Is defeating a paywall piracy?

[Blackhawk]

We can't say, right?- because perhaps some people aren't paying for it because they have the option not to.

I mean, when I hit a paywall my mind has no problem saying "Nope, if you want me to pay for it, I will pass"... Other people, apparently, say "Urrrg! I want this - but - I don't want to pay for it though!!!"

If you are looking at the product (game, article, movie) you are a potential 'customer'. It's the 'price' you don't like.

For many people the statement is, "Urrrg! I can't pay for this and likely won't be able to in the future." Those people aren't potential customers. They were never part of the market to begin with. They're like people who make minimum wage going to an open house for a high-end home, or browsing the Lamborghini lot. There is no sales pitch that will make them a customer.

Note: This doesn't apply to me, and isn't my 'justification.' If I really wanted to subscribe to a few news pages, I could do so by giving up something else (say, giving up new board games would pay for both NYT and WaPo subscriptions. I could choose a year of one or the or the other for what I spend on video games in a year. I could do both by giving up tea. ) But this is where the right/wrong discussion falls into shades of gray. There's a difference between a rich kid stealing wi-fi for the fun of it and a poor family stealing wi-fi because they don't have any other way to get it. Not all wrongs are equal.

[Blackhawk]

After reading the discussion, I changed my vote to yes. But it's like pleading guilty with an explanation. I never knowingly go to a paywalled newspaper site with the intent of stealing. Once in a while I follow a link from an OO'er to a news article and discover a paywall. At that point I will peer around the block to see if I can pick up the gist of the article. Then I will move on. If I absolutely must know, I will ask the OP to provide the gist of the article.

What about when someone posts an entire article, often specifically because it is paywalled? I've seen it here quite a few times (back in the olden days we'd edit those down and give warnings.)

[hepcat]

Side story: one of my oldest friends in the world went to the same college as I. He worked as a bouncer in the bar where I DJ'd for booze money every weekend. After we finished up, we'd usually go to a late night diner for food. One night, we sat down and ordered our food. While we were waiting, the table next to us got their food....then saw someone in the parking lot they apparently had a feud with and went outside to fight. While they were out there fighting, my friend reached across the aisle and grabbed one of their meals and proceeded to eat it while watching the fight. By the time they'd finished fighting/yelling at each other, the rest of us received and finished our food (in my friend's case, he finished his second meal). As we were paying and walking out the door, they walked in and one of them yelled, "WHAT THE HELL!" just as we left.

For that instance of stealing, I feel perfectly fine.

What about when someone posts an entire article, often specifically because it is paywalled? I've seen it here quite a few times (back in the olden days we'd edit those down and give warnings.)

Now we're just trying to feel out the boundaries.

[Jaymann]

After reading the discussion, I changed my vote to yes. But it's like pleading guilty with an explanation. I never knowingly go to a paywalled newspaper site with the intent of stealing. Once in a while I follow a link from an OO'er to a news article and discover a paywall. At that point I will peer around the block to see if I can pick up the gist of the article. Then I will move on. If I absolutely must know, I will ask the OP to provide the gist of the article.

What about when someone posts an entire article, often specifically because it is paywalled? I've seen it here quite a few times (back in the olden days we'd edit those down and give warnings.)

That's like looking into a pirate's chest, but not taking anything.

[Daehawk]

Next poll, is using an ad blocker piracy?

Not in the least. Its like fast forwarding commercials.

[Daehawk]

Back in Ye Olden Days I used to read the paper every day - by reading a copy someone else left in the lunchroom.

Was I stealing? I was consuming paid content I didn't pay for.

Did you read all the ads?

[hepcat]

Next poll, is using an ad blocker piracy?

That one I can see as a legitimate discussion. I use ad blockers routinely. I've never entertained the notion that I was stealing anything because the material I was going to wasn't a paid service. However, I am going around the very thing that generates the revenue that allows that service to exist. But if we decide it is wrong, we're essentially stating that everyone has to read every ad found in every item they consume. Something no one on Earth does...except maybe Kraken. That guy's weird.

[stessier]

I voted yes for piracy. I also think blocking ads is wrong (and I don't do it). If you can't accept the risk, then don't use the sites with ads. Blocking the owners' from making their income is wrong and no one is entitled to what is being published online.

[stessier]

But if we decide it is wrong, we're essentially stating that everyone has to read every ad found in every item they consume.

