
Local newspaper boasts ultimate passive-aggressive paywall policy - miked
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/25/local-newspaper-boas.html
======
nkurz
Let's ignore the site in question for a moment, and ask the more general
question: is this approach legally defensible?

While it seems reasonable to presume that non-password protected files can be
freely accessed until one learns otherwise, it's doesn't seem reasonable to
continue presuming this after reading an explicit prohibition. Is there a
legal requirement that says one must attempt to physically restrict access if
one wants to assert usage restrictions?

I presume if I had an unattended roadside vegetable stand with a cash-box,
that I'd be able to prosecute someone who took vegetables without paying,
certainly if they also made off with the cash-box. Why is this different on
the web? And if a written prohibition has no legal standing, why do so many
companies pay lawyers to write click-through "terms of service" agreements?

~~~
steveklabnik
> Why is this different on the web?

Let's go through what happens when I visit a web site. I type a URL in my bar,
and hit enter. My web browser makes a request via http to a server, and the
server inspects the request, determines if I should see the content or not,
and returns either a 200 if I am allowed, and a 403 if I'm not. So, by viewing
their pages, I'm literally asking permission, and being allowed.

It sounds to me like a misconfiguration of their server; it's not doing what
they want it to.

~~~
jessriedel
Maybe. It all depends on how you're phrasing it. The server response is just a
machine giving you permission; it's not the actual person. How is this
different than saying "I asked for permission to the vegetable stand cash box
by pressing the open button. The cash box gave me permission when it responded
to my button press by opening." (Assume, if you want, that this was a button
that could only be used to access paid cash, not for making payments.)

~~~
scott_s
_How is this different than saying "I asked for permission to the vegetable
stand cash box by pressing the open button."_

Convention. The convention for the web is: if you can access it through normal
means, then you are allowed to access it.

~~~
steveklabnik
I would agree with your line of reasoning, except that it's not really
convention: a cash register doesn't have a customer-facing interface. A web
server is an explicit interface to those outside an organization.

~~~
scott_s
I have easy access to the tip jar in restaurants. How do I know that this
money which I have easy access to is not free to take? Convention. How do I
know that I can take from the penny dish? Convention.

That a web server is an explicit, external interface is a technical reason.
How we expect to _use_ that interface is a social reason.

------
metamemetics
<http://encyclopediadramatica.com/June_Maxam>

Yes, that was a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Yes, they actually have more
info than you would ever need to know about the operator of the site in
question.

~~~
iron_ball
Note to those who are unfamiliar with it: extremely NSFW ads and frequently
NSFW content.

------
cappaert
Why bother with the warning? If the site wants to monetize through
subscriptions, put up a pay-wall. If it wants to distribute content freely and
monetize through other means (ads, a paid premium section, etc), then do so.
Threatening or attempting to guilt potential customers to subscribe is just
childish.

How can a publication afford to charge its customers for online news content?
Provide something people actually want. Case in point:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/the-
news...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/the-newsweekly-
rsquo-s-last-stand/7489/)

------
rubypay
Clicking on the subscribe link leads to a PayPal page with the cost: $0.00.
Strange.

~~~
aohtsab
I suppose it's "donation-based", but you fill in the donation with the actual
subscription.

NCG doesn't sound like a non-profit. I wonder what Paypal's stance is on this.

------
RyanMcGreal
They've found an even more effective way to prevent unauthorized viewings of
their content:

"Error establishing a database connection"

------
mise
Feels like we should read their content just to annoy them!

In their defence (kind of) instead of programming all the logic related to
their policy, they're displaying text to enforce it instead. But obviously
since they're threatening, it's all over the top.

~~~
gvb
Done, but I read only _one_ article.

------
callahad
From clicking around a bit (to be fair, I was reading the notices, not the
articles), it looks like the appeal on each page is manually-inserted, and
each varies slightly from the others.

Most seem to be less confrontational than the ones excerpted by BoingBoing. To
wit, "A subscription is needed for your future access to The North Country
Gazette. To subscribe, see the ad to the right. You are entitled to read only
one article for free. If you wish to read more, a subscription is required.
Please don’t be dishonest, don’t abuse the privilege"

That doesn't seem too terrible, does it?

It's also worth noting that the more litigious post seems to have been pulled
by the site's owner.

------
yoasif_
Attempted to make a slightly better summary:
[http://quippd.com/show/4540/The_North_County_Gazette_a_blog_...](http://quippd.com/show/4540/The_North_County_Gazette_a_blog_covering_upstate_New_York_threatens_readers_that_read_more_than_one_post_says_subscription_is_required)

------
dansingerman
Did the developer who implemented that know how cock-assed it was, and
deliberately used comic sans as a tell?

~~~
gaius
There was no developer. This isn't even a real newspaper, it's just one
woman's blog.

