Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why do Mods allow links that circumvent paywalls?
- Thread starter japanime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not going to beat a dead horse. Reporting on classified or restricted material that someone else dug up is not the same as stealing. Period. And it’s disingenuous of you to say that when I was clear. Whether it’s fair game is a topic for another day.
Edit: (obviously) the site does publish rumor information along with news items. Much of this rumor information may come from a chain of sources. Maybe some of this information is diversionary but no doubt some of it is proprietary business information. Which is which is up to the reader to decide.
Last edited:
It's not acceptable to post a screenshot of a paywalled article. It's copyright violation. It's also no different than sharing a PDF of a pirated book, something that I've seen in these forums.
Citing a few words or passages (though not the entire article) is permissible in the United States under the Fair Use doctrine, and I have no issue with that.
Technically speaking, posting a link on the forum that allows those viewing said link to bypass the established subscriber paywall where the article resides is a violation of the 17 U.S. Code S 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If reported, the user who originally posted the link as well as the forum owner can be held liable for damages.
www.law.cornell.edu
17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
Nobody likes paywalls. Nobody likes ads, either. I use an ad blocker, YouTube's constant barrage of mid-roll ads in videos finally drove me to install one, and it has the benefit of also blocking ads everywhere else. Would you call that piracy too?
If I hit a paywall that my ad blocker doesn't knock down for me, I don't subscribe to whatever site it is, so they're not getting anything from me regardless.
If I hit a paywall that my ad blocker doesn't knock down for me, I don't subscribe to whatever site it is, so they're not getting anything from me regardless.
Let's keep this useless thread go on forever..... Because you know someone that actually has something to say responded and that's where it should have ended but as always this stuff is going to be debated until that horse has been beaten to death a hundred times. We all know better 🐵🙈🙉🙊
Let's keep this very good thread go on forever.......because there is a point that needs to be made which is admins and mods need to act/behave more responsibly when dealing with reported issues rather than make excuses in not having to deal with the issues. Therefore everyone looking at this thread, ignore the naysayers. What's the expression 'if you haven't got anything better to say, don't say it at all'. Rings true towards some in this thread.
On the flip side the expression is: “if all you got is a hammer the world looks like a nail”. The hammer in this case is the constant repetitive critiques of the way the site is run - that seemingly doesn’t change much.
Oh... okay. Now I understand.Reporters, editors, photographers, transportation and hotel expenses, cameras, transmission equipment and so much more cost money. Let's not forget the 58 reporters who were killed in 2022. Hopefully their families receive financial support.
Looks as if Australia may be doing it right:
we have found a constructive path to support journalism that enables payments to be made to news publishers through Google News Showcase,
Without knowing the legal-ese I assume that MR would fall under the same rules (infamous section 230) as other social sites where the site itself is not responsible for things posted by its users. In effect the member is the one "stealing" from content creators by providing a link that bypasses a paywall.
While I agree that enforcement seems inconsistent at a casual glance, IMHO there is a difference between removing links to pirated software/apps, which is clear cut stealing and also presents potential security issues, versus expecting a forum operator to chase down links from archive sites that may or may not illegally circumvent a paywall. Ex: if there are no issues with what the archive site is doing then how can it be illegal to post links to it? Would it not fall on the content creator to go after the archive site(s)?
As stated, I am not a lawyer and simply applying casual knowledge to this topic. Would love to hear from someone with more expertise.
While I agree that enforcement seems inconsistent at a casual glance, IMHO there is a difference between removing links to pirated software/apps, which is clear cut stealing and also presents potential security issues, versus expecting a forum operator to chase down links from archive sites that may or may not illegally circumvent a paywall. Ex: if there are no issues with what the archive site is doing then how can it be illegal to post links to it? Would it not fall on the content creator to go after the archive site(s)?
As stated, I am not a lawyer and simply applying casual knowledge to this topic. Would love to hear from someone with more expertise.
Last edited:
You've not read the thread properly have you? There is no 'expecting a forum operator to chase down links....' as you put it. A member found a suspicious link in a post, the member reported it, a mod said the link was ok when in fact it wasn't because the link circumvented a paywall. No mod 'chased down links', the link was found and reported by an MR member, that hard work has already been done and not by a mod. As far as I know, mod's don't chase down anything, they wait until it is reported because they haven't got time to be 'pro-active' (according to arn and the mods) but rather 're-active' (wait until it happens).
I don't care for your condescending tone but that's another matter. I have read this thread, I'm not sure what "properly" would entail but rest assured I have read it completely.
