What does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers from reading too many of their articles for free?

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:08:13 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

Downloading copyrighted material that was posted
illegally is an entirely different matter. That's a crime.

It's petrifyingly shocking how ignorant Mayayana just proved to be.

As is often the case, Mayayana is again dead wrong.
o Simply becasue Mayayana believes only in his intuition

Mayayana is immune to facts.
o We've shown he's 0% factual 100% intuitive many times
(e.g., ski masks, and bank robbers, in the past)

Mayayana is immune to facts - where downloading is not what's illegal.

If you don't know the reason, you should ask first, before claiming that
mere _downloading_ of copyrighted material is illegal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but simply "downloading" is not the crime for
copyrighted material (otherwise, everyone reading a news article would be
guilty of a crime, everyone looking at a copyrighted photo, everyone
torrenting a movie, etc.).

It's the _distribution_ that's the crime, I think, where there are
something like a half dozen tenets (e.g., if there is no commercial loss,
educational use, substantial changes, different market, etc.).

One of those tenets is "substantial" based.

You have to not only distribute, but you have to distribute the copyrighted
material (almost?) in it entirety in key cases (e.g., Google Books), which
is why there have been zero copyright infringement cases that were won by
the copyright holder in the USA in the history of the Internet, for
torrented movies, that were contested by the defendant.

Think about that.
o Zero.

I repeat... contrary to what Mayayana claimed, downloading is not illegal.

It's distribution which is illegal, and it has to be "substantial".

Hence, given the peculiarities of torrenting, for example...
o *Zero contested US movie torrenting cases have _ever_ been successful.*

Zero.

Did I mention that number, zero, enough yet?

Zero.

There's a good reason for that _zero_; but before those morons who claim
all situations are illegal (as Alan Baker apparently claimed on the NYT), I
repeat there have been _zero_ successful US movie torrenting cases which
were contested by the defendent last we checked in depth.

If you don't know the reason, you should ask first, before claiming that
mere _downloading_ of copyrighted material is illegal.

Distrubution is what's illegal (AFAIK), and, even so, Google Books won a
landmark case on distrubution of copyrighted material in that the
distrubution must be "substantial" and it must "impact" the intended
market.

In summary, yet again, for the umpteenth time, Mayayana has shown to be
ignorant simply because he filters out facts that matter - so he's dead
wrong - yet again - due to his own inability to comprehend basic facts.
--
I'm sure nospam remembers argueing with me on that zero number where there
is one very strange side case where the lawyers were barred where they won,
but they broke the law in doing so, which we can dig up if we must.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 05:23:41 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts wrote:

probaly not even fraud

Holy **** Jason Betts?

It's trivial to show that Jason Betts is an utter moron.
o Does Jason Betts even _know_ what "fraud" is?

Fraud requires at least five and often eight specific tenets
o Depending on criminal versus civil and the various legal jurisdictions

It's not even copyright infringement, let alone fraud for Christ sake.

Jesus Christ... it's not even against what the online media _want_ casual
users to do, let alone "copyright infringement" (as the morons Mayayana and
nospam seem to have claimed), nor, heaven forbid, "theft" (as the utter
imbecile Alan Baker seems to have claimed).

Have absolutely _none_ of you even 1 working synapse in your little brains?

Absolutely zero of you either read or _comprehended_ what was said he
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/c9d-U34syZo/Uo1FvO8cCgAJ
--
What petrifies me is not so much that you post imbecilic crap to Usenet...
o What petrifies me is that people like you & nospam & Mayayana can vote.

Mayayana wrote:

Downloading copyrighted material that was posted illegally is an
entirely different matter. That's a crime. But reading the NYT is
exactly how the Internet was designed to work. If they don't want
you to see it then it's up to them to not make it public.

Couple of examples:

1) Amazon allows you to read a free sample of their ebooks. The
sample quits after a designated number of pages. Amazon does so to
entice you buy the ebook. But you figure out a way to download the ebook
for free.

