251–260 of 345 posts
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.
It is, music, software and movies are pirated illegally too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you're using an unreasonably narrow definition of theft that doesn't include intangibles.
Tell that to the SCOTUS: interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. By the way, the infringer was acquitted, since the court agreed he h…
> This lack of “physical removal,” as required by the statute, meant that Dowling’s infringing copies were not “the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment § 2314 makes criminal.” But this doesn’t mean that Dowling’s acts of infringement in creating the physical records were not themselves acts of theft or conversion.
Tangent: I'm not sure I can think of recent money I've spent better than a year-long Washington Post subscription. Not because I want to support journalism (though I do), but because having a whole newspaper to flip through every day is so much more productive and efficient than getting dribs and drabs through Twitter and free news sites --- many of which are ultimately sourcing through the journalism that organizati…
I always grab a print copy when they're available somewhere free but they're really unpleasant to navigate. Especially when you get into the inner pages and have to unfold the whole paper. Unless you're sprawled out on the floor or have a giant table, it's practically impossible. Interestingly, a real impenetrable paywall makes me respect the print edition more. FT is a good example. I also like their format, layout…
Tangent: I'm not sure I can think of recent money I've spent better than a year-long Washington Post subscription. Not because I want to support journalism (though I do), but because having a whole newspaper to flip through every day is so much more productive and efficient than getting dribs and drabs through Twitter and free news sites --- many of which are ultimately sourcing through the journalism that organizati…
The Wall St. Journal is the single highest quality news source I'm aware of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously, this is too complex a problem to discuss here, so I'll make only a few points: (1) It isn't really relevant for my point about paying the publishers. If anything, IP protection makes my point stronger. (2) I'm not suggesting to abolish IP protection, because I'm not sure I'm right. That's why I said I believe IP protection is not needed. I know I cannot argue my opinion sufficiently. (3) My biggest issue w…
> drugs ... one time payment That'd have to be an incredibly large one-time payment. And how would we know how much to pay?
It doesn't seem like an unsolvable problem. The drug companies themselves must have budgets, and the publicly traded ones have a stock price. So someone somewhere must be able to create estimates for this.
The Google loophole only works half the time at best.
All articles posted on HN invariably end up with the same discussion:
1) "Behind a paywall. Can't read it."
2) "You need to use the google link"
3) "The google link also gives a paywall."
4) "It worked for me."
5) "Doesn't work for me."
I see in the comments there are still some workarounds to this paywall. Good to know. Cheers. Just a reminder another workaround to the paywall is to you know actually subscribe to the newspaper. That is an option they offer. Obviously not possible for everyone. But if you have the money and want to read and support journalism... WSJ is really far from perfect but it's not the worst newspaper one could be subscribed…
Real subscription journalism doesn't do advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's already a system for selling ad space, based on tracking data and real-time bidding. Why would it be so hard to use the same sort of system for paid access, replacing ad resellers with readers?
That is what Google Contributor once did, but was shut down recently to be completely re-thought from the ground up (and hopefully will be relaunching in the next few months) because: 1. Nobody used it 2. It didn't block ALL ads, just most (based on if you won or lost the bid) 3. There was a LOT of backlash against it because it was google and even though you can opt out of tracking nobody believes them. 4. The old "…
But I'm arguing that publishers could simply sell per-article access. As an alternative to subscriptions. I used the current ad-brokerage system as an example, because it's so hugely cumbersome. But I'm not arguing that users should simply bid against advertisers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, that tired old linguistic argument that completely misses the point.
If I steal your car, I've deprived you of the use of your car. If I copy your program, have I deprived you of the use of your program? How is that a linguistic argument?
A car is a rivalrous good. A program is a non-rivalrous good.
The main distinction is that the marginal cost of producing a non-rivalrous good is zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Wall St. Journal is the single highest quality news source I'm aware of.
I'd have a tough time deciding between the NYT and WSJ next, especially since the editorial/opinion section of the WaPo is the least valuable to me (informed opinion is something you can get everywhere on the Internet for free). (WaPo vs. NYT was basically a coinflip decision for me, but doing WaPo and then NYT would probably create a pretty significant overlap, and WSJ wouldn't. On the other hand, the NYT is a subst…