6 ms·

I'm not sure it crosses the line. Most of these websites have the text in the HTML, but hidden to the user. This is so Google can index and send traffic based o

I'm not sure it crosses the line. Most of these websites have the text in the HTML, but hidden to the user. This is so Google can index and send traffic based on search. If the HTML is sent to the client, accessing it is not piracy.

picardythird 5y ago
Just because there’s a technical workaround doesn’t make it not stealing. If I neglect to lock my car and my stuff gets stolen, it’s still stealing. I might have been able to prevent it had I locked the car, but it’s still stealing.
- theturtletalks 5y ago
  By this definition, ad-blocking is stealing. Is using a technical workaround to hid HTML ok but using it reveal hidden HTML is not? Your car example is not a good analogy. Once you notice people stealing, you would make sure the door is locked. Just like these websites can restrict the content server-side.
  - matt321 5y ago
    yes...yes it is
  - picardythird 5y ago
    This is something broken with the internet. That website need a strong ranking on google search to stay afloat is a symptom of a much larger problem with how the internet operates in this day and age. At the end of the day you are stealing and looting not just from the company, but the everyday people who work for that company, who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families, and no rationalization will change that. And to the car analogy: Let's say I was stolen from, but I'm so lazy I still can't be bothered to lock my car. Or I leave it open for some other reason. This has zero effect on the morality of the thief stealing from my car. It just means I'm an easy target for stealing. Two completely separate things.
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  If a webserver sent me an exact copy of your car but encased in ice, and I used an ice pick to carve it out, you would still have your car, and i would have a copy of your car. That the web server wants to me buy a flame thrower to melt the ice is irrelivent. Stealing does not apply to digital goods. You cannot deprive anyone of something infinitely replicable. You can only prevent those that you do not deem worthy to access it. and that attitude makes a person a bad person.
  - picardythird 5y ago
    So if I break in to Microsoft, stick a USB in their computers, and steal the source code for Windows, it's not stealing because it's just digital information that's infinitely reproducible? Keep in mind: nothing physical was stolen. People lose their jobs because they are digital content creators and the attitude is that paying for intellectual property is uncool.
    - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
      Sounds like breaking and entering to me, but I am not a lawyer. Not legal advice.
      - picardythird 5y ago
        I think you would be charged with more than that.
- LocalH 5y ago
  Do you think that people should be required to view websites as delivered, without modifying them in any way? That would be the logical end of attempting to prevent this kind of "stealing". If there is another term you'd like to use for "looks like theft, but the original owner loses nothing" then feel free. But it is not theft or stealing, those require also depriving the rightful owner of the stolen property. If I could duplicate the exact contents of your car, would it still be "stealing" if I did so? Reminder that you would continue to be in possession of 100% of the contents of your car. Maybe with regards to any digital data on any duplicated devices, I could see a bit of the "stealing" logic, then again nothing was actually "stolen" from you if you still have 100% of your original property, but I now also have duplicates of that property.
  - picardythird 5y ago
    If I walk in to a record store and buy a CD, I'm not just paying for the paper and plastic that it's made of. I'm paying the record company, the record store, and the artist for their time and talent. With a digital goods, we can eliminate the paper and plastic. It's a great thing! But for some reason, we've also decided to write the artist out of the equation too. At least if you're a pirate. If you're a software engineer, you're being paid not to manufacture hard goods but to create something of intellectual value that could be technically be duplicated forever. What's the difference between pirating music and stealing code that is under a software license?
    - webmaven 5y ago
      > What's the difference between pirating music and stealing code that is under a software license? If by "stealing code" you mean creating and distributing (probably selling) software derived from it that violates the license, it is quite different. If what you mean is simply downloading warez for your own use, it is more or less the same.
      - picardythird 5y ago
        So are you against torrenting copyrighted digital goods then? Because people do exactly that. They steal intellectual property and distribute it for other people to use. Stealing for personal use may be a more minor thing, but it still boggles me that people want to consume the fruits of others' labor without compensating them in anyway, as if creators are slaves who exist only to please.
misterbwong 5y ago
I'm not quite understanding the logic here. Just because another customer (google) was given access, does that mean everyone should have it? Would you rather publishers give google private direct feeds to index?
- ryan_j_naughton 5y ago
  > Just because another customer (google) was given access, does that mean everyone should have it? They didn't provide access to just another customer or Google -- they send the article text to EVERYONE in the HTML response. They are thus making that text publicly available. If they want to make content only available to certain individuals, that is literally what paywalls and authentication/authorization are for. Instead, they want Google to index the site AS IF the content is publicly available but then use javascript to restrict that content from users client-side on a case by case basis. The golden rule of authorization is never rely on client-side authorization as by then you've already willingly given the data/information to the client. And the client has no obligation to not look at that information/data. They didn't do anything nefarious to get it -- you literally gave it to them. > Would you rather publishers give google private direct feeds to index? Absolutely I would. If we could enhance the indexing and search engine system so that (a) I could tell google which services I subscribe to and (b) google knows which articles are behind paywalls, then we could have a world in which we could intentionally filter To or Away from paywall content. I know that I would often filter TO paywall content, especially if: - I could also tell google to avoid content farm content via a filter or content full of ads (not in their interests currently but it might become so as more of us get frustrated with shittier and shittier search results) - If google could surface the price to access each article on the search results (wherein articles on sites I already pay/subscribe to would be free and articles on sites with individual pay per access would be transparent and upfront).
  - picardythird 5y ago
    This is the “but she was wearing a low cut top” argument.
    - 5y ago

picardythird 5y ago

Just because there’s a technical workaround doesn’t make it not stealing. If I neglect to lock my car and my stuff gets stolen, it’s still stealing. I might have been able to prevent it had I locked the car, but it’s still stealing.

