
Ask HN: Why are some people sharing links to 'blocked' sites? - phantom_oracle
I&#x27;ve noticed a couple of nytimes&#x2F;ft.com and other sites being shared as &quot;things to read&quot; on HN, yet some of these sites have a paywall now running.<p>Although it&#x27;s easy to bypass some of these &#x27;paywalls&#x27;, it would be kind of unfair to these companies. Perhaps we could have some way to address this problem without &#x27;flagging&#x27;, unless flagging isn&#x27;t as taboo on HN as it would be on other sites.
======
csense
Some of those sites have a limited number of free views (I think WSJ and NYT
fall in this category). So only people who frequently go there have to worry
about the paywall.

------
gojomo
Most people can access these stories, even if it sometimes takes an extra
moment of effort. They're often the first or best source for the story.

So I don't see a problem with such submissions, and there's no need to flag
them or even remark about the paywalls. It's just a fact of the present-day
web.

~~~
Rizz
Where do you get "most people" from? I'm not saying you're wrong, but for
example I don't even try to scam paywall sites by trying to get in, it is an
imprisonable crime[1] to do so in most jurisdictions, I just close the window.

[1]
[http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166](http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166)
Article 11,
[http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&trea...](http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=16)
The signing parties.

~~~
gojomo
The words "crime" or "prison" don't appear in your links, so they don't
support your fanciful claim without a whole bunch of extra legal reasoning
that's neither yet provided nor obvious.

Are you a lawyer who's defended such cases, or a prosecutor who's charged
them? Then I might trust you. I would also as credible evidence accept a
reputable media report of a person imprisoned for circumventing a cookie-
enforced paywall.

It's good practice to clear your cookies and switch browsers occasionally. Do
so without fear of imprisonment whenever you wish.

(Also, most people here can afford the relevant site subscriptions, so that's
another avenue through which they can access such submissions, when they are
the best source for a story.)

~~~
Rizz
The TRIPS agreement requires criminal penalties for willful copyright
infringement, art. 61 (and circumvention of technical measures is in all cases
I have seen implemented as being a form of copyright infringement) when it
occurs on a certain not well defined scale. TRIPS is implemented everywhere
except a few muslim countries in Africa and Asia.

There almost never is a minimum scale defined in actual implementations.

There have been several attempts to sue people in my country, usually settled
before any final judgment, for being instrumental in copyright infringement,
even if that and the actual infringement occured on limited, loss-incuring
scale.

I live in the EU, so every web page I visit is required to be logged by ISPs
for 6-24 months. Clearing cookies does nothing.

I'm more than willing to bet that your law says too that circumventing
technical measures is illegal and when done on purpose a criminal act.
Admitting to using the privacy mode of your browser to circumvent the paywall
is admitting to a crime in many jurisdictions. Sometimes with optional prison
terms, otherwise fines that will eventually turn into prison time if they're
not paid on time, so prison is certainly an option for using the privacy mode
to access NYT. Not likely to be prosecuted, but a crime nonetheless.

~~~
dryg
"I live in the EU, so every web page I visit is required to be logged by ISPs
for 6-24 months. Clearing cookies does nothing."

That would be cool! NYT using the ISP logs to control the paywall :)

Maybe an addition to http could enable the sending of relevant log data with
each request?

The future is here.. soon

------
eli
Both of the sites mentioned in the question allow you to view a certain number
of articles every month for free, so it's pretty soft as far as paywalls go.

Also, not to sound flip, but another option is paying for the content. If
you're regularly reading more than 10 NYTimes articles a month, maybe that's
not such a crazy idea.

------
joshfraser
I use this Chrome extension to always open NYT links in porn mode:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghost-
incognito/ge...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghost-
incognito/gedeaafllmnkkgbinfnleblcglamgebg)

------
ivan_ah
I used to be bugged by this too, but since I've gotten used to opening NYT
links using "open link in Incognito Window", I'm a happy camper.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
The question specifically says:

"Although it's easy to bypass some of these 'paywalls', it would be kind of
unfair to these companies."

~~~
ivan_ah
I saw that, actually. It is precisely the vague wording used in that phrase
that prompted my comment. Saying it is "easy" in the context of HN could make
it seem like you can write a script to do it from the command line or a
bookmarklet or something. I figured I would share this trivial "hack" I
learned about recently...

Though you raise an interesting point about "fairness." These people are
trying to make paywalls for content work. It's the business model that
everyone is wondering about... It's interesting to watch the news companies'
experiments. I wonder what their figures are... Does the nagware-popover
technique work or will the average Internet user figure out how to circumvent
this technology?

------
a3n
There is nothing wrong with some people having access and some people not. If
you choose not to have access, or can't afford it ... that's OK, you'll be
fine not reading the article.

