Journal Sentinel Subscriptions

[WarriorDad]

Back in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a certain model of newspaper boxes made for the Chicago Tribune that had a defect such that if you jerked the handle just quickly enough, the mechanism would fail and unlatch without you having to put the 50 or 75 cents in the machine... voila, free newspapers. And you didn’t have to be a strong person to pull it off, you just had to be quick... even a 10 year old could do it if they knew how to do it.

So by your logic, that wasn’t stealing since it was “out there for free.”  By your logic, also neither would taking every paper in the box, even if you put the 75c in.

Newsflash... you’re stealing.   And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it.

People rationalize stealing digital products rather than tangible, physical products all the time.  Back to the days of Napster, or sharing passwords for HBO, streaming MU games here, incognito newspaper access.   They justify it every day.  Digital apparently means it isn't theft and no employees are harmed.   

[MU82]

But supposedly journalism will deliver quality content, vetted content.  Unfortunately the journalism profession has been gutted, too, and what we have today is a far cry what I grew up with it. Too much opinion disguised as news, but apparently that is what people want now.  A take, not just the facts.

There are articles that are fact-filled, and editorials/opinions/analyses that are opinions.

Sometimes opinions do bleed over into what are supposed to be articles, and I wish that were not the case, but it doesn't happen nearly as often as you contend.

Thank goodness for the free press, now more than ever.

[brewcity77]

But supposedly journalism will deliver quality content, vetted content.  Unfortunately the journalism profession has been gutted, too, and what we have today is a far cry what I grew up with it. Too much opinion disguised as news, but apparently that is what people want now.  A take, not just the facts.

 As a result, people do take twitter information and other as "news", when it may not be at all.

It has absolutely zero to do with "what people want now". It's because the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987. Before then, news outlets had to share both sides of the story. Now they are free to be as biased as they want. I understand the Freedom of Speech side of it, but in the public interest, it led to a terrible turn for our country. That, along with the Gulf War showing that 24-hour news could be profitable, completely changed the face of how news is broadcast in our country.

[rocket surgeon]

Back in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a certain model of newspaper boxes made for the Chicago Tribune that had a defect such that if you jerked the handle just quickly enough, the mechanism would fail and unlatch without you having to put the 50 or 75 cents in the machine... voila, free newspapers. And you didn’t have to be a strong person to pull it off, you just had to be quick... even a 10 year old could do it if they knew how to do it.

So by your logic, that wasn’t stealing since it was “out there for free.”  By your logic, also neither would taking every paper in the box, even if you put the 75c in.

Newsflash... you’re stealing.   And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it.

  finally, the curtain has been removed.  this is how the dude frames all of his "arguments"   twisted logic or instead of throwing the "R" card atcha, he calls you a "victim". 

[brewcity77]

Newsflash... you’re stealing.   And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it.

The comparison to old newspaper machines and ones ability to take multiples despite paying once is an apt one. If you know you have to use a workaround or browser tricks to acquire content that the producer is asking you to pay for, it's stealing. You can rationalize to yourself however you like, but it's no different than any honor system purchase.

[GGGG]

Back in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a certain model of newspaper boxes made for the Chicago Tribune that had a defect such that if you jerked the handle just quickly enough, the mechanism would fail and unlatch without you having to put the 50 or 75 cents in the machine... voila, free newspapers. And you didn’t have to be a strong person to pull it off, you just had to be quick... even a 10 year old could do it if they knew how to do it.

So by your logic, that wasn’t stealing since it was “out there for free.”  By your logic, also neither would taking every paper in the box, even if you put the 75c in.

Newsflash... you’re stealing.   And what’s worse, you’re lying to yourself to justify it. 

Bad analogy and nope.

I have a right not to have cookies placed on my computer.

[GGGG]

The comparison to old newspaper machines and ones ability to take multiples despite paying once is an apt one. If you know you have to use a workaround or browser tricks to acquire content that the producer is asking you to pay for, it's stealing. You can rationalize to yourself however you like, but it's no different than any honor system purchase.

Nice try brew but nope.

An apt comparison would be my using someone else's password to get behind a paywall.  Or posting full articles here that are behind a paywall.  (Which has been done here.)

[mu03eng]

But supposedly journalism will deliver quality content, vetted content.  Unfortunately the journalism profession has been gutted, too, and what we have today is a far cry what I grew up with it. Too much opinion disguised as news, but apparently that is what people want now.  A take, not just the facts.

 As a result, people do take twitter information and other as "news", when it may not be at all.

This is recency bias, opinion in journalism has been around for centuries....hell, yellow journalism is a term for this that's been around for 120 years and was basically the #FakeNews of its day.

The problem with news is not necessarily the purveyors of news, but the consumers of news these days. Technology has enabled (for good and for bad) consumers to consume news that aligns with their world view instead of aligning their world view with the news. Don't get me wrong, having lots of ways to consume news is a great thing and so is having lots of different news "perspectives" but that puts the burden on the consumer to separate fact from opinion which becomes difficult and something our society just isn't prepared to handle.

[mu03eng]

The comparison to old newspaper machines and ones ability to take multiples despite paying once is an apt one. If you know you have to use a workaround or browser tricks to acquire content that the producer is asking you to pay for, it's stealing. You can rationalize to yourself however you like, but it's no different than any honor system purchase.