I disagree with that. The model gets paid per impression (and more per click). So you just have to give them the opportunity to present their wares - you don't have to take notice.

I will agree Kraken is weird though.

[Blackhawk]

Which suggests that it is, in fact, a paid service, it's just not paid for by the viewer. Is preventing a third party from paying for works you consume piracy, or something else? Is there even a word for that?

But as was said earlier, blocking ads is one form of questionable behavior with a legitimate justification I'll stand behind: safety. When even the NYT can accidentally serve malware in their ads, ads are unsafe.

[Jaymann]

Next poll, is using an ad blocker piracy?

That one I can see as a legitimate discussion. I use ad blockers routinely. I've never entertained the notion that I was stealing anything because the material I was going to wasn't a paid service. However, I am going around the very thing that generates the revenue that allows that service to exist. But if we decide it is wrong, we're essentially stating that everyone has to read every ad found in every item they consume. Something no one on Earth does...except maybe Kraken. That guy's weird.

I see you are using an Ad Blocker. Please consider turning it off before reading the content below.

Spoiler:

Buy at Curio City!

[hepcat]

But if we decide it is wrong, we're essentially stating that everyone has to read every ad found in every item they consume.

I disagree with that. The model gets paid per impression (and more per click). So you just have to give them the opportunity to present their wares - you don't have to take notice.

Good point.

I will agree Kraken is weird though.

An equally good point.

I see you are using an Ad Blocker. Please consider turning it off before reading the content below.

Spoiler:

Buy at Curio City!

Damn it! Another friggin' trojan.

[Kraken]

Proudly flying my freak flag.

[Paingod]

I haven't surfed without an Ad-Blocker down since I discovered them. When a website throws up a wall and tells me to disengage the blockers, I just walk away. If I'm really curious about an article, I might right-click the page and "View Page Source" and scroll down to the raw text.

Some places have increasingly gotten privy to that, but the extent of my effort in trying to get around their security only extends to what I can find that they've openly published behind shoddy protections I can skip with two-clicks built right into every browser. I've never even considered trying to skirt a paywall with more effort or other software.

I will admit to downloading things I couldn't find for sale and/or had bought a legit copy of but it was ruined somehow - like if an activation server went down permanently; no qualms downloading a cracked EXE to play the game. I never got into downloading music and movies, and since the rise of Netflix I haven't even been buying physical media anymore unless it's a flick I absolutely love.

I do know someone who used the physical Netflix subscription and literally burned every single disc they got to a backup drive. They didn't even watch most of what they received in the mail. Burn it, send it back, get another, repeat.

[LawBeefaroni]

Piracy is stealing. Piracy is not theft.

Does not compute. When has piracy ever NOT been theft? When has theft ever NOT been stealing?

Stealing is taking something without permission. Piracy fits that.

Theft requires that the owner is deprived of whatever is taken. After one pirates (a movie, a game, an article), the item is still there. It remains in the owner's possession.

It remains in their possession, sure, but at diminished value for every act of "piracy". The more people "take but don't steal," the more they are taking monetary value away form the IP holder.

[hitbyambulance]

I do know someone who used the physical Netflix subscription and literally burned every single disc they got to a backup drive. They didn't even watch most of what they received in the mail. Burn it, send it back, get another, repeat.

this is pretty common. i do wonder what percentage of digital piracy is driven by hoarding impulses stemming from neuroses or whatever

[Sudy]

Publishers may have the right to set the price of content. But sometimes the price is wrong. And there are certain fururists who are willing to give the market a shove.

I'll agree that bypassing paywalls is stealing. If you can afford the content, it's at the very least morally questionable if you don't pay for it. I'm sure there are many decent rationalizations for why people have done it. I've never used an add-on or extension to bypass paywalls, but I've occasionally switched browsers. But if you go to a site and and use its subscription-only content every day, it's pretty crummy of you not to pay for it.

That said, many traditional newspapers are in the position of trying to avoid extinction, and their online models come off as strange or frustrating. People would rarely buy a newspaper from a box or newstand for one article. Outside of major events or ongoing columns, you wouldn't know a lot of a paper's content day-to-day. But you could buy just one without subscribing. For one of Toronto's biggest papers, the online subscription options (outside of limited trials) are $19.99 a month (= 66¢ a day) or $125 (= 34¢ a day) a year. (Coincidentally, they also own the major local paper and there's less competition for municipal-focused news so it's almost your only choice.) But, you don't have the option of say, paying $1 to access the site for just one day.

