The Exhaustion of American Liberalism

[Hijinx]

If I really wanted yo see the Wapo's sorry filth I could always go to the library and read it----for free.

 

[Clem72]

It's not copyright infringement just to read the story. Starman's having a fake pearl clutch moment - it's not against any law or immoral or anything else to click an icon and read a story in an online newspaper, and he knows that.

It absolutely is a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which is an abomination in my opinion. In fact, people have been sued under the DMCA for telling others how to bypass registration/login/payment screens exactly like you just did. Not even linking to the content, just describing a way in which to access the content other than the way the author/owner intends.

I don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Clem72]

But it is theft. Make no mistake about it.

English MotherF*cker, do you speak it?

Definition of Theft (per Merriam Webster) "The act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
Definition of Copyright Infringement (per Wikipedia) "Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works."

So, explain how reading something online without paying is the same as taking and removing that thing, rather than using without permission?


Theft is a CRIMINAL offense, Copyright Infringement is a Civil offense.

Words have meanings, idiot.

 

[vraiblonde]

It absolutely is a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which is an abomination in my opinion. In fact, people have been sued under the DMCA for telling others how to bypass registration/login/payment screens exactly like you just did. Not even linking to the content, just describing a way in which to access the content other than the way the author/owner intends.

I don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

That's only for hacking. When it's as simple as choosing Reader View in my browser, it doesn't violate DMCA.

If they don't intend for people to be able to bypass their payment screen, they should fix it. It's pretty easy to remove Reader View, or have that view demand a subscription. Their laziness/incompetence isn't my fault.

 

[Starman]

That's only for hacking. When it's as simple as choosing Reader View in my browser, it doesn't violate DMCA.

DMCA covers far more than “hacking”. What lawyer told you this?

By your logic, if a script kiddie runs a program (it’s just an icon, right? Clickety-click) and can take down a web server because it’s not patched then no crime has been committed, right?

 

[vraiblonde]

DMCA covers far more than “hacking”. What lawyer told you this?

By your logic, if a script kiddie runs a program (it’s just an icon, right? Clickety-click) and can take down a web server because it’s not patched then no crime has been committed, right?

I think you should call the cops on me.

 

[Starman]

I think you should call the cops on me.

I don't talk to the police.

Just following YOUR logic through. Kind of neat, eh?

 

[This_person]

The Exhaustion of Liberalism, as defined by several pages of posts all about whether or not it is illegal to read a website.