This is cool, but how is it different from piracy?
They didn't provide access to just another customer or Google -- they send the article text to EVERYONE in the HTML response. They are thus making that text publicly available. If they want to make content only available to certain individuals, that is literally what paywalls and authentication/authorization are for.
Instead, they want Google to index the site AS IF the content is publicly available but then use javascript to restrict that content from users client-side on a case by case basis. The golden rule of authorization is never rely on client-side authorization as by then you've already willingly given the data/information to the client.
And the client has no obligation to not look at that information/data. They didn't do anything nefarious to get it -- you literally gave it to them.
> Would you rather publishers give google private direct feeds to index?
Absolutely I would. If we could enhance the indexing and search engine system so that (a) I could tell google which services I subscribe to and (b) google knows which articles are behind paywalls, then we could have a world in which we could intentionally filter To or Away from paywall content.
I know that I would often filter TO paywall content, especially if: - I could also tell google to avoid content farm content via a filter or content full of ads (not in their interests currently but it might become so as more of us get frustrated with shittier and shittier search results) - If google could surface the price to access each article on the search results (wherein articles on sites I already pay/subscribe to would be free and articles on sites with individual pay per access would be transparent and upfront).
If you put something in the public sphere, it is public. Simple as that. You have no right to turn your intention of how I "ought" to consume your product into forcing me to do so if you have given me your product for free.
Use a paywall, Use proper authorization.
I solely use firefox for getting around paywalls. I have it automatically clear all cookies upon exit. That way any website that gives a few free articles per month will always be free for me.
From an economics perspective, they are trying to using old school pricing tricks (e.g. bundling, price discrimination, variable unit pricing to enable 2 article users == free, 10 articles == paid) as a tool for managing their customer funnel. But the golden rule of price discrimination is it only works if you can actually prevent your customers from engaging in arbitrage and can keep them in their bucket. A store can have a policy like "limit 1 per customer" but that doesn't prevent me from getting 100 of my friends from buying the thing. If I want to clear my cookies and look like some anonymous new customer each time, there is absolutely nothing illegal OR immoral about that. That's capitalism and they have designed a pricing model that can be gamed.
Sure, and if there's urban chaos, there's nothing preventing me from looting a store. Or sneaking stuff in my backpack. It's still stealing.
As to your example about the art, it's more like if one piece of art is in the window, but the rest of the gallery you can only see if you buy the ticket. But there's a door in the alley you can sneak in to and nobody will notice. So you sneak in the back, avoid paying the price, and get to see the whole thing for free. That doesn't sit right with me ethically.
I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario where giving Google exclusive data will be in any way good for content creators and site owners in the long term.
If we took it a step further and gave google private direct feeds from publishers, would you then be OK with the automatic moat around Google's services that would then be built? How about the one that formed from the private subscription data that you needed to feed to them for them to tailor their searches to your preferences? What if they started charging for search? Would you then go to another search engine that did not have the private content feeds and could not, by design, find those relevant paywalled results?
edit: Just to reiterate, I'm not defending the paywall practice (or breaking it, for that matter). I just see this practice pushing paywalls to be hard rather than soft.
Obviously that’s not how it should be implemented and that‘s also not what google suggests you to do as a publisher. Instead you should verify that the bot is actually google https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/...
Your car example is not a good analogy. Once you notice people stealing, you would make sure the door is locked. Just like these websites can restrict the content server-side.
At the end of the day you are stealing and looting not just from the company, but the everyday people who work for that company, who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families, and no rationalization will change that.
And to the car analogy: Let's say I was stolen from, but I'm so lazy I still can't be bothered to lock my car. Or I leave it open for some other reason. This has zero effect on the morality of the thief stealing from my car. It just means I'm an easy target for stealing. Two completely separate things.
Stealing does not apply to digital goods. You cannot deprive anyone of something infinitely replicable. You can only prevent those that you do not deem worthy to access it. and that attitude makes a person a bad person.
People lose their jobs because they are digital content creators and the attitude is that paying for intellectual property is uncool.
