Circumventing Paywalls

[Eric]

Caught this thread over on MR and thought it was worth sharing here since we post a lot of links to news sites here.

Why do Mods allow links that circumvent paywalls?

I reported a post that provided a link to circumvent a paywall so users could access paid content for free of charge. The moderator who reviewed my report concluded that no moderation action was warranted. I would like to know why MacRumors feels links that circumvent paywalls are acceptable?

forums.macrumors.com

Interesting that they have no policy around this being as large as they are, and I couldn't agree more. IMO if they can post a headline and byline that draws you in, to block you from reading the story is nothing more than clickbait.

 

[Edd]

I’m not grasping what the issue is here.

 

[Eric]

I’m not grasping what the issue is here.

The ethics (and maybe legalities?) of bypassing paywalls.

 

[Cmaier]

Not sure what the nature of the “circumvention” was, but it seems like it would be difficult for a mod to figure out if the ”circumventing link” is actually authorized (e.g. a “gift” article like I post from time-to-time to the NYTimes), fair use, a copy hosted in another country where the original copyright may not apply, etc. If the actual copyright owner wants to make a DMCA claim, that’s one thing. But if some random person says that the link is somehow improper, unless it’s clearly a pirate link, not sure what the mods are supposed to do.

 

[Herdfan]

Paywalls need to go away. I am not going to sub to some random news outlet to read one story.

Put ads all over or make me watch a short video to read it.

If you don't want ads or videos and you read that source regularly, then go ahead and subscribe.

 

[Roller]

Paywalls need to go away. I am not going to sub to some random news outlet to read one story.

Put ads all over or make me watch a short video to read it.

If you don't want ads or videos and you read that source regularly, then go ahead and subscribe.

It comes down to whether individuals and companies should be compensated for creating content and making it available and, if so, who should bear the cost. I think they should be paid. I'd like to see a system that would allow a limited number of free accesses, after which either a subscription or ads, as you propose, would kick in. The reader would get to choose.

 

[Eric]

Paywalls need to go away. I am not going to sub to some random news outlet to read one story.

Put ads all over or make me watch a short video to read it.

If you don't want ads or videos and you read that source regularly, then go ahead and subscribe.

Exactly. My guess is they're hoping to get you for their exclusive content but those same stories are all over the place, much of which is at no charge, so why would anyone subscribe with that in mind?

I don't really have an issue with their model though as much as I do the way it's presented. Search engines have some responsibility here as well, they allow these sources to post a headline and a byline with a link to launch that then takes you to a paywall without any sort of warning or notification. The link should be flagged with something like "paywall requirement" so it doesn't feel like you're being duped, then let the user make an informed decision whether or not to click on it.

 

[Edd]

Subscribing to Apple One recently with the News feature has been good, getting me through all sorts of paywalls I normally bang into on the respective websites. Makes me read twice as much News which sometimes feels like not a good thing.

 

[Huntn]

Caught this thread over on MR and thought it was worth sharing here since we post a lot of links to news sites here.

Why do Mods allow links that circumvent paywalls?

I reported a post that provided a link to circumvent a paywall so users could access paid content for free of charge. The moderator who reviewed my report concluded that no moderation action was warranted. I would like to know why MacRumors feels links that circumvent paywalls are acceptable?

forums.macrumors.com

Interesting that they have no policy around this being as large as they are, and I couldn't agree more. IMO if they can post a headline and byline that draws you in, to block you from reading the story is nothing more than clickbait.

My impression is that if you use Safari, in some cases you can see past a paywall by using Reader mode.

 

[Huntn]

Not sure what the nature of the “circumvention” was, but it seems like it would be difficult for a mod to figure out if the ”circumventing link” is actually authorized (e.g. a “gift” article like I post from time-to-time to the NYTimes), fair use, a copy hosted in another country where the original copyright may not apply, etc. If the actual copyright owner wants to make a DMCA claim, that’s one thing. But if some random person says that the link is somehow improper, unless it’s clearly a pirate link, not sure what the mods are supposed to do.

At times I will copy and paste text from behind a paywall to facilitate a post I am interested in making. Would this or should this be considered wrong?

 

[Roller]

At times I will copy and paste text from behind a paywall to facilitate a post I am interested in making. Would this or should this be considered wrong?

It comes down to how you answer the ethical question of whether creators and/or the organizations that post their content deserve to be compensated. (I do.) If you just post part of an article, I believe that's OK. But if you copy and paste the whole thing, that's no different than sending the reader to the article, bypassing the paywall.

 

[Cmaier]

At times I will copy and paste text from behind a paywall to facilitate a post I am interested in making. Would this or should this be considered wrong?

Wrong in what sense? Ethically? Legally?

I’ll leave the former to you and your gods. The latter is a complicated issue, but often fair use might apply.

 

[Huntn]

It comes down to how you answer the ethical question of whether creators and/or the organizations that post their content deserve to be compensated. (I do.) If you just post part of an article, I believe that's OK. But if you copy and paste the whole thing, that's no different than sending the reader to the article, bypassing the paywall.

Wrong in what sense? Ethically? Legally?

I’ll leave the former to you and your gods. The latter is a complicated issue, but often fair use might apply.

I don’t do this often, and when I do, I usually quote just part of an article to make a point, and throw up the link. In General, I’m hostile to where digital rights management has gone. I used to buy a book and then sell it, same with video games, no longer is that as easy to do without some level of pirating,

Just because someone decided that they can make more money by limiting your ability to resell something you purchased opens up an ethical discussion, conclusions based on perspective without definitivly set conclusions imo. Worse these bastards now don’t want to sell but rent their product to make more money. This is where I can and do push back.