6 ms·

but it is most certainly subverting the school's technical partner's revenue model.

Alupis 12y ago
I don't think I need to state this is irrelevant. If the school's technical partner was threatened by this app, they could bring suit... not the school.
- sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
  really? you honestly don't see how a school allowing their students to sell their technical partner's (not public[1]) content is relevant? [1]: pre-emptive reply: no, it's not public, half the article is talking about how he's circumventing their authentication system. this is NOTHING like a news aggregator.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    You must be reading a different article. The OP does not circumvent authentication in any way. The OP caches it... that's it. And, that was only for some of the data, not the entire app. So yes, his app is mostly like a news aggregator.
    - sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
      since we've established the data is not public, and is in fact restricted and controlled, how is it anything "mostly like" hacker news? hacker news does not store your NYtimes username and password, scrape the NYTimes site for an auth token, make a login request on your behalf to copy that article and display it, in full text stripping out the NYTimes attribution and branding, on hacker news. what would happen if they did is a thought experiment i'll leave up to you.
  - tcheard 12y ago
    > allowing their students to sell their technical partner's content He isn't selling their technical partner's content. He is selling the reader, the content is already freely available to whoever can use the app anyway via a browser and their login credentials. There is a big difference.
    - sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
      i don't think there is a big difference. without their content[1], his app is nothing; the web browser is still a web browser. [1]: it's irrelevant whether the school or the partner owned it, he did it without permission (and i highly doubt the reader has the license to do whatever they wanted with that data either).

I don't think I need to state this is irrelevant. If the school's technical partner was threatened by this app, they could bring suit... not the school.

sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
really? you honestly don't see how a school allowing their students to sell their technical partner's (not public[1]) content is relevant? [1]: pre-emptive reply: no, it's not public, half the article is talking about how he's circumventing their authentication system. this is NOTHING like a news aggregator.
- Alupis 12y ago
  You must be reading a different article. The OP does not circumvent authentication in any way. The OP caches it... that's it. And, that was only for some of the data, not the entire app. So yes, his app is mostly like a news aggregator.
  - sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
    since we've established the data is not public, and is in fact restricted and controlled, how is it anything "mostly like" hacker news? hacker news does not store your NYtimes username and password, scrape the NYTimes site for an auth token, make a login request on your behalf to copy that article and display it, in full text stripping out the NYTimes attribution and branding, on hacker news. what would happen if they did is a thought experiment i'll leave up to you.
- tcheard 12y ago
  > allowing their students to sell their technical partner's content He isn't selling their technical partner's content. He is selling the reader, the content is already freely available to whoever can use the app anyway via a browser and their login credentials. There is a big difference.
  - sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
    i don't think there is a big difference. without their content[1], his app is nothing; the web browser is still a web browser. [1]: it's irrelevant whether the school or the partner owned it, he did it without permission (and i highly doubt the reader has the license to do whatever they wanted with that data either).