5 ms·

I'm not the one advocating "stealing" by defeating the paywall here! I'm suggesting NOT trying to gain unauthorized access. As is usually the case, there are pl

I'm not the one advocating "stealing" by defeating the paywall here! I'm suggesting NOT trying to gain unauthorized access. As is usually the case, there are plenty of alternate sources for this information, which derives largely from a press release.

snsr 12y ago
> I'm suggesting NOT trying to gain unauthorized access In what way is accessing WSJ via Google's search results unauthorized?
- DanBC 12y ago
  What does WSJ's AUP/TOS say?
  - middus 12y ago
    Don't know. Are they behind a paywall?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      No. They put them in front of the paywall so people can read and agree to them before subscribing. They call them "subscriber terms of use", but the TOS claims to cover people who are not subscribed. I mention TOS and AUP because it seems some US courts will see this as what makes access authorised or not.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  It's annoying, it disrupts the discussion on HN (there are several top-level threads discussing the paywall and accessibility of the content, dang has edited the URL to a freely available link). I'm aware that the news industry has its revenue challenges (and just wrote a fairly lengthy comment on some of those issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7692730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7692730). But at the same time, if a particular news organization makes the determination that it's not going to provide its content generally, then general discussion sites are just as free to decide that they're not going to link back and refer to the site. I'd argue that the vast decline in the already shaky standard of WSJ's reportage since being acquired by the Murdoch Disinformation Empire doesn't do much to favor it either.