Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 345 posts

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#191

Post by mason55 »

mirimir wrote: post #179
azag0 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.

I'd be happy to pay, under these conditions: 1) payment per article, at prices comparable to aggregate ad income; and 2) payments accepted via Bitcoin, or other methods which can be anonymized.

Then just wait 18 hours for you $0.03 transaction to be confirmed so you can read the article.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#192

Post by contras1970 »

stop_thief wrote: post #175
monochromatic wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft != copyright infringement.

Ah, that tired old linguistic argument that completely misses the point.

if copyright infringement is theft, then theft is surely murder?

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#193

Post by beejiu »

azag0 wrote: post #103
ctrl_freak wrote: post #28

If anyone's looking for another workaround, the article actually hints at the solution: Facebook's l.php redirect that it uses when you click on a link shared through the platform. It functions similarly to the Google redirect, and you don't even need a Facebook account for it to work. E.g. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...

How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.

You can often loan out movies, music, books and sometimes software from a local library, free of charge. (At least in the UK.) It was also common to loan a friend a CD back when CDs were a thing. Perhaps it is more pervasive now, but I don't think it is fair to say that everybody who consumes media pays for it.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#194

Post by manarth »

sethhochberg wrote: post #80
Taek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A noble thought. My problem comes not from the fact that I don't want to pay but rather from the fact that it's super annoying. What if my browser could just say "article will be 25 cents?" and I could say y/n? But instead, I have to sign up for a service, hand over my credit card, blah blah, and now you've wasted enough of my time that it was worth just me stealing it. I'm pretty convinced it's just aUX thing.

See, I look at this the exact opposite way - if I have to decide whether each individual article is worth paying for, I'm probably not going to read any articles. Its much easier for me to pay $10 a month and know that I can, with zero friction, read whatever article I want from the publications I respect. We're talking about the Wall Street Journal here; odds that they're going to only occasionally publish something…

  Its much easier for me to pay $10 a month
WSJ is $32.99 (+tax) a month, for digital access. That's a little harder to justify if you only occasionally read their content.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#195

Post by mirimir »

mason55 wrote: post #191
mirimir wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy to pay, under these conditions: 1) payment per article, at prices comparable to aggregate ad income; and 2) payments accepted via Bitcoin, or other methods which can be anonymized.

Then just wait 18 hours for you $0.03 transaction to be confirmed so you can read the article.

No, not that way. Put 100 USD worth in an account, for instant debit.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#197

Post by manarth »

sumedh wrote: post #140
lunchladydoris wrote: post #84

Out of curiosity I searched for the Wall Street Journal subscription page. I selected my country (UK) and then clicked on the subscription offer. I was then taken to a Hong Kong page with no obvious way of changing it back to the UK. If they want subscribers, they're going to have to do a better job than that.

I agree their pricing page is confusing. I just got information about a discount offer but its not clear how much is the full price after the discount.

It took me a couple times to find it. Go to https://buy.wsj.com/wsjuspresday17 and click the "Act now" link.

$32.99 (plus tax) a month, for digital access.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#198

Post by hacknat »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #105
azag0 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.

> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.

Well, hear it now. I'm judging you.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#199

Post by melling »

the8472 wrote: post #187
Jgrubb wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this was discussed in one of the last threads as being potentially against some dumbass 25 year old law.

Not everyone is american

I've paid for the WSJ for over 15 years. There's nothing wrong with actually paying for good content. That business model doesn't need to go away.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#200

Post by hacknat »

kofejnik wrote: post #188
kaspiCZ wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's pretend you developed a piece of software you want to sell. People download it without paying you. What do you do in that case?

it's a logical fallacy to assume that people who downloaded your work would have discovered it and actually paid for it if there was no free option a lot of artists would PAY to get millions of downloads/views

You mean pirated? It's a logical fallacy to assume that your otherwise non-discovery makes your decision moral.
Post reply on HN