Just because a member reports a link doesn't mean that the link is illegal or stealing, it could be, but I don't think anyone here (active in this thread) knows the answer. You state above, as fact, that the link is not ok because it circumvents a paywall, can you site precident or laws to support that is actually illegal? Are archive sites like the one referenced illegal? The fact that the archive site in question exists, or others like wayback, indicates that either content creators have not asked them to remove pay-for content or it indicates that for some reason they are not violating any laws. Ex: Why are songs allowed to be posted to YouTube by anyone but the creator? Is that stealing too? My head says yes but I can listen to, without paying the creator, just about any modern song. Do we need to block all YouTube links as well? There is a huge thread here on MR called What Are You Listening To filled with links to songs that members are listening to, is that whole thread "illegal" and need to be removed? I can see a case for that as no creator is being compensated, unless the link is from their official channel, but if it were illegal I am fairly sure YouTube would not allow them at all.
My use of the phrase "chase down" may have not been the best choice but I was referencing a mod's need to look at a reported link and determine if the link is illegally "stealing" content, a tall task for a volunteer mod if the topic has not been researched already. That being said, this thread may have caused MR to reach out to legal counsel for advice on the topic which could take a fair amount of time. Personally I would err on leaving the info posted until told I shouldn't.
Please note that in post #8 I originally came out in support for content creators and still lean towards links bypassing a paywall shouldn't be allowed but unlike you I try not to state my opinions as fact without the capacity to provide backup.
If you can provide backup for your claims I am happy to learn from them, if you can't then please stop posting your opinions as fact.
Last edited:
it is illegal to bypass a paywall.
Is it legal to disable and bypass the paywall for a news article?
Read 1 Answer from lawyers to Is it legal to disable and bypass the paywall for a news article? - California Internet Law Questions & Answers - Justia Ask a Lawyer
answers.justia.com
Yes, It's Illegal to Cheat a Paywall - NYU Law Review
Access Rights and the DMCA’s Anticircumvention Provision Traditional media companies, such as newspapers, have struggled to adjust their profit models to the Internet economy. Some newspapers have instituted “paywalls,” digital locks that limit access to online articles with varying degrees of...
www.nyulawreview.org
Now I would like an apology for dismissing my facts
I have read this thread, in its entirety.
And, I will say that I have changed my mind over the past two or three years - or, rather, I have adjusted (not necessarily altered) my thinking to accommodate the uncomfortable nature of some realities.
A few years ago, it is quite possible that I would have been among those who called for the site to conform to copyright legislation re permitting paywalls to be circumvented.
However, the reactions of the site to two major events of the past few years - one of which pertained to matters relating to public health (physical) , the other of which pertained to, shall we say, public health (civic, or perhaps, matters relating to institutional or federal health) - have persuaded me that, in the absence of serious governmental regulation, (and enforcement), - which, by the way, I, personally support - what an online platform chooses to do, and how it chooses to do it, is entirely its own affair.
In other words, until compelled to do so by a body (such as a government, or a supranational body such as the EU), with the power and right to impose such regulations, a social media platform will not be obliged to abide by any other than its own rules.
And, this is what we sign up for when we become members of this site.
And, I will say that I have changed my mind over the past two or three years - or, rather, I have adjusted (not necessarily altered) my thinking to accommodate the uncomfortable nature of some realities.
A few years ago, it is quite possible that I would have been among those who called for the site to conform to copyright legislation re permitting paywalls to be circumvented.
However, the reactions of the site to two major events of the past few years - one of which pertained to matters relating to public health (physical) , the other of which pertained to, shall we say, public health (civic, or perhaps, matters relating to institutional or federal health) - have persuaded me that, in the absence of serious governmental regulation, (and enforcement), - which, by the way, I, personally support - what an online platform chooses to do, and how it chooses to do it, is entirely its own affair.
In other words, until compelled to do so by a body (such as a government, or a supranational body such as the EU), with the power and right to impose such regulations, a social media platform will not be obliged to abide by any other than its own rules.
And, this is what we sign up for when we become members of this site.
it is illegal to bypass a paywall.
Is it legal to disable and bypass the paywall for a news article?
Read 1 Answer from lawyers to Is it legal to disable and bypass the paywall for a news article? - California Internet Law Questions & Answers - Justia Ask a Lawyer
Yes, It's Illegal to Cheat a Paywall - NYU Law Review
Access Rights and the DMCA’s Anticircumvention Provision Traditional media companies, such as newspapers, have struggled to adjust their profit models to the Internet economy. Some newspapers have instituted “paywalls,” digital locks that limit access to online articles with varying degrees of...