There's also the shock that comes with written content largely being free to access for the first era of the internet (or at least, exclusively ad-supported), when it was largely viewed as secondary to or promotional for what was published physically. And then you have the online-only publications that have always been this way, and there's an asymmetry between very similar styles of content. I'm not saying this justifies it. But it explans some of it. It's frustrating that the ad market is so corrupt and obstrusive and doesn't seem viable anymore, if it ever were.

Then there are, of course, those who can afford it but who will always steal what they can get away with. There are also those who view this as a fight against corporate capitalism. I feel a connection with that, but can't abide the collateral damage. Even if you're not directly paying the individuals responsible for the content, they still deserve to eat.

[Sudy]

Is bypassing region coding or copy protection piracy? It really depends on your motives. Publishers may have the right to set the price of content, but how far do they get to control how we use it?

A multi-example musing. Stealing is always legally wrong, but the ethics can get complicated. Watching a movie you didn't pay for:

- Sneaking into a theatre, or viewing a camcorder bootleg for an active release: certainly wrong.
- Viewing a rip/copy of a film that's already been released to home markets: wrong, but potentially less financially damaging to the IP holder.
- The same, but for a years-old title: see above.
- Streaming a title on a file-sharing site the day after it left Netflix because you missed it and didn't know they were losing the license: lol.
- Borrowing a DVD from a friend: totally OK. Borrowing from a library: OK, presuming they're following licensing laws. Organizing a physical sharing group online: presumably fine.
- Logging into a friend's account to view a digital download: probably against the TOS, but often no barrier to doing so. "Lending" a legally-obtained digital file: likely against the TOS if there's no in-built mechanism, and considered piracy.
- Downloading or copying a movie that you previously purchased, but lost access to the file or the media was lost/damaged: ???.
- Downloading/copying a movie that's not currently in print/available, outside of the used market (see also: abandonware): ???, but feels fine.

Also, the used market in general. Publishers (and many creators) would love if it didn't exist, and with the takeover of digital distribution they may get their wish. For years they've tried to make us feel guilty for buying used. But with older content especially, it's often unclear whether our dollars are even supporting the original creators, or new content of the same type.

In that vein, now we have things like Spotify which are completely legal, yet make us feel guilty because all but the giant artists make peanuts from it.

[hitbyambulance]

In that vein, now we have things like Spotify which are completely legal, yet make us feel guilty because all but the giant artists make peanuts from it.

i think this is a topic that should be brought up more.

as an aside, if i want to hear an album that i don't have any intention of purchasing (and it's not available as a physical CD from the library), i now listen through the library music streaming services so the artist at least gets their royalty payment. Hoopla lets you 'check out' an album for seven days (the number of check-outs allotted to each user depends on the library - i get 15 at mine); each time it gets checked out, the artist gets paid. and if it's not available there, i go to Youtube Music and see if the album is streamable on the official artist channel (so they can get their few cents at least). if the artist is deceased... i'm not going to care very much where i listen to it.

[Sudy]

Yeah, that's a good point... I've started looking for the official Youtube channels and stream/link those when at all possible now. It seems like 95% of artists/labels release officially to Youtube now, because they know it's going to wind up there anyway.

I'd like to say that I'd stream on Spotify but still buy the releases of smaller artists on Bandcamp or something, but the reality is that I don't have a lot of disposable income, and I'd probably be too lazy even if I did. Ideally, fans/consumers wouldn't have to worry about this.

[gameoverman]

I'm inclined to think yes, inasmuch as it is knowingly taking measures to access content you are not entitled to.

What do you mean by 'taking measures'? If I can open my browser, direct it to a page, and see something there does that constitute 'taking measures'? Or is that just simply browsing the internet?

How do we determine what I'm entitled to? If Joe Schmoe has a website which he allows people to freely access, aren't I entitled to that webpage? If he has copyrighted material on that page is it my job to verify who owns it and if they gave Joe permission to use it? Isn't that his problem?

For example, I watch videos on Youtube. Many, a great many, channels have copyrighted material on them that the channel operators do not own. I watch the videos anyway because copyright issues are between the Youtuber, the copyright owner, and Youtube. It's not my job to police that stuff or rule on fair use.

[Alefroth]

I'm inclined to think yes, inasmuch as it is knowingly taking measures to access content you are not entitled to.

What do you mean by 'taking measures'? If I can open my browser, direct it to a page, and see something there does that constitute 'taking measures'? Or is that just simply browsing the internet?

If you open a browser, direct it to a page, and then see something, it doesn't sound like you are defeating a paywall. You don't just inadvertently defeat a paywall.

[LordMortis]

You don't just inadvertently defeat a paywall.

That depends on how the paywall is set up and how you are set up. IIRC, private browsing in Firegox used to defeat WaPo's paywall. I was inadvertently defeating it until they requested me not to do so. I respected their wishes and just to stop reading WaPo for the most part. Generally, though, I would agree. One would think that ultimate paywall would be log in to proceed, but I guess that shows what I know.

One thing I wish, is that when you google news that a paywall is listed in the link. If any other search engine can tell me that, someone let me know so I can start using them instead of google.

[Jeff V]

If the intent of the paywall is to provide a challenge where those who overcome it are welcome to help themselves to free content, then yes. Otherwise, it is stealing.

[Holman]

I'm inclined to think yes, inasmuch as it is knowingly taking measures to access content you are not entitled to.

What do you mean by 'taking measures'? If I can open my browser, direct it to a page, and see something there does that constitute 'taking measures'? Or is that just simply browsing the internet?

How do we determine what I'm entitled to? If Joe Schmoe has a website which he allows people to freely access, aren't I entitled to that webpage? If he has copyrighted material on that page is it my job to verify who owns it and if they gave Joe permission to use it? Isn't that his problem?

For example, I watch videos on Youtube. Many, a great many, channels have copyrighted material on them that the channel operators do not own. I watch the videos anyway because copyright issues are between the Youtuber, the copyright owner, and Youtube. It's not my job to police that stuff or rule on fair use.

Let's say that instead of buying a $75 role-playing-game hardback or the $30 pdf version of it, you go to a website where you know you can download a copy of the pdf for free.

You're fully aware that this is a pirate site and that you're getting around the rightful publisher's price. Is it somehow just a matter between the site owner and the publisher? Are you really not getting something illegally?

[Jeff V]

You Tube is a slightly different matter. Someone illegally posting copyrighted material is violating their TOS. It's not for the average consumer to decide if the content is provided with the owner's blessing or not. That would be between the poster, You Tube, and the copyright holder/claimant.

It's certainly not the same as evading a paywall to consume content that from the start is intended to be sold and not given away.

[Blackhawk]

I'm inclined to think yes, inasmuch as it is knowingly taking measures to access content you are not entitled to.

What do you mean by 'taking measures'? If I can open my browser, direct it to a page, and see something there does that constitute 'taking measures'? Or is that just simply browsing the internet?

How do we determine what I'm entitled to? If Joe Schmoe has a website which he allows people to freely access, aren't I entitled to that webpage? If he has copyrighted material on that page is it my job to verify who owns it and if they gave Joe permission to use it? Isn't that his problem?

For example, I watch videos on Youtube. Many, a great many, channels have copyrighted material on them that the channel operators do not own. I watch the videos anyway because copyright issues are between the Youtuber, the copyright owner, and Youtube. It's not my job to police that stuff or rule on fair use.

Let's say that instead of buying a $75 role-playing-game hardback or the $30 pdf version of it, you go to a website where you know you can download a copy of the pdf for free.

You're fully aware that this is a pirate site and that you're getting around the rightful publisher's price. Is it somehow just a matter between the site owner and the publisher? Are you really not getting something illegally?

That's not the same as his example. How many photos on (insert any social media) are copyrighted (hint: a lot.) Does that make everybody who browses social media and sees them a thief, given that it's pretty obvious that many items are infringing copyright? What's the option? Research each image you see? Don't browse any site that has the possibility of having some copyrighted content on it?

[Rumpy]

I haven't surfed without an Ad-Blocker down since I discovered them. When a website throws up a wall and tells me to disengage the blockers, I just walk away.

Yep, same. It's actually really wild how much better a site will function when you turn off half the stuff. For awhile, I know Eurogamer had the adblocker notice, but recently visited it and noticed they didn't block adblock users anymore. So, maybe there's a lesson to be learned there? I understand why they would do it in the first place, but it just feels like an aggressive and antagonistic measure. Most of us who block them block them for security purposes, and that to me is a sign that the ad-serving game has been on the decline. They can't really fault the user for that.

