6 ms·

If a news site wants customers to pay for the content, then they should put it behind a walled garden and not paywalls which only apply to certain used-agents a

If a news site wants customers to pay for the content, then they should put it behind a walled garden and not paywalls which only apply to certain used-agents and IPs.

kube-system 4y ago
Why? Do people not have the freedom to give things for free to those they choose?
- datalopers 4y ago
  They do but they don’t get to also bitch about workarounds.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Why wouldn't they have the right to ask others to follow the law?
    - datalopers 4y ago
      > The unfortunate truth is that when you give data away… you give it away [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686455
      - kube-system 4y ago
        That comment is in the context of a discussion about data for which a license was granted or not necessary.
        datalopers 4y ago
        And the 9th Circuit Court has determined that publicly accessible data does not require a license and the provider cannot dictate the means in which a user can access it. If a provider wants to do that, they need to place that content behind a walled garden. [1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/17-16783.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/1...
        kube-system 4y ago
        > LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its users, as the users retain ownership over their profiles. And as to the publicly available profiles, the users quite evidently intend them to be accessed by others > we cannot, on the record before us, conclude that those interests—or more specifically, LinkedIn’s interest in preventing hiQ from scraping those profiles—are significant enough to outweigh hiQ’s interest in continuing its business These are key details of the decision you linked, and that's why that decision wouldn't apply to this situation.
        luckylion 4y ago
        Excuse me for interrupting, but what has access to do with publication? The problem that someone might have with an archive-site copying and publishing the content on the archive-site's domain isn't about the copying, it's about the publishing. If all they did was archive but not make these archives publicly available, it would be different case -- if it was a case at all, because nobody would know that they're doing it.
- sfe22 4y ago
  I see this as more of a suggestion to providers, not a rule to limit freedoms.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    I think providers would put that suggestion directly into the round bin. Internet mass-media companies need to be discoverable in a search engine.

If a news site wants customers to pay for the content, then they should put it behind a walled garden and not paywalls which only apply to certain used-agents and IPs.

kube-system 4y ago

Why? Do people not have the freedom to give things for free to those they choose?

datalopers 4y ago
They do but they don’t get to also bitch about workarounds.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Why wouldn't they have the right to ask others to follow the law?
  - datalopers 4y ago
    > The unfortunate truth is that when you give data away… you give it away [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686455
    - kube-system 4y ago
      That comment is in the context of a discussion about data for which a license was granted or not necessary.
      - datalopers 4y ago
        And the 9th Circuit Court has determined that publicly accessible data does not require a license and the provider cannot dictate the means in which a user can access it. If a provider wants to do that, they need to place that content behind a walled garden. [1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/17-16783.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/1...
        kube-system 4y ago
        > LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its users, as the users retain ownership over their profiles. And as to the publicly available profiles, the users quite evidently intend them to be accessed by others > we cannot, on the record before us, conclude that those interests—or more specifically, LinkedIn’s interest in preventing hiQ from scraping those profiles—are significant enough to outweigh hiQ’s interest in continuing its business These are key details of the decision you linked, and that's why that decision wouldn't apply to this situation.
        luckylion 4y ago
        Excuse me for interrupting, but what has access to do with publication? The problem that someone might have with an archive-site copying and publishing the content on the archive-site's domain isn't about the copying, it's about the publishing. If all they did was archive but not make these archives publicly available, it would be different case -- if it was a case at all, because nobody would know that they're doing it.
sfe22 4y ago
I see this as more of a suggestion to providers, not a rule to limit freedoms.
- kube-system 4y ago
  I think providers would put that suggestion directly into the round bin. Internet mass-media companies need to be discoverable in a search engine.