3 ms·

They acknowledge the New York Times at the end of the article. Perhaps they licensed the content. I don't think that anybody aside from legal staff at the New Y

by burfog 7y ago

They acknowledge the New York Times at the end of the article. Perhaps they licensed the content. I don't think that anybody aside from legal staff at the New York Times can determine if anybody was fully ripped off. If you have concerns about copyright and want to do something about it, you could report the issue. I assume that the New York Times is fully capable of hunting down violations without any help. The site is much nicer than the New York Times. I'd prefer that the New York Times be banned, both for the paywall and for severe political bias.

dang 7y ago
Normally I use less emphatic language. However, I looked at the submission history for the site. Of 11 articles posted to HN, every one was a copy. They've copied from NYT, bgr.com, Polygon, FT, and Fast Company. That's a lot of "licensing". True, they were nice enough to link to the originals, but for some reason the vast majority of blogspam sites do that. Only the very bottomest of the barrel do not. I assume there's a reason for this other than invariable last-minute scruples, but who knows? Maybe an HN user knows that business and can explain. The paywall question is a separate one, and decided here as follows: if there's a workaround, it's ok; if there's not a workaround, we bury the submission. Users usually post workarounds in the threads. The result is that more or less everyone can read more or less every submission that makes HN's front page, just with varying degrees of annoyance. I think that's the right tradeoff. The annoyance is real, but HN would be worse without links to these publications. Paywalls suck (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20paywalls%20suck&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), but this is the best we can do until the publication industry sorts itself out the way music eventually did. All publications are biased. We're not going to ban the NYT.
- lordgrenville 7y ago
  For the NYT, using a browser extension to disable js works like a charm.
noelsusman 7y ago
The news portion of NYT does not have a severe political bias, and they obviously don't license their content to dynuz.com.

by burfog 7y ago

dang 7y ago

Normally I use less emphatic language. However, I looked at the submission history for the site. Of 11 articles posted to HN, every one was a copy. They've copied from NYT, bgr.com, Polygon, FT, and Fast Company. That's a lot of "licensing". True, they were nice enough to link to the originals, but for some reason the vast majority of blogspam sites do that. Only the very bottomest of the barrel do not. I assume there's a reason for this other than invariable last-minute scruples, but who knows? Maybe an HN user knows that business and can explain. The paywall question is a separate one, and decided here as follows: if there's a workaround, it's ok; if there's not a workaround, we bury the submission. Users usually post workarounds in the threads. The result is that more or less everyone can read more or less every submission that makes HN's front page, just with varying degrees of annoyance. I think that's the right tradeoff. The annoyance is real, but HN would be worse without links to these publications. Paywalls suck (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20paywalls%20suck&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), but this is the best we can do until the publication industry sorts itself out the way music eventually did. All publications are biased. We're not going to ban the NYT.

lordgrenville 7y ago
For the NYT, using a browser extension to disable js works like a charm.

noelsusman 7y ago

The news portion of NYT does not have a severe political bias, and they obviously don't license their content to dynuz.com.