6 ms·

via Google: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fgoogle-nears

• zodiakzz 12y ago
  Gosh. Would it be illegal for HN to do this automatically?
  • rainboiboi 12y ago
    Why not? It's a publicly available link.
    • discordance 12y ago
      That wouldn't hold. Links to copyrighted content (eg torrents) are often publicly available, and are not considered legal.
      • aptwebapps 12y ago
        Yes, but it links, via a redirect, to the copyright holder's own website. As someone commented upthread, if they want to block it, they can.
        • freehunter 12y ago
          Weez got busted for using publicly available links to access private information.
          • aptwebapps 12y ago
            Do you think that pertains here or are you being argumentative? Or do you wish to make a larger point about the idiocy of the CFAA?
            • erikpukinskis 12y ago
              Why are you being mean? You suggested that content being hosted on a copyright holder's website was enough protection. They cited an example where it wasn't. It just means the specifics of the case law are relevant here and a blanket pronouncement isn't sufficient.
              • aptwebapps 12y ago
                I'm sorry if I was brusque but it's annoying when people don't look at the whole picture when making an argument but rather focus on a narrow interpretation that allows them to make a point. Do you not see a difference between published newspaper articles and AT&T's customers' private information, however poorly guarded? Do you think a judge would? Maybe freehunter didn't see the difference either and I'm just a cynic.
                • freehunter 12y ago
                  Yeah there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. Google links to news articles with or without permission. They even got sued for doing so. Just because Google is doing it doesn't mean it's legal, and even if Google has permission it doesn't mean everyone else has permission. As for what a judge would think, the fact that you had to find a way around their content protection gave a clear sign that they were trying to protect their content. The DMCA doesn't really discriminate when it comes to the difficulty of copyright circumvention.
                  • aptwebapps 12y ago
                    First of all, let me apologize for not being more charitable with my assumptions. As to the actual point, WSJ has a paywall in place which they deliberately open to let Google through. Not just Google's crawler, but visitors using Google's search page as a referrer. It's quite different than AT&T being incompetent or negligent with their customers' private info. WSJ is the owner of the content and they are making a strategic decision to allow this behavior. Again, I wish I hadn't been rude. It would have been nicer to have this exchange without it.
  • moroniclimited 12y ago
    Just use https://paywallbypass.org/ https://paywallbypass.org/ which works like this: http://paywallbypass.org/?q=http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-nears-1-billion-investment-in-spacex-1421706642 http://paywallbypass.org/?q=http://www.wsj.com/articles/goog...
    • Springtime 12y ago
      Unfortunately it doesn't bypass it here. The site routes the page through Google Translate but the article is still behind the paywall.
    • TezzellEnt 12y ago
      They seem to have blocked this option, as well as the Google link in the top level comment.
• jmtame 12y ago
  I love that this link is here, IANAL, but I'm curious: would pasting this link here violate the CFAA or Web Entertainment Theft Bill since it's bypassing a paywall? Would it count as a misdemeanor in that case to actually follow the link?
  • jzwinck 12y ago
    The paywall allows users of Google to view the article. By clicking the link, you are using Google. It seems like everyone is in accord here. If the site wants to change their paywall to block Google users, they should go ahead and do that.
    • nostalgiac 12y ago
      Except then they would destroy their Google search rankings ;P Which is the exact reason you can access it through Google.
  • adventured 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure this wouldn't violate Tennessee's WETB. There's no subscription account involved and being shared, a requirement.