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

Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 405 posts

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#251

Post by scarface74 »

betterunix2 wrote: post #246
scarface74 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you are concerned with copyright being removed because you think it will increase the freedom of information, how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down? So in this hypothetical future world, not only will their not be a financial motive for people to create works since anything they create can be freely copied, there will also not be an altruistic motive fo…

I did not say it would increase freedom of information. I just do not believe copyright is a good fit for the modern world, because it does not really work when copying is not restricted to industrial operations. Today everyone has a copying machine in their pocket or on their desk, and there is no way that applying an industrial regulation to people sitting in their homes using a commonly available tool is going to…

Are you willing to work for free? What “business models” do you suggest that will allow authors to get paid?

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#253

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

scarface74 wrote: post #220
betterunix2 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am fine with that tradeoff, because on net society would come out ahead.

So if you are concerned with copyright being removed because you think it will increase the freedom of information, how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down? So in this hypothetical future world, not only will their not be a financial motive for people to create works since anything they create can be freely copied, there will also not be an altruistic motive fo…

> how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down?

They already do that, either legally or illegally, see here for some examples https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=!closed&type=license+vi.... Plus most FOSS software is being developed by volunteers for free without the resources to fight back.

> there will also not be an altruistic motive for people to give back to the community through open source knowing that a for profit company can build on top of the work they did and not give back to the community.

Most FOSS software is actually not under a copyleft license, see https://blog.github.com/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage....

> not only will their not be a financial motive for people to create works

A lot of software is actually commissioned either for private use or to distribute as an app for some business of some sort, which would not be affected by this. Moreover if as you say due to not being a financial motive for people to create non-FOSS software, the chances that someone takes some FOSS software and closes it down will be much lower.

Nevertheless, though unlikely, even if copyright stopped existing it does not mean that there could not be a replacement that only protects FOSS projects.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#254

Post by scarface74 »

AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #253
scarface74 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you are concerned with copyright being removed because you think it will increase the freedom of information, how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down? So in this hypothetical future world, not only will their not be a financial motive for people to create works since anything they create can be freely copied, there will also not be an altruistic motive fo…

> how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down? They already do that, either legally or illegally, see here for some examples https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=!closed&type=license+vi... . Plus most FOSS software is being developed by volunteers for free without the resources to fight back. > there will also not be an altruistic motive for people to give back to…

Plus most FOSS software is being developed by volunteers for free without the resources to fight back.

I don’t know of any reputable company that would take the risk of using open source software in a way that was against its license.

Nevertheless, though unlikely, even if copyright stopped existing it does not mean that there could not be a replacement that only protects FOSS projects.

You really trust lawmakers to have both the will and the knowledge to do that?

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#255

Post by lazulicurio »

mindslight wrote: post #223
Confusion wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rename the plugin and change the description. The message from Mozilla states that the problem is the intent of the plugin. The technological measures it actually takes are not illegal per sé, but are illegal when used to circumvent paywalls (of course IANAL). If you present this as a plug-in that allows you to view websites as the Google bot views them, for educational and debugging purposes, there is no problem. Yo…

The intent of the plugin should not be illegal - that is what this battle is ultimately about, and this takedown action is essentially baseless bullying via the legal system. Each party to a transaction has their own desires, and what these companies are ultimately trying to do make you conform to their internal business desires post facto. In any transaction there is a demarcation point where interests meet and then…

You know, I consider myself fairly liberal on technical issues, and I agree with you in the general sense, but I don't agree in this specific instance.

This isn't a situation like Aaron Swartz, where the companies in question are restricting access to publicly-funded research. The newspapers are privately-funded entities that conduct their own investigative journalism.

This isn't a situation like Weev, where there was no access control to the data and he was just probing exposed endpoints.

This isn't a "right of first sale" issue. It could be if the publishers were trying to restrict access to page content after you paid for an account, but that's not what's happening here.