2) The NYT allows you to read a free sample of their newspaper.
The sample quits after a designated number of pages. NYT does so to
entice you to buy a newspaper subscription. But you figure out a way to
download the newspaper (subscription) for free.

Which of the above is a theft?

Another possibility for the cheapies of you out the Many of Amazon's
ebooks (1000s?) are short stories. And the 1st short story in many of
the free samples can be read in its entirety for free. If you search out
these freebe short stories with the intent of never buying an ebook is
that theft?

(Kinda reminds me of those who go to Costco and make a meal of the free
samples

Anyway if I've given you an new idea to try, let me just say that it works
better with Google Play Books because their free samples are longer...

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:46:01 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

Anyway if I've given you an new idea to try, let me just say that it works
better with Google Play Books because their free samples are longer

And Google doesn't even own the copyright to the Google Books!
o They won a landmark case where US copyright has a half dozen key tenets

All of which substantially have to be satisfied
o Not even one of which is inherent in reading news on the Internet

Alan Baker calls reading teh news online, "stealing"; and Mayayana claims
that just downloading the news page to your browser is "copyright
infringement", which just proves that these posters are clearly morons.

The point is that "stealing" (as the obvious imbecile Alan Baker contends),
is ridiculous, since it's documented well that the newspapers _design_ in
the back doors and leaky paywalls.

It's not even copyright infringement, for Christs sake.
o Leaky paywalls and back doors are part of their standard business model.

It's nothing other than the classic "Free loaf of bread" sample teaser to
get you in the store.

They'd rather have you there, than go somewhere else for essentially the
same thing, as they gain 16x more revenue from advertising than they do
subscriptions from the whales (see the references in this post below):
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/c9d-U34syZo/Uo1FvO8cCgAJ
--
It's only shocking that people on this newsgroup such as Mayayana, Alan
Baker, and Jason Betts are so fantastically stupid; but it's petrifying to
realize that they're _that_ stupid, and still... they are allowed to vote.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:01:39 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

It's nothing other than the classic "Free loaf of bread" sample teaser to
get you in the store.

Rather than "stealing" as the moron Alan Baker contends, or even copyright
infringement as the clueless Betts, Mayayana & nospam contend...

It's kind of akin to the free samples that many stores offer, where, if you
really want five pounds of that wonderfully tasting cheese, you can buy
that five pound product _after_ tasting the free samples.
--
Or, you can keep circling back to taste the samples until you get bored.

"123456789" wrote

| Downloading copyrighted material that was posted illegally is an
| entirely different matter. That's a crime. But reading the NYT is
| exactly how the Internet was designed to work. If they don't want
| you to see it then it's up to them to not make it public.
|
| Couple of examples:
|
| 1) Amazon allows you to read a free sample of their ebooks. The
| sample quits after a designated number of pages. Amazon does so to
| entice you buy the ebook. But you figure out a way to download the ebook
| for free.
|
| 2) The NYT allows you to read a free sample of their newspaper.
| The sample quits after a designated number of pages. NYT does so to
| entice you to buy a newspaper subscription. But you figure out a way to
| download the newspaper (subscription) for free.
|
| Which of the above is a theft?
|

Those are not comparable. If you manage to find the whole
ebook you're downloading an illegal copy that Amazon did not
put online. In the case of NYT you're just asking them for
a file, page1.html, and they're giving it to you. If they want
to block all visitors from behind a true paywall and require some
kind of secure login, they could do that. What they're trying to
do is to have it both ways -- to put their site out in public but
push people to pay and allow spying.

It just doesn't work that way. My browser goes to their
server and says, "Can I have page1.html?". The server
responds "Okey doke. Here you go." The browser then reads
the page and, based on my settings, will request other files,
like images, CSS and so on. NYT server gives me those
files. I don't steal them.

