> And nothing is stopping businesses from implementing an actual paywall, such that you must log in to see the content. Under such a model nothing short of actual copyright violation, i.e. somebody with access to the content making it available elsewhere, would make it possible to see the content without paying.
I'd imagine they're being put in a difficult due to search, which why they're doing it the way they're doing it.
And honestly, your justification rings hollow. It's akin to saying it's OK to steal if the anti-theft technology isn't there are is too easy to defeat. If you take my car from me, it's still theft if I left the doors unlocked an the key in the ignition.
Difficulties due to search? Well I have difficulties due to search too, when I find an article that briefly tries to appear open access to entice me and then suddenly plasters a client-side paywall on me. That's why I am doing it.
I think we're long past using "theft" as an analogy for access to content. If I take a car from you I am depriving you of your car, and I would be able to profit from it if I were to sell it on the black market—that's what makes it theft. Let's not forget that at no point am I talking about gaining unauthorised access to a computer system, nor about making use of the content to the detriment of the copyright holder (publishing it elsewhere etc.). All I am doing is making use of my personal property in whichever way I please, and that sometimes happens to be reading the content that has already been sent to me by a business in whichever way it pleased. I am depriving nobody by activating Web Developer Tools in Firefox after having clicked a link to a website and being able to see the data that has already been sent to my browser. In fact, the website won't even be aware that I "stole" from them rather than decided not to subscribe.
Honestly, what rings hollow to me is so much moralising around wanting people to feel guilty for being able to circumvent the unnecessarily weak paywalls implemented by businesses which, let's not forget, are designed in that way for the businesses' own benefit and often to the detriment of the user's interest. A better analogy would be if a music venue insisted on playing with no sound-proofing to hopefully attract customers from the street, but expected any nearby homes to keep their own windows closed so they must pay if they want to listen to the music.
> Difficulties due to search? Well I have difficulties due to search too, when I find an article that briefly tries to appear open access to entice me and then suddenly plasters a client-side paywall on me. That's why I am doing it.
You're only looking at this only from your own selfish perspective, which misses a lot of important stuff.
> I think we're long past using "theft" as an analogy for access to content. If I take a car from you I am depriving you of your car, and I would be able to profit from it if I were to sell it on the black market—that's what makes it theft.
No, that's just a tired bit of bullshit self-justification. When you bypass a paywall, you're depriving the operator of the revenue they were expecting to support their operations. It's like sneaking into a movie theater without paying--if too many people do that, the movie theater will shut down and there won't be any movies playing to sneak into. And even if it doesn't reach that critical mass, you're freeloading off of other paying customers.
> Honestly, what rings hollow to me is so much moralising around wanting people to feel guilty for being able to circumvent the unnecessarily weak paywalls
A lock being weak doesn't mean it's OK to bypass it. Most locks are basically just messages saying you're not allowed to access. I could probably pick the lock to your house or apartment (and I'm not any good at lock picking, those locks usually suck). It sounds like you think it'd be fine if I did that and watched your TV or read your books when you're not home--after all, I wouldn't be depriving you of anything, right?
I'd imagine they're being put in a difficult due to search, which why they're doing it the way they're doing it.
And honestly, your justification rings hollow. It's akin to saying it's OK to steal if the anti-theft technology isn't there are is too easy to defeat. If you take my car from me, it's still theft if I left the doors unlocked an the key in the ignition.