[Paingod]

I haven't surfed without an Ad-Blocker down since I discovered them. When a website throws up a wall and tells me to disengage the blockers, I just walk away.

Yep, same. It's actually really wild how much better a site will function when you turn off half the stuff. For awhile, I know Eurogamer had the adblocker notice, but recently visited it and noticed they didn't block adblock users anymore. So, maybe there's a lesson to be learned there? I understand why they would do it in the first place, but it just feels like an aggressive and antagonistic measure. Most of us who block them block them for security purposes, and that to me is a sign that the ad-serving game has been on the decline. They can't really fault the user for that.

If ever they devise a way to make ads genuinely safe, I may consider disabling the blocker. Banner ads never really bothered me. Pop-ups are obnoxious, though. Neither is a concern compared to knowing you can be force-fed a virus from a dark actor on the web exploiting the hole into your computer the ad creates, though.

[Holman]

I'm inclined to think yes, inasmuch as it is knowingly taking measures to access content you are not entitled to.

What do you mean by 'taking measures'? If I can open my browser, direct it to a page, and see something there does that constitute 'taking measures'? Or is that just simply browsing the internet?

How do we determine what I'm entitled to? If Joe Schmoe has a website which he allows people to freely access, aren't I entitled to that webpage? If he has copyrighted material on that page is it my job to verify who owns it and if they gave Joe permission to use it? Isn't that his problem?

For example, I watch videos on Youtube. Many, a great many, channels have copyrighted material on them that the channel operators do not own. I watch the videos anyway because copyright issues are between the Youtuber, the copyright owner, and Youtube. It's not my job to police that stuff or rule on fair use.

Let's say that instead of buying a $75 role-playing-game hardback or the $30 pdf version of it, you go to a website where you know you can download a copy of the pdf for free.

You're fully aware that this is a pirate site and that you're getting around the rightful publisher's price. Is it somehow just a matter between the site owner and the publisher? Are you really not getting something illegally?

That's not the same as his example. How many photos on (insert any social media) are copyrighted (hint: a lot.) Does that make everybody who browses social media and sees them a thief, given that it's pretty obvious that many items are infringing copyright? What's the option? Research each image you see? Don't browse any site that has the possibility of having some copyrighted content on it?

I see the difference, but there are lots of cases where the difference is one of degree. Seeing someone post copyrighted images on Facebook certainly doesn't feel like theft, but mainly because you know the poster isn't somehow profiting from the images.

But let's say that you had a friend who regularly (somehow, I know this isn't possible) posted ripped copies of the latest movies on his Facebook page. Even if he never charged for the viewing, wouldn't you feel that you were involved in something unethical if you kept going there to watch them?

[Rumpy]

I haven't surfed without an Ad-Blocker down since I discovered them. When a website throws up a wall and tells me to disengage the blockers, I just walk away.

Yep, same. It's actually really wild how much better a site will function when you turn off half the stuff. For awhile, I know Eurogamer had the adblocker notice, but recently visited it and noticed they didn't block adblock users anymore. So, maybe there's a lesson to be learned there? I understand why they would do it in the first place, but it just feels like an aggressive and antagonistic measure. Most of us who block them block them for security purposes, and that to me is a sign that the ad-serving game has been on the decline. They can't really fault the user for that.

If ever they devise a way to make ads genuinely safe, I may consider disabling the blocker. Banner ads never really bothered me. Pop-ups are obnoxious, though. Neither is a concern compared to knowing you can be force-fed a virus from a dark actor on the web exploiting the hole into your computer the ad creates, though.

Agreed. I don't think they ever will, to be honest. It baffles me how insecure the ad-servers happen to be though as it constantly happens. Even perfectly legitimate websites have been taken by infected ad-servers. So yeah, a site would be perfectly legitimate and ask users to trust the ad-system, but I think that's exactly how I got burned and ever since I've taken a proactive stance.

I remember rather amusingly, a website I won't name mostly because I forget the site's name, but it was reputable and asked users to trust its ad-server. Because, hey, we're safe right? Shortly after, users began reporting rogue ads. As reputable as some sites are, they're at the mercy of the ad-serving systems and they can't entirely promise that the ad-servers are safe.

[LordMortis]

I haven't surfed without an Ad-Blocker down since I discovered them. When a website throws up a wall and tells me to disengage the blockers, I just walk away.

Yep, same. It's actually really wild how much better a site will function when you turn off half the stuff. For awhile, I know Eurogamer had the adblocker notice, but recently visited it and noticed they didn't block adblock users anymore. So, maybe there's a lesson to be learned there? I understand why they would do it in the first place, but it just feels like an aggressive and antagonistic measure. Most of us who block them block them for security purposes, and that to me is a sign that the ad-serving game has been on the decline. They can't really fault the user for that.

If ever they devise a way to make ads genuinely safe, I may consider disabling the blocker. Banner ads never really bothered me. Pop-ups are obnoxious, though. Neither is a concern compared to knowing you can be force-fed a virus from a dark actor on the web exploiting the hole into your computer the ad creates, though.

This reminds me. I really need to put an ad blocker on my parents' computers. I don't tend to use them, as most sites I visit that don't have intrusive ads survive off them. There are some though where they allow the worst of the worst from ad servers and I reconsider my position.

[dbt1949]

I was on Yahoo email and got a message telling me to turn off ad blockers or I had to wait 15 seconds.

[gameoverman]

But let's say that you had a friend who regularly (somehow, I know this isn't possible) posted ripped copies of the latest movies on his Facebook page. Even if he never charged for the viewing, wouldn't you feel that you were involved in something unethical if you kept going there to watch them?

Part of what I was getting at is there is a difference between 'measures' you can take. On one end of the scale you can get around paying for something simply by viewing it somewhere someone else has posted it. That's completely passive on your part, you're only viewing a publicly accessible website. On the other end is using some kind of an exploit that allows you to bypass the paywall yourself.

My question is exactly where in that range from passive to active is the line that must not be crossed? Some might say if I know that site is posting copyrighted material that's a line being crossed by going there. The problem with that is most places online have copyrighted material posted and much of it is posted without license or permission. By that standard the entire internet is unethical. Is defeating a paywall piracy would be a simpler question to answer if there was only one way to bypass a paywall but such material might be accessed in more than one way.

[Blackhawk]

I rarely have money to just donate to creators, but I do have eyes and bandwidth. There are sites I really, really want to disable my ad blocker for right now, but won't because of the safety issues.

I still don't get why the big media companies don't get together and devise an iron-clad ad system, sort of the way the video game companies created the ESRB as a neutral third-party. Something internally served with tight security and limitations on the ads that disallows the stuff that people most object to (auto-play sound, vulgarity, and popups.) New ads are vetted by humans, and the services by which security is bypassed (Java, Flash, whatever the cool kids use these day) are forbidden. Establish it, create a credential for it (SafeAds Certificate or whatever.) I'd unblock those sites, gladly. I want to support those companies whose stuff I use, but I'm not willing to risk my security to do so. They could work out something equitable - cordon off 'sections' for each company so that each can run their own ad businesses independently, for instance, but any using it have to abide by the security measures.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I use sci-hub all the time to access research articles that my institution doesn't have access to. I suppose that it's technically piracy, but I have zero qualms about it. Many of these publishers are making money hands-over-fists since, with a few exceptions, their workforce is entirely volunteer based (e.g. the journal editors and peer-reviewers do the work for free) and much of the research is publicly funded. Even worse, many of these publishers have started charging exorbitant fees just to publish in them. For instance, a Nature journal announced last week that it would be charging researchers thousands of dollars just to submit their paper, with no guarantee of being published or even peer-reviewed. It's a huge scam but there isn't (yet) a large enough push from the scientific community to do something about it.

[Holman]

But let's say that you had a friend who regularly (somehow, I know this isn't possible) posted ripped copies of the latest movies on his Facebook page. Even if he never charged for the viewing, wouldn't you feel that you were involved in something unethical if you kept going there to watch them?

Part of what I was getting at is there is a difference between 'measures' you can take. On one end of the scale you can get around paying for something simply by viewing it somewhere someone else has posted it. That's completely passive on your part, you're only viewing a publicly accessible website. On the other end is using some kind of an exploit that allows you to bypass the paywall yourself.

My question is exactly where in that range from passive to active is the line that must not be crossed? Some might say if I know that site is posting copyrighted material that's a line being crossed by going there. The problem with that is most places online have copyrighted material posted and much of it is posted without license or permission. By that standard the entire internet is unethical. Is defeating a paywall piracy would be a simpler question to answer if there was only one way to bypass a paywall but such material might be accessed in more than one way.

