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

261–270 of 345 posts

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#261

Post by icebraining »

stop_thief wrote: post #252
icebraining wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A counterpoint to this interpretation of the Dowling verdict - http://lawtheories.com/?p=1881 : > 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.

Unconvincing argument. The court's statement, as I reproduced above, is not about the specifics of the statute, otherwise it would have said "it's theft, just not physical removal". The wording is very clear.

The example of the other case (which, by the way, was only a District Court decision) also seems weak. AFAIK (IANAL), the fact that copyright law preempted state law doesn't mean the two are equal, it just means that both theft and copyright infringement occurred - which is easily seen to be the case, since physical plans were actually removed from a place.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#262

Post by sah2ed »

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.

> 1) payment per article, at prices comparable to aggregate ad income;

Unfortunately, this kind of micropayment will not work for most people and perhaps more importantly will lead to less revenue for the publisher.

Clary Shirky has written about why micropayments [0] is the wrong model for consuming content more than a decade ago.

[0] http://shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#263

Post by monochromatic »

stop_thief wrote: post #237
monochromatic wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because you're using an unreasonably narrow definition of theft that doesn't include intangibles.

Let me know when your definition makes it into a legal dictionary.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#264

Post by joezydeco »

tptacek wrote: post #201

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…

Friendly tip: if you have Amazon Prime, you can subscribe to WaPo for six months free, then 50% off after that.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#265

Post by kuschku »

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.

Are you willing to pay each month

    SPIEGEL:  $  9.40
    FAZ:      $ 44.90
    WSJ:      $ 30.85
    Guardian: $  6.99
    KN:       $ 19.99
    
    -----------------
    Total     $112.13
just to read a handful of articles per newspaper?

I’m sorry, I’m a student, I don’t even have Netflix because that’s too expensive.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#266

Post by carbocation »

whatever_dude wrote: post #249
carbocation wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To lower the barrier even further, if you're an Amazon Prime subscriber and subscribe via Amazon, the first 6 months are free and then the cost is $4/month thereafter.

How do you get this deal? I'm having trouble finding it online.

https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/prime/#/

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#267

Post by desireco42 »

I welcome this move. It will stop their articles being posted here and in other forums, we simply can't read them. While WSJ does have good content, I will not pay for it and this will make sure it doesn't trick me into clicking links and have to close browser.

On other hand, for their business to continue to grow, they need to come up with way to show us that content somehow, maybe not the one they charge for but something that can display excellence.

Good examples would be ArsTechnica and Nautilus.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#268

Post by maxerickson »

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.

Which culture are you talking about? Lots (lots!) of people view and collect media without paying for it.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#269

Post by Klover »

tptacek wrote: post #246
icebraining wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, if you're willing to read a single source, it's not expensive.

This is exactly why I hadn't subscribed in the past: I figured it was pointless, because what I really needed was the gestalt from all the papers. Boy was that dumb of me. I'm sure I would benefit from having perspectives from the WSJ and NYT to pair with WaPo. But my previous state was having no newspaper at all to rely on, just free sites like (bleh) Slate and (unbelievably bad) cable news web sites like CNN. Addin…

>just free sites like (bleh) Slate and (unbelievably bad) cable news web sites like CNN.

I feel genuinely sorry for you. I can't imagine reading that every single day. That's a lot of exposure to, quite frankly, a whole lot of clickbait. Don't NYT and WaPo have a limited amount of free pageviews per day?

Come to think of it, there are millions of people in the world whose primary source of news is social media like Facebook, Twitter (both news from your own circle), and Reddit (probably the worst offender? Clickbait titles generate likes, news that a small majority dislikes gets hidden).

[I had written a rather lengthy bit of text about how that's all a pretty good thing, still. Far better than hearsay and an inability to verify national broadcasting, and let's not forget that HN falls in the above category as well and I enjoy this. But this summary says much the same as the very lengthy text.]

Personally I regularly read the Economist. The additional audio format is nice; completely ad free news and you can speed up the less relevant bits. It focuses on some of the more impactful events in the world, which sometimes gives me just enough time in the week to even read news about Africa. Besides, as it is a weekly, it expands on topics in the way that sometimes I'll not bother reading the dailies when something tragic happened. Preferring to wait until Sunday to have some of the speculation filtered out. Also a company subscription to NYT, FT, and some less known ones.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#270

Post by dmix »

CSMastermind wrote: post #224
tptacek wrote: post #201

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.

I've found WSJ to be a very good paper, especially for geopolitics and finance.

NYT and WaPo's political slant is almost becoming unreadable for someone who's moderate and disinterested in either US party. I can't speak for WaPo but I've been reading NYT for a decade now and their total abandonment of any attempt at political neutrality was disheartening this past year.

My only problem with WSJ is it's very expensive compared to NYT. About 3-4x as expensive as a Canadian. So I've been using WaPo recently, they're slightly better than NYT but only slightly. Probably going to go full WSJ soon.

Post reply on HN