If there is another term you'd like to use for "looks like theft, but the original owner loses nothing" then feel free. But it is not theft or stealing, those require also depriving the rightful owner of the stolen property.
If I could duplicate the exact contents of your car, would it still be "stealing" if I did so? Reminder that you would continue to be in possession of 100% of the contents of your car. Maybe with regards to any digital data on any duplicated devices, I could see a bit of the "stealing" logic, then again nothing was actually "stolen" from you if you still have 100% of your original property, but I now also have duplicates of that property.
With a digital goods, we can eliminate the paper and plastic. It's a great thing! But for some reason, we've also decided to write the artist out of the equation too. At least if you're a pirate.
If you're a software engineer, you're being paid not to manufacture hard goods but to create something of intellectual value that could be technically be duplicated forever. What's the difference between pirating music and stealing code that is under a software license?
If by "stealing code" you mean creating and distributing (probably selling) software derived from it that violates the license, it is quite different.
If what you mean is simply downloading warez for your own use, it is more or less the same.
Stealing for personal use may be a more minor thing, but it still boggles me that people want to consume the fruits of others' labor without compensating them in anyway, as if creators are slaves who exist only to please.
But I will note that you are (by using the framing of "stealing") implying that piracy results in lost sales, which is largely not the case, except possibly for the most popular works. See "Piracy is Progressive Taxation":
https://www.oreilly.com/content/piracy-is-progressive-taxati...
In all cases, the price paid by the user is split in proportion which clearly shows that saying that "pirating" means stealing money from authors is utterly false. I have nothing against paying for books the amount really passed to authors plus some additional fair amount based on the true cost of distribution (eg. printing and transport or electronic storing and transfer) plus a modest profit. However, it is not the case nowadays.
Similarly, I would accept payments for articles in a model where the price for a good article wouldn't cover the costs of many worthless ones. The current model - subscription - is attempting to hide real costs of production of articles of very different value under average price forcing readers to purchase wholesale products. Why should one pay for "fillers" the same money as for good content?
For better or for worse, subscriptions are king in 2022, and I don’t see a meta-subscription for news being a good thing for journalism itself. Personally, I prefer something closer to the iTunes model, but that’s dead. I’m growing entirely sick of singular platforms that hold all the cards of entirely industries (and they don’t pay any better than the publishers do).
I will not pay $50/yr for 20 different news sites. It's absurd. Who do these people think they are?
I'm glad projects like this are being created. It addresses.a boneheaded, outmoded industry that won't meet consumers where they actually are.
These sorts of "news piracy" apps will force change for the good of all parties. But they need one more piece to really take off: social P2P sharing. Strip articles of ads, share them in a p2p protocol (which could also develop interest graph capabilities), add voting, maybe comments, and definitely include the article's pictures.
1 - it would be fantastic as a reader
2 - the entire news industry that is stuck in 1995 would be forced to adopt to a Spotify model or adopt the microtransactions that have been promised since the 90's.
I would love to subscribe to a single source for all news. I'd pay a hefty fee. I'd also be happy to pay $0.10 an article. (I'd learn to avoid sites that shill clickbait, too.)
This whole industry sucks for readers. I support anything that gets them to adapt to change and become more consumer friendly.
And in reality, there are far more than 20 websites that have interesting paywalled content.
I agree they may be pursuing a suboptimal strategy somehow. Not sure I would call it "absurd". Having 100k individuals producing music on Spotify might be great, but I'm not sure what the implications would be for getting my news that way. But if someone wants to start "Spotify for News", I'm interested. Not sure that NYT needs their paywalls worked around in order for that to happen though.
It's not that different from using archive.is etc Imo. Hacker news isn't usable without this anymore.
Edit: Found it. It's still against their rules. <https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/guideline...>
Seems to happen to every generation.
My philosophy has always been: Pay for things if you are able, it's convenient, and pricing is fair. And if piracy is easier than paying, piracy always wins.
It's the reason I buy all my video games now and rarely pirate music anymore, but half of my TV and movies come through my seedbox.
It's about being able to consume media on my own terms. Thanks to piracy, I can get the same quality content from another source and enjoy it however I want, on any device, online or offline.