4 ms·
True, but you're consenting to the terms of use of the provider in requesting that content. It's not just "text", it's content you've licensed from them for you
by tomkarlo 16y ago
True, but you're consenting to the terms of use of the provider in requesting that content. It's not just "text", it's content you've licensed from them for your use in keeping with a number of legal obligations (part of which, I'm guessing, is to not disable components intended to limit your consumption as a non-subscriber.) So it's not that clear cut.
Similarly, you could argue that when someone sends a movie to your home to watch over cable, you could do anything you want with a dvr recording of it. But we know that's not an argument that actually holds any water, legally or ethically.
- baddox 16y agoActually, the US Supreme Court decided in Sony vs. Universal (in 1984) that when someone sends a movie to your home, you do have the right to record it for subsequent (non-commercial) viewings. Merely reading a news article is certainly non-commercial, so by the analogy you proposed I believe this JavaScript workaround is entirely legal.
- tomkarlo 16y agoI'm not sure that would apply here: in that case, you're talking about the right to make a backup copy of an item you've properly licensed, and then retain it only to use under the same terms as that original license. In this case, you're taking content that you haven't paid for, and violating the terms it's distributed under by disabling some portions so you can consume it without paying. I'd argue that's closer to disabling macrovision on a VHS tape so you can make a backup copy of a rental tape to keep for yourself, and I'm pretty sure that's verboten.