![]() ![]() Then they simultaneously did a complete editorial overhaul, and paywalled most of the contents. Their former online version was a great news and opinion site. “A click baity version of a once great newspaper.”įor another example of this, see the London Telegraph. So give me a break, will you Martin English This does not take a cent out of that miserable rag’s revenues. Also, the only reason you know I farted is because I told you. Farting in public may be not nice, but it’s in a completely different category than pumping propane into a building and blowing it up. It’s disingenuous to pass moral judgement without considering the scale of actions. But you won’t be buying the paper anyway. If the other fellow gives you a nasty stare, you just stop reading. It’s tantamount to reading the newspaper over a fellow commuter’s shoulder instead of buying it. What I’m doing is completely different from breaking into a person’s private house, presumably to harm someone, steal something or even just have a peek.Īlso, they tried to steal actual money from me in the past, so me having a peek at a few articles I would never have bought anyway is not even me getting even. So what we’re talking about is rather remote from this. Not to mention they are subsidized by the government - i.e., me.Īctually, John, I’m making the case that it would be morally right to destroy that newspaper. ![]() Those supposedly “high-value” articles are much, much less interesting than hundreds of free articles I read legally all over the Net.Īlso, their reporting is dishonest, and it’s a (supposedly) very influential paper, so any harm I may be doing is completely dwarfed by the much bigger harm they are inflicting on society. So I wouldn’t go as far as saying that what I’m doing is morally flawless, but I certainly don’t feel guilty for a second for having a peek behind their paywall once in a while. Actually, I bought an online subscription to it once, and when I chose not to renew, they were so devious in the way they tried to prevent me from leaving and keep drawing on my credit card, that I sweared never to subscribe again. Now it has got so bad that even the price of a single paper copy I consider a waste of money. In fact, I used to buy this newspaper off newstands for many, many years. I don’t use it very often, in fact I read those paywalled articles much less often than I would if I had bought a subscription. I have discovered, purely by chance, a technical way to defeat a newspaper’s paywall. It’s the same argument as with software or music piracy : I’m not stealing anything because I’m just copying bits, which does not reduce the number of bits possessed by the owner and I wouldn’t have subscribed anyway, even if the paywall (the “lock”) was unbreakable. Now the reason some people would still feel justified defeating a paywall has nothing to do with the door lock metaphor. To think otherwise is to be very ignorant of the law, and deeply morally flawed. I’m appalled someone can even ask the question, if that was the meaning of those comments. I’m not sure what the intention was here, but of course you’re committing a crime if you break into a stranger’s house because the lock offered little resistance.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |