a moral judgement, and the parent said this in the context of both a legal and a non-legal (and therefore moral) perspective.
      - throwaway8879 8y ago
        No. One could argue for a right while accepting that there isn't an inherent moral value attached to it.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    This isn't really about morality, because if were there would be a harm. Nobody is being harmed here. This is about technology, specifically content on the web. In technology the ability to do something absolutely is the right to so do unless you have already agreed otherwise. If you really REALLY want to make this about morality then I would argue restricting access to available content is the greater moral offense, because it is an inherent violation of liberty.

dvogel 8y ago

It's far from clear that draw-on-top paywalls qualify for the protection offered by either the DMCA or the CFAA. Even if they did, the mechanisms by which this specific extension works are indistinguishable actions users take for many other reasons. The legal notice is a gamble that the extension author doesn't want to spend the money to find out the hard way.

dreamdu5t 8y ago

Paywalls aren’t enshrined by any law. You’re misinformed. the web is public, despite SV’s best attempts to subvert and exploit that. If you don’t want someone accessing information don’t publish it as a website that anyone can access.

alexandernst 8y ago
Okey. So how about respecting the right of those who use paywalls to get money for the content they create? Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free.
- m52go 8y ago
  > Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free. Correct. Others have the holy right to charge, and I have the holy right to try getting around it.
  - alexandernst 8y ago
    Yeah. That's the point. I won't go into the subject of discussing if that is legal or not, but for sure it's not ethical. That said, you're free to try to get around easy "protections", Mozilla is free to take down your methods for doing that.
    - m52go 8y ago
      You could make moral arguments for and against the companies seeking these protections and even Mozilla itself. Ultimately businesses will always ruthlessly try to make more money, and software will ruthlessly seek a more efficient user experience. Often these objective clash. Spotify is the obvious example that seemed to offer a solution in the music space. But we have yet to discover such a solution in online publishing.
      - alexandernst 8y ago
        Bypassing paywalls is a "more efficient user experience"? Wow... that's a whole new level...
        thatfunkymunki 8y ago
        It pretty easily meets the definition of efficiency- it allows users to do more, in less time, and utilizing less resources.
        alexandernst 8y ago
        How about paying? That will let you do more, in less time, and won't require an extra browser plugin, which means that it will use even less resources than using a plugin to bypass the paywall.
        kup0 8y ago
        Money = resources
- cipherzero 8y ago
  In my opinion, the problem is because content owners/producers want a double standard. They want people to pay for access but they also want there content indexed so people can find it. So if this tool makes it so that the site treats me as an indexer than so what? Have you ever been in a conversation where someone talks about something and you said “hey I read this cool article on that, let me send it to you.” If so, guess what - you were the search engine for that conversation. Should you then have access to view the non-paywalled content? So yeah, I have no issue with this add on. If they didn’t want the double standard - to allow free access for some and not others - it is easily possible and in their full control to prevent add ons like these (think of any admin site or service for which you have to login before seeing/do anything.) Content producers have a choice and they’re choosing to be bullies. I have no moral or ethical qualms when it comes to dealing with bullies or double standards. Just my two cents.
- austincheney 8y ago
  > Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free. Why not?
  - alexandernst 8y ago
    The same reason why I can't just get your lawnmower even if it's visible, in your backyard.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      A better comparison is dropping my lawnmower off in your backyard, teasing you with access, and then complaining when you touch it. You cannot reasonably expect to protect or restrict content with a flawed understanding of the medium in which that content is conveyed. If you don’t want me access it don’t put it on the web.
      - alexandernst 8y ago
        Your lawnmower (your website) is in your backyard (your servers). If I go to your backyard (your servers) and I get/use your lawnmower (your website), I'm 1) trespassing privet property (the paywall) and 2) using something that I'm not allowed to use (your lawnmower, your website that requires me to pay for the content). No matter how easy is it for me to go into your backyard (bypass your paywall), it's still an offense.
        austincheney 8y ago
        If I can download your content by simply changing my user-agent identifier you don't have any security. In this context the backyard is the local computer and web browser. The lawnmower is the content in question. It is deposited and there. If you don't want the user to access your content then don't drop it into their backyard. The user isn't trespassing by accessing content left in their property. More simple, if you don't want the user to have it then don't give it to them.
__d 8y ago
Does that apply to online banking as well? If it's legitimate for a bank to hide your data behind a username and password, how is a journalism-provider any different?
- cipherzero 8y ago
  Does your bank allow your account to be indexed by google?
  - __d 8y ago
    No. So is that's your fundamental issue with a paywall? Anything that's available to Google (and Bing, DDG, etc) should also be available to you at no cost? Restating that from the other perspective: if the information isn't universally available for no cost, it cannot be looked up via a search engine?
    - cipherzero 8y ago
      Uh yeah. I'm assuming you know how HTTP works, but if not, _basically_ you send a request to GET content, and the server makes a decision on what/whether or not to return. If that user shouldn't be able to see the content because they haven't logged in then its up to the server to decide. It's crazy to send them the content but tell them not to read it... back to your example would you expect your bank to do that? Here's all the account details and transactions but oops thats not your account. I'm guessing no, you'd hold your bank to a high technical standard. To be clear, if newspapers/journalists want to work out some special agreement with google (or partner/agreed upon indexers) so their requests are authenticated so that only they have access to the content - i think that is a better solution then pay walls and sending the article and saying "don't read this please"
      - __d 8y ago
        I agree: it's a crazy strategy. And you're correct: if my bank sent my details to someone with a half-baked attempt to prevent them accessing the data they were given, I'd be getting a new bank. But regardless of how crazy this scheme is, I don't think it justifies taking advantage of that craziness to unwrap such content. I think it's reasonable to question the approach of banning the plugin too: the problem is the users' choice to use the plugin, not making it available. But ... when there's no justifiable use for the plugin, and the author clearly intends it to be used to view unauthorized content ... I can see that it's an attractive strategy to just ban it.

austincheney 8y ago

> The fact that you can break the paywall (easily) doesn't give you the right to do it. I would argue, from both legal and technology perspectives, the ability to easily break a paywall provides you the right to do so.

eridius 8y ago
Why? "The ability to do X gives you the right to do so" is not a moral argument in the slightest. In fact, it is inherently anti-moral, because the entire point of moral codes is "just because you can do X doesn't mean you should do X". I mean, if you can't do something, there's no point in prohibiting it, because it can't be done.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  Some of us are immoral, or at the very least amoral. Not everything has to be based on morals.
  - eridius 8y ago
    Talking about "the right to do so" is either a legal or a moral judgement, and the parent said this in the context of both a legal and a non-legal (and therefore moral) perspective.
    - throwaway8879 8y ago
      No. One could argue for a right while accepting that there isn't an inherent moral value attached to it.
- austincheney 8y ago
  This isn't really about morality, because if were there would be a harm. Nobody is being harmed here. This is about technology, specifically content on the web. In technology the ability to do something absolutely is the right to so do unless you have already agreed otherwise. If you really REALLY want to make this about morality then I would argue restricting access to available content is the greater moral offense, because it is an inherent violation of liberty.