Youtube and streaming is similar. There's really no such thing
as streaming. Software goes to the server and says, "Can I
have video X?" The server say, "Okey doke. Here you go."
The software then begins to display the video as it's downloading
and deletes it when it's done. So it seems like a broadcast. But it's
not. It's just a file download. Everything you see online is a file
download. Youtube tries to obfuscate the source so that you
can't do a direct download to save as a file. But again, they're
trying to pretend the Internet is something it's not. Whether I
stream the video or use a program to download the whole file,
it's the same thing. In both cases I'm downloading xyz.mp4 from
youtube. And in both cases youtube willingly gave me that file.
They can do as they like to obfuscate the process, but they can
hardly claim I don't have a right to see the video they just gave me.

| Another possibility for the cheapies of you out there

Cheapies?
You're paying with the ads and spyware. How do you think
Google is a multi-billion dollar company? It wasn't an honest
day's work that got them there. It's ads and spying. They make
so much on ads and spying that they give away their software
products.

I'm not refusing to pay for anything. I'm just choosing sites
where I'm not spied on. As I said earlier, if they put ads on
their page that's OK. I won't remove them. But just because
I went to nytimes.com that doesn't give nytimes a right to
trick me into going to sleazyspy.com. I didn't request any files
from sleazyspy.com. That's not part of the NYT webpage.

And I already have a paid subscription to NYT, so I have a
subscription to their website. But I don't use it because that
involves being spied on. I wouldn't accept a video camera
embedded in the newspaper. I don't accept one online.

Before you judge others' use of the Internet you have to
understand how it actually works. Admittedly they've made
it difficult to understand, but facts are facts. No one is
stealing by blocking ads or script. Those webpage files are
given willingly by public-facing servers. That was the intention
from the first: Anyone who wants to puts files online and
anyone who wants to can have a copy. If a website wants to
set up their own closed, commercial site then they're exploiting
the open access backbone of the Internet. They should be
paying for that. But there's no such thing as a contract that
says I have to visit sleazyspy.com if I download your webpage.
The Internet has no way to even design such a contract.
The whole thing works on single GETS, reqests for single files
which are generally provided. The server can tell you the file
is moved, they can refuse to give you the file, or they can give
you the file. But there's no way to make that provision conditional.

This misunderstanding is what subscription software
and services are all about. Microsoft, Google, Adobe,
and others are trying to remove control of your computer
and the software you use, then seell it all back to you
while they spy on you and show you ads. Apple's succeeded
the most, which is why AppleSeeds like Alan Baker think
the way they do. Apple's been screwing them and restricting
what they can do for so long that they don't even know it.
They just gratefully praise the master, Timmy Cook and
his 3rd-world slave force, who provide the overpriced,
restrictive idevices. Apple is the new AOL. AppleSeeds think
that's normal. Apple extorts a 30% fee from software
developers on the idevices, and controls which programs
can even be installed. By contrast, I can write any Windows
software I like. I can give it away or sell it. Microsoft has
no role in that. And my software will install on any Windows
machine. I don't need a license from MS. But that's coming.

Microsoft saw how much Apple was making on their scams.
They want a piece of the action. Ditto for Google. If they
have it their way you'll eventually log onto AOL-MS, AOLApple,
or AOLGoog. They'll control what you can do or see. They'll
spy nonstop. And they'll set companies like NYT against each
other in bidding wars for access to your browser. If NYT doesn't
provide a kickback, they won't get through. So NYT will have
even more ads. Eventually it will be like network TV: 3 minutes
of ads for antacids and happy pills for every 2 minutes of
washed out nonsense like America's Got Talent or Family Feud
or CSI BloodGorePlus. And how will they do that? They'll be
using the core Internet backbone that our taxes pay to maintain.

So you're not being honest. You're just being a sucker.

