Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@Ted If you link a copy of an article that is stolen from a paywall site, in what way are you helping the author of that article or the publication from which you stole it? You are actually hurting both because readers who might otherwise subscribe to that publication and help pay the authors' salaries now see a way of reading that material without paying. It's really no different from walking into a book store and shoving a book under your coat and walking out. In other words, it's virtual shoplifting on a grand scale. It's something most self-respecting people learned when they were children not to do.
@Ted Not calling anyone, but don't pretend you're doing me any favors by posting links to a site that evades Barron's paywall. The truth is quite the opposite. And stop trying to lord your role as "the linkster" over people. I'm not the only one who finds it irritating.
@Maurice Uh, you do understand that I am talking about Ted's constant use of CetusNews to get around paywalls, right? I'm not talking about the freebie this weekend. Ted knows that and I suspect so do you.
"We won't be linking any article by freelance authors who believe their intellectual property has been stolen."
@Ted: What "we" would that be? Are you now so fat-headed that you believe there is more than one of you? Or are you just once again preening and trying to impress everybody with your non-existent MFO editorial status?
I'm a (happy) subscriber to Barron's, and find their weekly publication and daily updates of value. At the end of April, I was solicited to take part in a survey to help find out how readers access and use Barron's data. One of my comments was, why should I continue to pay for a subscription when the content is often provided by sites which skirt the paywall?
@dryflower You're right. Copying and distributing articles illegally online is actually worse from an economic standpoint because if one book is stolen, that is just one less copy the bookseller has to sell. If you distribute a publication's pay-walled articles or for that matter a record company's albums or movie producer's films illegally for free online that is many multiples of potential costumers they've lost. However many people who read, listen or watch that material for free that would've instead payed for that material given the chance is the amount of potential revenue lost. It's called piracy. Every time you watch a legitimate video, it's the reason you see that little FBI notice in the beginning. Now one could debate whether this economic model works anymore in a virtual world where piracy is so easy, but there really is no question that it is a kind of stealing on a pay-walled site. What irks me no end is Ted acting like he is doing me a favor and thus has some sort of power over me by routinely distributing pirated material. I accept that piracy happens, but don't act like you're doing me a favor by doing it.
I just went to my bookmarked link to cetusnews.com and what I see missing is the slogan, previously seen near the top: "Only news behind paywalls." Hmmmm. Wonder if that means anything at all?
Let me suggest a modified analogy that I think will satisfy dryflower's concern. Consider a membership library.
I sneak in and read a book in its private collection. If I make a copy, even for my own use, I've violated the copyright. But what if I just read the book, leave it where I found it, and sneak back out of the library?
With respect to the book, all I've done is access it. Just as I might access copyrighted material by circumventing a paywall. Have I infringed on the copyright? There are differing court rulings on this; no single right answer AFAIK, but I haven't researched carefully and to current date. http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-90-1-Troupson.pdf (2015)
Legalities aside, the pragmatics are that circumventing a paywall to gain access reduces revenue of the publisher, and thus indirectly harms its contributors. They may be hired less often or paid less. On the other hand, when a pay site, whether Barron's or HBO, gives away free samples, its intent is to increase net revenue as Maurice described. It thus indirectly help its contributors, as does driving traffic to the opened site.
It's sophistry to suggest that taking advantage of a paywall that is intentionally lowered is no different from circumventing an operational paywall.
Some of you so hard up that you can’t afford to pay the publisher for services rendered? I couldn’t sleep nights knowing I was using illegally obtained journalism or cenematic art. If it’s worth reading or viewing, why not play fair and compensate the writer or artist? I didn’t work for nothing and don’t think they should either. It costs money to support a cadre of trained, experienced, talented and capable reporters. You can subscribe legally to many fine daily news / financial publications online for under $25 a month. Less than a buck a day. What a deal. Why steal the content?
Reminds me of the guy who dines at a nice restaurant and than walks out without paying. Or the fella who fails to report income on a tax return. What’s expended isn’t a paper copy in this case, but the labor and good faith of the journalist who busted his *** working on something he felt was worth your paying for. In the end, less food on his table. Not a victimless crime.
Agree with Hank. I pay monthly subscriptions to couple of newspapers and a couple of magazines, including WSJ, National Geographic, etc. I do have a budget for this and can't afford to pay for ten, as it will add up. Then I have a choice to make, either pony up the money or restrict to certain number of free articles or not read that site.
Comments
If you link a copy of an article that is stolen from a paywall site, in what way are you helping the author of that article or the publication from which you stole it? You are actually hurting both because readers who might otherwise subscribe to that publication and help pay the authors' salaries now see a way of reading that material without paying. It's really no different from walking into a book store and shoving a book under your coat and walking out. In other words, it's virtual shoplifting on a grand scale. It's something most self-respecting people learned when they were children not to do.
Regards,
Ted
@Ted: What "we" would that be? Are you now so fat-headed that you believe there is more than one of you? Or are you just once again preening and trying to impress everybody with your non-existent MFO editorial status?
I've not received a response as of yet.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/sites/wsj
I sneak in and read a book in its private collection. If I make a copy, even for my own use, I've violated the copyright. But what if I just read the book, leave it where I found it, and sneak back out of the library?
With respect to the book, all I've done is access it. Just as I might access copyrighted material by circumventing a paywall. Have I infringed on the copyright? There are differing court rulings on this; no single right answer AFAIK, but I haven't researched carefully and to current date.
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-90-1-Troupson.pdf (2015)
I think that it's pretty clear that by reproducing copyrighted material en masse, cetusnews has infringed on copyrights. But is my making use of those copies illegal, or is it more like trading on insider information that I just happened to overhear in a public space?
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-would-you-be-guilty-of-insider-trading.html (See example 1)
Legalities aside, the pragmatics are that circumventing a paywall to gain access reduces revenue of the publisher, and thus indirectly harms its contributors. They may be hired less often or paid less. On the other hand, when a pay site, whether Barron's or HBO, gives away free samples, its intent is to increase net revenue as Maurice described. It thus indirectly help its contributors, as does driving traffic to the opened site.
It's sophistry to suggest that taking advantage of a paywall that is intentionally lowered is no different from circumventing an operational paywall.
I couldn’t sleep nights knowing I was using illegally obtained journalism or cenematic art. If it’s worth reading or viewing, why not play fair and compensate the writer or artist? I didn’t work for nothing and don’t think they should either. It costs money to support a cadre of trained, experienced, talented and capable reporters. You can subscribe legally to many fine daily news / financial publications online for under $25 a month. Less than a buck a day. What a deal. Why steal the content?
Reminds me of the guy who dines at a nice restaurant and than walks out without paying. Or the fella who fails to report income on a tax return. What’s expended isn’t a paper copy in this case, but the labor and good faith of the journalist who busted his *** working on something he felt was worth your paying for. In the end, less food on his table. Not a victimless crime.
Derf