41–50 of 54 posts
Do you think the 1,600 journalists at The New York Times, many of whom work in difficult environments (including the White House, lol), should work for free? Quite the Scrooge move.
I think a lot of what you need to know about (a swathe of) the Hacker News community is that I get voted down for pointing out that you're stealing content.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should pay me reparations for reading some of the nonsense they publish.
I'm sorry for your indentured servitude.
Do you think the 1,600 journalists at The New York Times, many of whom work in difficult environments (including the White House, lol), should work for free? Quite the Scrooge move.
Do you think the 1,600 journalists at The New York Times, many of whom work in difficult environments (including the White House, lol), should work for free? Quite the Scrooge move.
NYT does do good journalism, but, even for a company with their credentials and resources, its share seems to be ever dwindling as time goes on.
Do you think the 1,600 journalists at The New York Times, many of whom work in difficult environments (including the White House, lol), should work for free? Quite the Scrooge move.
Seconded. There's something very tasteless about a bunch of very well paid tech employees who'll readily decry adtech, tracking and data brokerage (despite many of them working on it themselves), who'll proclaim "there has to be another way!", who'll also lambast modern journalism for "falling quality", circumventing content subscriptions and depriving publishers of revenue simply because of a built-up sense of entitlement to everything being free.
If the content is worth reading, i.e. it's from a publisher you believe to be of sufficient quality to try and find methods to work around their subscriptions, then it's worth paying for.
this it's literally facilitating copyright infringement if you don't want to pay for them is fine, just don't read them
It's certainly not copyright infringement to download a hypertext document from a company's public web servers.
no.
"facilitating" is not just there for shit and giggle.
This one is also quite helpful: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox ... for all of the folks out there who don't have a university picking up the tab for the articles that they want to read. It's important to remember that paywalls disproportionately impact those who are not "working" in an academic setting.
And evading paywalls disproportionately impacts the journalists creating the stories you seem to value, though for some reason refuse to pay for.
NYT, wapo, BBC, fox, CNN, etc all push out tonnes of clickbait garbage every day. If that's not making them enough money then maybe they should get back to investigative journalism. I want long, painstakingly neutral, well researched, and cited articles on topics that concern me. E.g. healthcare, economics, politics. I find more value from the participants in discussion boards I frequent than just about every article I read. Sure, there's a few that provide more value than the participants like the work out of the ICIJ, but they don't hide their work behind paywalls, have ads, or run clickbait, and yet somehow they remain solvent... Hmm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's certainly not copyright infringement to download a hypertext document from a company's public web servers.
did I say it's copyright infringement? no. "facilitating" is not just there for shit and giggle. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
Earlier quoted context omitted.
did I say it's copyright infringement? no. "facilitating" is not just there for shit and giggle. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
That's stretching the definition. By your argument any parsing of a payload containing copywritten work is copy right infringement.
> any parsing of a payload
again, no? authorized parsing does not.