"Welcome to the new AOL. Would you like to order a
hedgeclipper now or would you prefer to be reminded in 10
minutes?... How about getting a new credit card while you wait?
Or we could remind you in 10 minutes...Have a great rest of
your day... Special today on Black Lives Matter t-shirts or
ladies thongs, in pink, gray and stylish black. Would
you like to buy now or be reminded in 10 minutes?... Please
stand by for today's 3rd system update... Feel free to continue
shopping while new features are installed... Are you ready to buy
those hedgeclippers now, or do you need another 10 minutes?..."

"Soviet_Mario" wrote

| I see ... I normally (but maybe it's not enough) use to not
| use paste & go in the urls bar, but just paste, then
| manually CLEAN the url keeping what seems reasonable and
| wipe the "referral". But maybe this is too few as some info
| may well be sent out even during url composition (I keep
| autocompletion ON for it's handy and spare typing on known
| sites)
|
Indeed. They've got you coming and going, as we say
in the US.

| if cleanup made in the url bar is unsafe

No. But autocomplete leaks data. I don't enable anything
like that, but the main reason I use Notepad is just convenience.
A fullscale Google spyware URL is very long.

| That's complicated and I don't think you can easily know
| all the details.
|
| sure ! That was not observation discovered by myself. I had
| seen a dossier from "Report" TV where they explained those
| mechanisms. Then, informed, I started to observe more carefully

Yes, but there are numerous complications and variations.
It's very involved to actually prevent being tracked. Do you
block Google Analytics on HOSTS? If not they probably track
most of the sites you visit. That's just one of many. But each
site will have different issues.

|
| They use numerous
| domains and offer numerous free services to webmasters.
| Analytics, ad income, fonts, jquery, maps, recaptcha... all freebies
| that allow webmasters to add functionality with just a line of
| script. They don't have to know what they're doing. The result
| is that almost every commercial site has Google links. So unless
| you make an effort, Google always knows where you are.
|
| but with noscript most sites stop working
|
Maybe most sites you use. I rarely enable script. When
I do, I use NoScript so I can enable that site without enabling
unnecessary spyware. Here's what I have in my HOSTS file
(which allows wildcards, unlike the Windows HOSTS file)
just for Google:

127.0.0.1 *.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 *.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 *.googlecommerce.com
127.0.0.1 *.1e100.com
127.0.0.1 *.1e100.net
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 *.googletagservices.com
127.0.0.1 *.googletagmanager.com
127.0.0.1 *.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 fonts.googleapis.com
127.0.0.1 *.2mdn.net
127.0.0.1 googleadapis.l.google.com
127.0.0.1 *.gstatic.com
127.0.0.1 plusone.google.com
127.0.0.1 cse.google.com
127.0.0.1 www.google.com/cse
127.0.0.1 www.youtube-nocookie.com
127.0.0.1 *.appspot.com

But it can mes things up. Without gstatic.com you
can't even see a recaptcha.

| Then
| there's Facebook.
|
| there I have disabled "app functionalities" : I cannot sign,
| subscribe, auth anything with FB.
|
I have them in my HOSTS file. I couldn't visit if I
wanted to.

| We have that here, too. Sometimes you really have to
| subscribe and let them spy on you if you want to read it.
| Other times it's obscured by CSS. I have a button in FF
| and New Moon, on the toolbar, to toggle CSS. You can
| also do it via Menu - View - Page Style.
|
| intresting. But requires more skills than I have. When I try
| to use debug tools (once upon a time dragonfly of Opera),
| very often I get broken pages.
|
Unfortunately, this stuff is both difficult and tedious.

| I use that button a lot because so many pages are now
| horrendously designed, having gigantic text for phones.
| Other pages have rigged links, designed to only work with
| script by using CSS to put an invisible object on top of the
| link. Crazy stuff. So it's often worth checking whether
| disabling CSS will help.
|
| How you customized FF/palemoon to create a button associated
| with a command ?
|
It's an extension. But I don't think it works in the
new crippled Firefox. 66+ or whatever it is.

| The one saving
| grace is that the Internet was not designed that way. The New York
| Times has neither the means nor the right to block any pages
| they put online. They gave them away by the act of putting
| them online!
|
| this is not entirely true.
| This argumentation seems like there is a pre-existing space
| owned by "people" and they occupy it placing there their
| contents, so that anyone is entitled to prey on
| In fact there was nothing : they created a place and I think
| they can surely hide their contents, but not to spy. Just
| put a wall where you wittingly enter login credentials for
| protected contents.