I agree with the GP that the issue is the framing. It's the difference between selling a mask, and selling a mask that's advertised to let you rob a bank without being caught.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#256

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

scarface74 wrote: post #254
AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down? They already do that, either legally or illegally, see here for some examples https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=!closed&type=license+vi... . Plus most FOSS software is being developed by volunteers for free without the resources to fight back. > there will also not be an altruistic motive for people to give back to…

Plus most FOSS software is being developed by volunteers for free without the resources to fight back. I don’t know of any reputable company that would take the risk of using open source software in a way that was against its license. Nevertheless, though unlikely, even if copyright stopped existing it does not mean that there could not be a replacement that only protects FOSS projects. You really trust lawmakers to…

> I don’t know of any reputable company that would take the risk of using open source software in a way that was against its license.

There were few cases actually, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation,_Inc..... (HN strips the final dot from the url)

Though it is true that most violations are from unknown local adware or whatever companies.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#257

Post by wpietri »

DanBC wrote: post #79
wpietri wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obviously not a "request" if they're making legal threats. And it's not payment they're demanding, it's the ability to track anybody who visits their site, whether or not you agree to be tracked. And it's not part of any social contract I agreed to; the (very short) history of the web is an ongoing negotiation. Paywalls were invented this decade. This plugin is part of that negotiation. Browsers already have a m…

> Paywalls were invented this decade. Compuserve paywalled all of their content way back in the 1980s.

Sorry, I specifically mean the "soft" paywall, which is the kind at issue here. If these publishers had required people to log in, no browser extension could bypass that.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#258

Post by wpietri »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #86
wpietri wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obviously not a "request" if they're making legal threats. And it's not payment they're demanding, it's the ability to track anybody who visits their site, whether or not you agree to be tracked. And it's not part of any social contract I agreed to; the (very short) history of the web is an ongoing negotiation. Paywalls were invented this decade. This plugin is part of that negotiation. Browsers already have a m…

This is mostly about "soft" paywalls, allowing you to read maybe a dozen articles per month without paying. There is currently no way I know of allowing this functionality that is meaningfully "reliable". At least not without erecting new barriers such as mandatory registration (and verification). So you, and everyone else, seem to be demanding publishers just switch to "absolute paywalls". You will then have strictl…

I'm not demanding publishers switch to anything. Personally, I like the soft paywall system. I also think people who bypass it were never going to pay money, so I think publishers freaking out about people opening up an incognito window are wasting their time.

But if publisher do want absolute control over who views their content, then they should make people log in. I think that would be a mistake, but it's their mistake to make. I'm just opposed to give them legal control over what I do with my computer and any data their servers freely give me.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#259

Post by mindslight »

lazulicurio wrote: post #255
mindslight wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intent of the plugin should not be illegal - that is what this battle is ultimately about, and this takedown action is essentially baseless bullying via the legal system. Each party to a transaction has their own desires, and what these companies are ultimately trying to do make you conform to their internal business desires post facto. In any transaction there is a demarcation point where interests meet and then…

You know, I consider myself fairly liberal on technical issues, and I agree with you in the general sense, but I don't agree in this specific instance. This isn't a situation like Aaron Swartz, where the companies in question are restricting access to publicly-funded research. The newspapers are privately-funded entities that conduct their own investigative journalism. This isn't a situation like Weev, where there wa…

My argument isn't based on liberating content, but that it's simply not one's responsibility to implement someone else's business rules.

The problem is that the publishers are still supplying their content for free, while then trying to attach arbitrary post-facto terms. It would be straightforward to just not send the article to someone they don't want to view it, but yet this is not what they have chosen to do.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#260

Post by jhasse »

coffeefirst wrote: post #195
dvogel wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple news orgs have stated in public that they don't care about paywalls bypassers because they put up the paywall to convert only the most amenable readers. This is very similar to the paper distribution model where an extreme minority of subscribers represented the majority of revenue, due to extreme discounts and other subsidies given to most readers.

That's true, but it's also on the assumption that the paywall adds just enough friction and reminds readers "you know, if you like this, eventually you might think about paying for it." Some will. Some won't. Automating the process by pretending to be Google means the user won't even see that friction or messaging. It's clever, but it breaks the premise.

The friction is installing the addon.
Post reply on HN