It's hard to draw lines exactly. But I'd say that the fact of the material being on a "publicly accessible website" doesn't absolve one of anything. After all, just about all pirated material is publicly accessible somewhere if you know how to search for it. Going to such a site isn't entirely passive even if it requires less effort than bypassing the paywall yourself--you're just letting someone else bypass it for you.

EDIT: I should be clearer and agree that there there's still a lower end of the scale where it's all actually so passive that none of it matters. Someone posting copyrighted images on their Facebook or other website is a good example, since I'm unlikely to be interested in the photos anyway. (But someone might be, and in ways that then do matter.)

[Holman]

I use sci-hub all the time to access research articles that my institution doesn't have access to. I suppose that it's technically piracy, but I have zero qualms about it. Many of these publishers are making money hands-over-fists since, with a few exceptions, their workforce is entirely volunteer based (e.g. the journal editors and peer-reviewers do the work for free) and much of the research is publicly funded. Even worse, many of these publishers have started charging exorbitant fees just to publish in them. For instance, a Nature journal announced last week that it would be charging researchers thousands of dollars just to submit their paper, with no guarantee of being published or even peer-reviewed. It's a huge scam but there isn't (yet) a large enough push from the scientific community to do something about it.

Genuinely curious: what is sci-hub? (I'm a Humanities guy.)

Also, does your institution have Inter-Library Loan? If so, you should be able to get any article published anywhere. Is that different for science stuff?

[Rumpy]

I rarely have money to just donate to creators, but I do have eyes and bandwidth. There are sites I really, really want to disable my ad blocker for right now, but won't because of the safety issues.

I still don't get why the big media companies don't get together and devise an iron-clad ad system, sort of the way the video game companies created the ESRB as a neutral third-party. Something internally served with tight security and limitations on the ads that disallows the stuff that people most object to (auto-play sound, vulgarity, and popups.) New ads are vetted by humans, and the services by which security is bypassed (Java, Flash, whatever the cool kids use these day) are forbidden. Establish it, create a credential for it (SafeAds Certificate or whatever.) I'd unblock those sites, gladly. I want to support those companies whose stuff I use, but I'm not willing to risk my security to do so. They could work out something equitable - cordon off 'sections' for each company so that each can run their own ad businesses independently, for instance, but any using it have to abide by the security measures.

That'd be a great idea, and I really don't see why something like this hasn't already been done. The internet is only getting more complex as well. And it's quite clear that whitelists are not that great a solution and that something better needs to be implemented. Rogues have been known to getting in bed with some anti-adware/malware to get them to be removed from blacklists making these programs less trustworthy, so there definitely needs to be some certifiable standard that can't easily be circumvented.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I use sci-hub all the time to access research articles that my institution doesn't have access to. I suppose that it's technically piracy, but I have zero qualms about it. Many of these publishers are making money hands-over-fists since, with a few exceptions, their workforce is entirely volunteer based (e.g. the journal editors and peer-reviewers do the work for free) and much of the research is publicly funded. Even worse, many of these publishers have started charging exorbitant fees just to publish in them. For instance, a Nature journal announced last week that it would be charging researchers thousands of dollars just to submit their paper, with no guarantee of being published or even peer-reviewed. It's a huge scam but there isn't (yet) a large enough push from the scientific community to do something about it.

Genuinely curious: what is sci-hub? (I'm a Humanities guy.)

Also, does your institution have Inter-Library Loan? If so, you should be able to get any article published anywhere. Is that different for science stuff?

Sci-hub is a Ukranian (I think) website that has practically every scientific article ever published. You just paste in the link to the article you can't access on the legit site and sci-hub will give you the pdf. It has been sued by publishers (Elsevier, others) and pretty often is forced to be taken down, but then it just pops up at a new location almost immediately. The idea behind it is that scientific knowledge should be free for everyone.

I've used inter-library loans in the past, but they were usually pretty slow (one or two weeks, often). I'm not sure if it's the same in the humanities (and perhaps differs by field), but 99% of scientific publishing occurs in journals that, while having a physical presence, are mainly online (and some are only online). Additionally, the price gouging of some of these publishers is so extreme that certain states and whole countries have opted not to renew their membership. For example, California decided a year or two ago to not renew their subscription to Elsevier, so no one in a state school in California can access any articles published by Elsevier journals (which includes some pretty big name journals). So an inter-library loan is more difficult when no other school in the area has access to those journals.