Yes, they can do that. But they want to force ads and
limit pageloads on public pages. They're giving those files
away. They've set those files on a public-facing server
and anyone can ask for a copy. If they give you their webpage
there's no contract there saying you must also view an ad.
Your browser just asked for page1.html and they gave it
to you.

The Internet is public space. The NYTimes server is private,
but they've basically set up a front door on the Internet.
Anyone is free to visit nytimes.com. NYT can block you, but
if they let you have a file they can't impose terms. Nevertheless,
many sites are trying to do that. "By using this site you agree..."
But they had to have already given me the files in order for me
to see that unilateral notice! It's nonsense. I didn't agree to
anything. I just asked, "Can I have that webpage?" And they
said, "Sure. Here it is."



| Think that since maybe 6-7 years, I abandoned every
| drugstore and real shops "cards" (collecting "points" to get
| some discount), and I also started to pay with cash whenever
| possible. I'm getting very insofferent (annoyed) with
| nosyness with what I consume or not and my habits.
|

Me too. But it's becoming unusual. I go into the supermarket
stand there holding out cash. The young clerks, especially
usually don't notice. They turn away and diddle their phones,
waiting for me to finish with my non-existent debit card.
Then finally they notice the money. "Oh! Cash."

| (Not that I pay for it willingly. I live with a woman who grew
| up in Brooklyn. She has to subscribe to the NYT in order to
| retain NYC citizenship, as I understand it.
|
| ? ? Can't figure out what this mean
|
It was a joke. She wants the NYT because she grew up there.
Being a New Yorker is a big thing. Like a Roman 2000 years ago,
I suppose. And being from Brooklyn is "hip". So she likes to
maintain her sense of connection to NYC.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Downloading copyrighted material that was posted illegally is an
| entirely different matter. That's a crime. But reading the NYT is
| exactly how the Internet was designed to work. If they don't want
| you to see it then it's up to them to not make it public.
|
| Couple of examples:
|
| 1) Amazon allows you to read a free sample of their ebooks. The
| sample quits after a designated number of pages. Amazon does so to
| entice you buy the ebook. But you figure out a way to download the ebook
| for free.
|
| 2) The NYT allows you to read a free sample of their newspaper.
| The sample quits after a designated number of pages. NYT does so to
| entice you to buy a newspaper subscription. But you figure out a way to
| download the newspaper (subscription) for free.
|
| Which of the above is a theft?
|

Those are not comparable. If you manage to find the whole
ebook you're downloading an illegal copy that Amazon did not
put online. In the case of NYT you're just asking them for
a file, page1.html, and they're giving it to you. If they want
to block all visitors from behind a true paywall and require some
kind of secure login, they could do that.

they did do that.

What they're trying to
do is to have it both ways -- to put their site out in public but
push people to pay and allow spying.

no, what they're doing is offering a limited number of articles for
free so that people are more inclined to subscribe.

It just doesn't work that way. My browser goes to their
server and says, "Can I have page1.html?". The server
responds "Okey doke. Here you go." The browser then reads
the page and, based on my settings, will request other files,
like images, CSS and so on. NYT server gives me those
files. I don't steal them.

the server then checks to see if you have an active subscription and
decides what to send.

nothing is perfect and there are ways to fool it, but if you do, you're
deliberately obtaining content for which you are not entitled.