Now I would like an apology for dismissing my facts
Thank you for providing some citation for your claims. As stated in post #37, I am happy to learn.
It appears that you haven't properly read my comments. I never "dismissed" any facts as you hadn't provided any prior to post #39. I simply asked you to back up your claims, which until you do so are little more than your opinions, a very reasonable request and part of the forum rules here at MR.
I am sorry you feel you deserve an apology for being involved in a discussion and being asked to back up your claims. Most of us are anonymous here so no assumptions can be made regarding an individuals expertise on any given topic.
There is no need to be so combative with someone who is leaning in the direction of your arguments. If you were to go back and properly read my comments in this thread, it should be apparent that I also had concerns about the link provided but I also acknowledge my lack of expertise in the area, therefore I asked questions in an attempt to educate myself.
Anyway, I still think we are in a gray area as far as MR is concerned. One could say that that the act of purposefully circumventing a paywall is "theft" and morally wrong but MR didn't do that, a member did. Is MR obligated to remove that link? I'm not sure. They could do it and state that they are standing with content creators rights to be compensated for their work but I doubt they are required to. Again, there is a whole thread here where members share music via youtube, those content creators are largely uncompensated for this, should all those links be removed?
Interesting perspective. I'll disagree though I don't discount your opinion.
My approach is to consider the morality of it. I think MLK's quote fits this topic, though of course he was talking about a greater evil
Regarding this topic we have content creators who choose to charge for their work. I'm of the opinion, that taking that work w/o paying for it is stealing. I don't see any difference in downloading from a torrent site or bypassing a paywall.
The excuses from some, seem a bit ludicrous. Its like blaming the victim for owning a Hyundai when it was stolen or saying it wasn't really theft because Hyundais have an issue with being easily stolen (Kia and Hyundai under Fire from Cities, Insurers over Too Easily Stolen Vehicles). Taking something that you have no right to is wrong. - I'm kind of black and white in this case.
As for the topic of MacRumors doing something about this.
Arn already said he's not interested in doing anything. I suspect it's because there's no business/monetary risk.
I take your point about the morality of this, and, to some extent, - indeed, a considerable extent - am broadly in agreement with you.
However, it is a private company, and nothing I say, or argument I make - now that a decision has been taken not to take any action - will alter that.
Instead, I will await the day when bodies such as the EU will (belatedly) awaken to the fact that some regulation of how online platforms navigate the online space might not be such a bad idea.
Read any Netflix thread, especially the password sharing crackdown ones, or the latest Max thread on the main page for a Masters Degree level education on justifying theft!
Last edited:
Agree, its Arn's decision and he has to weigh the pros and cons. I will say regardless of which side he landed on, there would be members unhappy.
Interestingly enough I found this:
And while I agree about the unethical nature of bypassing a paywall, it reminds me of the being able to back-up a DVD for personal use even though you might use a program to bypass the dvd encryption scheme. There are opinions out there and some court cases involving bypassing a paywall, I couldn't find one relating to personal use.
Whether or not the site should be investigating these are for them to determine. However, I agree about taking a reported post at face value without any investigation.
An while this might not be the same magnitude you are correct regarding some of the comments about bypassing Netflix' sharing, which as I understand it, went into effect today -- based on an email we just received.
Last edited:
You're really out here applying MLK quotes to petty arguments on MacRumors. Just wow...
Unless the user is already subscribing to the paywalled content, accessing that content via a browser's incognito mode isn't the same as bypassing the encryption of a DVD you own simply to make a personal backup.
(Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood your point.)
Good question!
1. I believe this is an American owned site, and I know in the USA piracy laws are strictly enforced. Plus downloading pirated software puts a risk on the user.
2. For news sites, paywalls come and go. I know the Wall Street Journal, for example, have a box on top of the article saying "you need to pay to read this article", and if you click the "x', the box goes away, exposing the article. Other sites may be similar. So is it really paywalled, or not? Could the same thing be applied to other news websites? I don't know..
1. I believe this is an American owned site, and I know in the USA piracy laws are strictly enforced. Plus downloading pirated software puts a risk on the user.
2. For news sites, paywalls come and go. I know the Wall Street Journal, for example, have a box on top of the article saying "you need to pay to read this article", and if you click the "x', the box goes away, exposing the article. Other sites may be similar. So is it really paywalled, or not? Could the same thing be applied to other news websites? I don't know..