Disagree.....just like with IP, if you can't take reasonable steps to protect your content (it's not protectable) then the user is under no obligation to pay for it. There are all sorts of ways that content can be protected (look at The Athletic, the incognito browser move doesn't work) but the journal chooses not to use them because they want to place cookies on the browser so they can profit off of the digital footprint. They could lock down the paywall, but they choose not to and since the barrier to free content is low (and IMHO the content value is low as well) you get people doing it.

They make choices, they have to live with the consequence of those choices within their business model.

[MU82]

This is recency bias, opinion in journalism has been around for centuries....hell, yellow journalism is a term for this that's been around for 120 years and was basically the #FakeNews of its day.

The problem with news is not necessarily the purveyors of news, but the consumers of news these days. Technology has enabled (for good and for bad) consumers to consume news that aligns with their world view instead of aligning their world view with the news. Don't get me wrong, having lots of ways to consume news is a great thing and so is having lots of different news "perspectives" but that puts the burden on the consumer to separate fact from opinion which becomes difficult and something our society just isn't prepared to handle.

Bingo!

As usual, mu03, you have nailed it.

[Pakuni]

Bad analogy and nope.

I have a right not to have cookies placed on my computer.

But you've already admitted that you go incognito to avoid paying, not cookies.
Almost every website uses cookies (including this one!). Are you always in incognito mode?

[GGGG]

But you've already admitted that you go incognito to avoid paying, not cookies.
Almost every website uses cookies (including this one!). Are you always in incognito mode?

No because there are sometimes when I want to use cookies.  It's too my advantage to do so.  But it's my choice.

[brewcity77]

Nice try brew but nope.

An apt comparison would be my using someone else's password to get behind a paywall.  Or posting full articles here that are behind a paywall.  (Which has been done here.)

Nope. You are admitting to going out of your way to not pay for something the company is asking you to pay for. It's as simple as that.

[GGGG]

Nope. You are admitting to going out of your way to not pay for something the company is asking you to pay for. It's as simple as that.

Right.  Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something.  That's not stealing.

Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts?  And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing.  Sound good?

[Pakuni]

Right.  Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something.  That's not stealing.

Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts?  And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing.  Sound good?

Depends.
Do you own Scoop or does Scoop pay you for your content? Is your content  hidden behind a Scoop paywell? Do we take extra steps to evade that paywell to access your content?
If the answer to these questions is 'yes,' then we'd be stealing your content.

[PBRme]

Right.  Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something.  That's not stealing.

Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts?  And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing.  Sound good?

You've officially become the Bailbondsman of South Wayne

[GGGG]

Depends.
Do you own Scoop or does Scoop pay you for your content? Is your content  hidden behind a Scoop paywell? Do we take extra steps to evade that paywell to access your content?
If the answer to these questions is 'yes,' then we'd be stealing your content.

But MJS isn't hiding anything behind a paywall.  I can access it at anytime.  They are literally placing it for free on the internet.

[brewcity77]

Right.  Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something.  That's not stealing.

Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts?  And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing.  Sound good?

You can tie yourself into a pretzel any way you see fit. I just don't think you have any rationale or justification here that isn't just you rationalizing or justifying to make yourself feel good about stealing content. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but all you are doing is trying to avoid accepting responsibility for your actions. If you are going out of your way to take content that you know the content producer expects payment for, that's stealing.

[GGGG]

You can tie yourself into a pretzel any way you see fit. I just don't think you have any rationale or justification here that isn't just you rationalizing or justifying to make yourself feel good about stealing content. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but all you are doing is trying to avoid accepting responsibility for your actions. If you are going out of your way to take content that you know the content producer expects payment for, that's stealing.

1. They are putting content out there for free.

2. I am using a simple and legal technique to access it. 

3. I am perfectly comfortable ethically and morally with using #2 to access #1.

4. Your dipsh*t logic and "psychology" really don't impact #3. 

Got it?

[rocket surgeon]

    sounds like somebody needs a snickers...or an arby's

[BrewCity83]

Legally, it's not really stealing.

Ethically, it's stealing.

[UWW2MU]

I am pretty excited.  Today I learned that if something is easy to steal, it's not really stealing. 



As far as the value of the local journalism, most often than not in cases like JSonline, the quality has suffered as the cost cutting tried to offset the revenue drying up.  This, which I'll call the Sears (or Blockbuster) strategy, will only buy you time.  There are models for online content to be both high quality and profitable.  The Athletic is a perfect example.  They can't cost cut their way to success, they need to re-think their entire organizational structure.

[mu_hilltopper]

Move on, people.  Nothing to see here.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Right.  Asking me, not requiring me, to pay for something.  That's not stealing.

Maybe I should ask Scoopers to send me $5 every time you read one of my posts?  And if you don't, I get to accuse you of stealing.  Sound good?

Quantity not quality,  aina?

[Pakuni]

I am pretty excited.  Today I learned that if something is easy to steal, it's not really stealing. 



As far as the value of the local journalism, most often than not in cases like JSonline, the quality has suffered as the cost cutting tried to offset the revenue drying up.  This, which I'll call the Sears (or Blockbuster) strategy, will only buy you time.  There are models for online content to be both high quality and profitable.  The Athletic is a perfect example.  They can't cost cut their way to success, they need to re-think their entire organizational structure.

The Athletic isn't profitable. It's riding high on a big wave of investment capital that is betting that it might one day be profitable, but they're not there yet. Probably not close.
The few outlets that are profitable, i.e. the "failing" New York Times and Washington Posts of the world, have done so largely by improving content, not slashing it to save money, and making readers hit a paywall quickly (and hoping that, unlike some people, those readers will actually respect the value of their work.