Youtube and streaming is similar. There's really no such thing
as streaming. Software goes to the server and says, "Can I
have video X?" The server say, "Okey doke. Here you go."
The software then begins to display the video as it's downloading
and deletes it when it's done. So it seems like a broadcast. But it's
not. It's just a file download. Everything you see online is a file
download. Youtube tries to obfuscate the source so that you
can't do a direct download to save as a file. But again, they're
trying to pretend the Internet is something it's not. Whether I
stream the video or use a program to download the whole file,
it's the same thing. In both cases I'm downloading xyz.mp4 from
youtube. And in both cases youtube willingly gave me that file.
They can do as they like to obfuscate the process, but they can
hardly claim I don't have a right to see the video they just gave me.

not all streaming is a file download, in particular, live streaming,
and what comes next hasn't happened yet.

live streaming is normally recorded and made available for download at
a later time, except that the pre-show, post-show and flubs are
removed, which are often the most interesting part.



This misunderstanding is what subscription software
and services are all about. Microsoft, Google, Adobe,
and others are trying to remove control of your computer
and the software you use, then seell it all back to you
while they spy on you and show you ads.

nope.

subscription software is simply an alternate business model.

in some cases it's cheaper and in others it's not. the user can decide
what works best.

in every case, users have full control over their computer, what
software they use and without question, all documents they create are
*theirs*.

Apple's succeeded
the most, which is why AppleSeeds like Alan Baker think
the way they do. Apple's been screwing them and restricting
what they can do for so long that they don't even know it.

apple has the least restrictions of any of the above mentioned
companies.

They just gratefully praise the master, Timmy Cook and
his 3rd-world slave force, who provide the overpriced,
restrictive idevices. Apple is the new AOL. AppleSeeds think
that's normal. Apple extorts a 30% fee from software
developers on the idevices, and controls which programs
can even be installed.

nonsense.

apple has *no* control whatsoever over what apps developers write or
what users choose to install.

the 30% cut for the app store (apple, google, microsoft) includes a
variety of services that would otherwise need to somehow be paid,
including hosting, download bandwidth, product exposure, payment
processing, etc.

for an indie developer, it's very likely that those costs would be
*higher* than 30% if they did it on their own. creating a decent web
site ain't cheap.

By contrast, I can write any Windows
software I like. I can give it away or sell it. Microsoft has
no role in that. And my software will install on any Windows
machine.

exactly the same with apple.

*anyone* can write any mac or ios software they want, give it away or
sell it and publish the source code if they want, all without apple
even knowing about it.

apple even offered free classes to learn about writing apps at the
apple stores before they were shut down for covid.

I don't need a license from MS.

nor does anyone need a license from apple or google.

But that's coming.

no it's not.

On 26.06.20 14:49, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2020-06-26, 123456789 wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

They are offering to show you a small number of articles for free each
period (month, IIRC); after which you are expected to subscribe if you
want more.

You want to subvert the process and get content for free that you are
not entitled to received.

That's theft.

No it's not, I have not deprived them of the article.
probaly not even fraud, as there's no material loss.

Go to the pirate sites (or Usenet binary groups) and download all the
free commercial ebooks and music you want.

I will take not such action merely on the advice of an internet bozo
like you.

There's no material loss to the authors/musicians so no theft. Right?

Correctimundo piracy is not theft. Simpletons and liars seems to like
to conflate Copyright infringement and Theft. Perhaps you're fallen
victim to the minitrations of one of them.

Furthermore nowhere am I required to limit the number
of free articles I read.

Not if you're a good cookie killer...

Not by any terms and condions I could find on the NYT website.


Is it my imagination, or are some people telling us that we are
not free to clean out kookies?

On 2020-06-25 10:23 p.m., Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2020-06-25, Alan Baker wrote:


To Alan Baker, the "buy one get one free" model is "stealing" one jug of milk!
o He's literally _that_ stupid.

