4 ms·

> Clearly, if the websites didn't want you to read the article, they'd not send the content to your computer. If you use a news website (say the NYT) without p

> Clearly, if the websites didn't want you to read the article, they'd not send the content to your computer. If you use a news website (say the NYT) without plugins like the one linked, it’s blatantly obvious that this statement is not true. So, if you go out of your way to conceal who you are, or to masquerade as someone/something else (i.e. google bot), in order to trick a web server in to sending you bytes that you know they wouldn’t otherwise send you, don’t be surprised if some people accuse you of stealing.

Hamuko 7y ago
The description says "referer set to Google", meaning it's just disguising you as someone who clicked on a Google search result. This begs the question if altering your browser's User-Agent is theft since some sites actually alter their prices depending on which browser or OS you use it on. Like, if a Mac/Safari user is expected to pay $99, but your Windows/Chrome User-Agent gets you a $89 deal, are you stealing $10?
salawat 7y ago
You aren't "tricking" a web server. This is how the web works by design. Cookies were the kludge, and no, telling me I should maintain state to make your attempts at financialization easier does not give you a moral high ground, especially when you're assuming my hardware is there for your use. That was, and never should be the case, and I will fight to the pain against anyone that asserts otherwise. My computer is not your developer's playground. I already suffer through enduring Ads when I don't feel like spreading my personal info to the 4 winds. One should be happy to get that much. Those living in glass houses are best advised to refrain from casting stones and all.
chimprich 7y ago
The website is sending out text for searching on though, making it look as if it is available for reading freely, and then withholding it once you start reading it. In some cases they let you start reading it then swipe it away once you are invested in the article, which seems dishonest. I don't know about the legal aspect, but morally I am fine with bypassing restrictions under those circumstances. I don't have a problem with paywalls provided the companies involved are completely up-front about it (e.g. putting their entire site behind a paywall, or offering some articles for free searching/reading and others only behind the paywall). That seems much better ethically, and also impossible to bypass. I'm quite happy paying a subscription to the Guardian for news despite (or because of) the fact that none of their news is behind a paywall.

Hamuko 7y ago

The description says "referer set to Google", meaning it's just disguising you as someone who clicked on a Google search result. This begs the question if altering your browser's User-Agent is theft since some sites actually alter their prices depending on which browser or OS you use it on. Like, if a Mac/Safari user is expected to pay $99, but your Windows/Chrome User-Agent gets you a $89 deal, are you stealing $10?

salawat 7y ago

You aren't "tricking" a web server. This is how the web works by design. Cookies were the kludge, and no, telling me I should maintain state to make your attempts at financialization easier does not give you a moral high ground, especially when you're assuming my hardware is there for your use. That was, and never should be the case, and I will fight to the pain against anyone that asserts otherwise. My computer is not your developer's playground. I already suffer through enduring Ads when I don't feel like spreading my personal info to the 4 winds. One should be happy to get that much. Those living in glass houses are best advised to refrain from casting stones and all.

chimprich 7y ago

The website is sending out text for searching on though, making it look as if it is available for reading freely, and then withholding it once you start reading it. In some cases they let you start reading it then swipe it away once you are invested in the article, which seems dishonest. I don't know about the legal aspect, but morally I am fine with bypassing restrictions under those circumstances. I don't have a problem with paywalls provided the companies involved are completely up-front about it (e.g. putting their entire site behind a paywall, or offering some articles for free searching/reading and others only behind the paywall). That seems much better ethically, and also impossible to bypass. I'm quite happy paying a subscription to the Guardian for news despite (or because of) the fact that none of their news is behind a paywall.