theturtletalks 5y ago
By this definition, ad-blocking is stealing. Is using a technical workaround to hid HTML ok but using it reveal hidden HTML is not? Your car example is not a good analogy. Once you notice people stealing, you would make sure the door is locked. Just like these websites can restrict the content server-side.
- matt321 5y ago
  yes...yes it is
- picardythird 5y ago
  This is something broken with the internet. That website need a strong ranking on google search to stay afloat is a symptom of a much larger problem with how the internet operates in this day and age. At the end of the day you are stealing and looting not just from the company, but the everyday people who work for that company, who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families, and no rationalization will change that. And to the car analogy: Let's say I was stolen from, but I'm so lazy I still can't be bothered to lock my car. Or I leave it open for some other reason. This has zero effect on the morality of the thief stealing from my car. It just means I'm an easy target for stealing. Two completely separate things.
rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
If a webserver sent me an exact copy of your car but encased in ice, and I used an ice pick to carve it out, you would still have your car, and i would have a copy of your car. That the web server wants to me buy a flame thrower to melt the ice is irrelivent. Stealing does not apply to digital goods. You cannot deprive anyone of something infinitely replicable. You can only prevent those that you do not deem worthy to access it. and that attitude makes a person a bad person.
- picardythird 5y ago
  So if I break in to Microsoft, stick a USB in their computers, and steal the source code for Windows, it's not stealing because it's just digital information that's infinitely reproducible? Keep in mind: nothing physical was stolen. People lose their jobs because they are digital content creators and the attitude is that paying for intellectual property is uncool.
  - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
    Sounds like breaking and entering to me, but I am not a lawyer. Not legal advice.
    - picardythird 5y ago
      I think you would be charged with more than that.
LocalH 5y ago
Do you think that people should be required to view websites as delivered, without modifying them in any way? That would be the logical end of attempting to prevent this kind of "stealing". If there is another term you'd like to use for "looks like theft, but the original owner loses nothing" then feel free. But it is not theft or stealing, those require also depriving the rightful owner of the stolen property. If I could duplicate the exact contents of your car, would it still be "stealing" if I did so? Reminder that you would continue to be in possession of 100% of the contents of your car. Maybe with regards to any digital data on any duplicated devices, I could see a bit of the "stealing" logic, then again nothing was actually "stolen" from you if you still have 100% of your original property, but I now also have duplicates of that property.
- picardythird 5y ago
  If I walk in to a record store and buy a CD, I'm not just paying for the paper and plastic that it's made of. I'm paying the record company, the record store, and the artist for their time and talent. With a digital goods, we can eliminate the paper and plastic. It's a great thing! But for some reason, we've also decided to write the artist out of the equation too. At least if you're a pirate. If you're a software engineer, you're being paid not to manufacture hard goods but to create something of intellectual value that could be technically be duplicated forever. What's the difference between pirating music and stealing code that is under a software license?
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > What's the difference between pirating music and stealing code that is under a software license? If by "stealing code" you mean creating and distributing (probably selling) software derived from it that violates the license, it is quite different. If what you mean is simply downloading warez for your own use, it is more or less the same.
    - picardythird 5y ago
      So are you against torrenting copyrighted digital goods then? Because people do exactly that. They steal intellectual property and distribute it for other people to use. Stealing for personal use may be a more minor thing, but it still boggles me that people want to consume the fruits of others' labor without compensating them in anyway, as if creators are slaves who exist only to please.

misterbwong 5y ago

I'm not quite understanding the logic here. Just because another customer (google) was given access, does that mean everyone should have it? Would you rather publishers give google private direct feeds to index?

ryan_j_naughton 5y ago
> Just because another customer (google) was given access, does that mean everyone should have it? They didn't provide access to just another customer or Google -- they send the article text to EVERYONE in the HTML response. They are thus making that text publicly available. If they want to make content only available to certain individuals, that is literally what paywalls and authentication/authorization are for. Instead, they want Google to index the site AS IF the content is publicly available but then use javascript to restrict that content from users client-side on a case by case basis. The golden rule of authorization is never rely on client-side authorization as by then you've already willingly given the data/information to the client. And the client has no obligation to not look at that information/data. They didn't do anything nefarious to get it -- you literally gave it to them. > Would you rather publishers give google private direct feeds to index? Absolutely I would. If we could enhance the indexing and search engine system so that (a) I could tell google which services I subscribe to and (b) google knows which articles are behind paywalls, then we could have a world in which we could intentionally filter To or Away from paywall content. I know that I would often filter TO paywall content, especially if: - I could also tell google to avoid content farm content via a filter or content full of ads (not in their interests currently but it might become so as more of us get frustrated with shittier and shittier search results) - If google could surface the price to access each article on the search results (wherein articles on sites I already pay/subscribe to would be free and articles on sites with individual pay per access would be transparent and upfront).
- picardythird 5y ago
  This is the “but she was wearing a low cut top” argument.
  - 5y ago