Ummmmmm.... ....no.

The NYT is not offering a "buy one get one free" model.

They are offering to show you a small number of articles for free each
period (month, IIRC); after which you are expected to subscribe if you
want more.

You want to subvert the process and get content for free that you are
not entitled to received.

That's theft.

No it's not, I have not deprived them of the article.

And copying a book doesn't deprive the original publisher of it.

probaly not even fraud, as there's no material loss.
Furthermore nowhere am I required to limit the number
of free articles I read.

The NY Times places a limit on that.

On 2020-06-26 12:55 p.m., Sjouke Burry wrote:
On 26.06.20 14:49, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2020-06-26, 123456789 wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

They are offering to show you a small number of articles for free each
period (month, IIRC); after which you are expected to subscribe if you
want more.

You want to subvert the process and get content for free that you are
not entitled to received.

That's theft.

No it's not, I have not deprived them of the article.
probaly not even fraud, as there's no material loss.

Go to the pirate sites (or Usenet binary groups) and download all the
free commercial ebooks and music you want.

I will take not such action merely on the advice of an internet bozo
like you.

There's no material loss to the authors/musicians so no theft. Right?

Correctimundo piracy is not theft.Â* Simpletons and liars seems to like
to conflate Copyright infringement and Theft. Perhaps you're fallen
victim to the minitrations of one of them.

Furthermore nowhere am I required to limit the number
of free articles I read.

Not if you're a good cookie killer...

Not by any terms and condions I could find on the NYT website.


Is it my imagination, or are some people telling us that we are
not free to clean out kookies?

Nope.

You are completely free to do so.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 21:55:23 +0200, Sjouke Burry wrote:

Is it my imagination, or are some people telling us that we are
not free to clean out kookies?

It's not your imagination of what they are "attempting" to claim...

What some of them are saying is you're _stealing_ if you read an article,
clean out your cookies, and then read the _next_ article (repeat as
needed).

And they don't even realize themselves, _that_ is what they're claiming.

They literally don't realize they're claiming cleaning cookies... is
stealing... if you clean them out so that you can read the next article.
--
It's the same as if you eat one sample of food at Costco, go around to the
end of the line, and come back for seconds (repeat as needed) when they let
you do that.

Mayayana wrote:

If you manage to find the whole ebook you're downloading an illegal
copy that Amazon did not put online.

IF I figured out a way to scam the system and get AMAZON to send me a
$10 ebook for free it would be the same as me figuring out a way to scam
the system and get the NYT to send me a $1 newspaper (to which I'm not
entitled) for free. Most would call the Amazon caper a theft. Why not
the NYT caper?

If they want
to block all visitors from behind a true paywall and require some
kind of secure login, they could do that.

So I should replace the lock on my door with a better one just to make
sure the thieves can't break in quite so easily? And yes they ARE
thieves...

I already have a paid subscription to NYT, so I have a subscription
to their website. But I don't use it because that involves being
spied on.

Become a thief and do it my way and they'll have no clue who you are.

Before you judge others' use of the Internet

I'm judging myself. After all I'm the admitted thief here.

BTW for the discussion I'm using the generic form of the word 'thief'
and 'steal'. If I take something from you without your permission
I'm stealing and am a thief. Simple...

"123456789" wrote

|If I take something from you without your permission
| I'm stealing and am a thief. Simple...

Yes. We agree there. Now look up http protocol
and GET.

On 2020-06-26, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:01:39 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

It's nothing other than the classic "Free loaf of bread" sample teaser to
get you in the store.

Rather than "stealing" as the moron Alan Baker contends, or even copyright
infringement as the clueless Betts, Mayayana & nospam contend...

It's kind of akin to the free samples that many stores offer, where, if you
really want five pounds of that wonderfully tasting cheese, you can buy
that five pound product _after_ tasting the free samples.

You stupid ****! I never claimed that!

--
Jasen.