3 ms·
Please understand that circumventing copyright makes it more difficult for journalists to make a living.
by boplicity 8mo ago
Please understand that circumventing copyright makes it more difficult for journalists to make a living.
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoI'm a subscriber, but not everyone is.
- boplicity 8mo agoAnd by making it easy for them to circumvent copyright, they have even less incentive to support the journalists who did the reporting.
- freitasm 8mo agoSubscribers can share the link as a gift, so readers can see the original, not the proxied version.
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoI cannot trust that a gift link does not tie to my IRL identity I subscribe under. I can trust that archive links do not. The NY Times gets my money either way. It's an opsec concern. Trust no one. If someone wants to post gift links in every thread, just let me know who to pay to enable that, I am happy to.
- afavour 8mo agoI don't know why this is downvoted, it's the truth. NYT actually has a "gift article" functionality that makes it easy to share articles with non-subscribers.
- this-is-why 8mo agoYou are 100% correct. I find the attitude that everything should be free a bit tedious. But then again, why does the truth have to be paywalled while lies are free. I believe it is a detriment to society that we cannot publicly find reporting. Yes I know now come the cynics who will argue bias. But that’s just a failure of reading comprehension, not fair reporting doctrine. So yes. I’m with you 100%.
- unyttigfjelltol 8mo agoIs there a micropayment option or something? I wish I could friction-free, buy access to these sites al al carte without dealing with them directly or setting up a recurring subscription directly with them.
- chihuahua 8mo agoBest we can do is a monthly subscription, with every dark pattern known to man to prevent cancellation.
- blell 8mo agoThey should learn to code.
- ericmay 8mo agoCopyright isn't being circumvented - the content of the website is made available for the public and the website just grabs what is publicly available.
- boplicity 8mo agoRedistributing copyrighted content is the literal definition of copyright infringement. Using it for your own purposes, without distribution, is another story. This link was posted with intent to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material. The person who posted it justified posting the link by saying some people don't have a subscription. I understand that some people think copyright shouldn't exist, but it clearly is being circumvented here.
- amelius 8mo agoI'll start caring about copyright when the government starts caring about my personal information that is being traded around the internet (with the help of journalism). Information is money, and we're all being stolen from.
- mrkstu 8mo agoIn the context of use on hacker news, I think the fair use exemption for public comment is a sufficient justification, which is likely why they allow its use.
- Dylan16807 8mo agoLegally it's infringement but I don't have a lot of sympathy for semi-porous paywalls getting circumvented. If they don't want free readers, they can set up a hard paywall. If they offer free samples and I occasionally take one I'm not going to feel bad about it, or worry about that specific type of copyright infringement making it more difficult for journalists to make a living.
- slopinthebag 8mo agoIf OpenAI doesn't need to respect copyright why should we?