Does A 27-Second Video Showing How To 'Hack' The NYT Paywall Violate The DMCA?
from the it-certainly-might... dept
We've discussed many times just how easy it is to get around the NY Times' paywall. I've never run up against it because I don't have javascript enabled, and the whole system is javascript based. We have wondered, however, if doing this is technically a violation of the DMCA -- specifically the anti-circumvention clause. After all, I am circumventing technical protection measures. That I have javascript automatically turned off for all sites doesn't much matter.Of course, now that the paywalls been out for a while, people are finding even more ways to get around the paywall, including merely removing the string at the end of the URL. This is so simple, that someone made a 27-second video showing people how to "hack" the NY Times paywall:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: circumvention, dmca, hacking, paywall
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you just violate the DMCA?
The phrasing to me reads that you must offer something physical whether it is a device or software/service to violate the DMCA. It seems that advice is not covered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the key word there is "effectively" The way in which they implemented the paywall doesn't seem effective to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, I wonder if this might be a case where you've got a locked door standing alone without any walls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The word is common to thte laws in several different countries (it is in an international treaty) and I believe that in some countries it has been interpreted to exclude "ineffective" measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know, lock manufacturers should put microchips in their locks. I bet you could give burglars more of a sentence for breaking the DMCA than for breaking and entering!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I almost feel sorry for the NYT. They didn't get what they paid for in this case. There are just so many things wrong with this model that it isn't even doomed to fail...it's just made of fail. It's like they are the QWOP athlete in the 100m dash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Phone for you - it's a Mr Geohot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Case in point: I have a ps3. It is not connected to the internet. I choose not to run Sony's firmware on my system.
At such a point when I can't play a game I want to, I will have to make the choice to run Sony's firmware update or crack my system.
But, until I actually run the code to crack my system, you can't say I'm violating DMCA.
Choosing not to run javascript is the same thing. I have not cracked or hacked the system, I have just chosen not to run code from a third party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're also making an artificial distinction between "running the code to crack something" and "declining to run something". Disabling javascript runs code that alters the flow of your browser. "Running a hack" could be as simple as a few instructions to set EAX to 0 at one point. You think that you are "running code" in one instance, and "not running code" in another, but that's not correct. And if your distinction were correct, it would still be irrelevant because the US courts haven't recognized such distinctions as relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fun thought: Make your on-site DRM Flash-based. Then SUE those iFanboi devices for bypassing it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next, it will be illegal to block ads because of the advertisers First Amendment rights being violated, and the AdBlock plugin will have to go. That will known as the day the internet died.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the government needs to do is pass a law that gives the corporations everything they want while making it the law that they do not look like jerks and that they are not jerks. That way no one would think of them as jerks every time they act like jerks and they can go on about acting like jerks without the negative PR involved.
Also, presidential elections are coming up somewhat soon and the government (and the courts) often pretends to act more consumer friendly around this time. After presidential elections are over, they will go back to acting like jerks again. It's why we need shorter election cycles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How that compares with an essentially unelected leader like we have in Britain, I'm not sure.
(For information, the only people who get to vote on who is the Prime Minister are the members of his/her constituency and members of his/her political party.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Natural born citizen, and lived in the country 14 years, and at least 35 years of age.
That's it.
Add to this that pretty much anyone who wants the job should never have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GET variables
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anybody saw the Google Transparency Report?
Apparently they now show why the request was made :)
Source:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-google-content.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than anything, it shows the NYT firewall to be ineffective, and shows the video poster to by a whiny child who doesn't understand what it means when someone says "you are not welcome".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A large majority of sites work just fine with Javascript disabled. In most cases, it's only used for ads and non-critical, incidental things, like the voting buttons on posts here, or hiding posts that have been flagged as spam.
In most cases, turning it off makes the page load much faster. And in a few cases, disabling it will get rid of annoying "features", like the IMDb's auto-complete suggestions for the search box, which sends you to the last thing the mouse touched, rather than what you typed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anybody who makes a site that breaks with JavaScript disabled has no business designing anything for the web. I use JavaScript (with jQuery) and every site I've ever developed gracefully degrades if JavaScript is disabled with a friendly banner informing the user that for the full experience it should be disabled as well as a link to a page describing what the script does and does not do. And that is how you do it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's because they were designed by idiots.
Those same sites probably don't work with Flash disabled either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the NYT really means "you are not welcome on my lawn" it should put up a decent fence and gate, not a pathetic little sign that can only be seen from one direction, and which is hidden behind the hotdog and lemonade concession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Javascript is what is classified as a client side application. ie: It ONLY runs on the viewing computer after the server has sent a request to it to do something.
It is run at the whim of the owner of the client, NOT at the request or legal ability of the owner of the server. In fact the servers owner has no legal obligation to make you use it to visit their site since if they do force you under the duress of quoting the DMCA or other torts they very much could be liable under the criminal sanctions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Whether yourself or the NYT like it or not it is the owner of the computer who states what is run or not on their own system, and more specifically what has authority to access or not.
I can guarantee you (since this has happened once) if some organisation tries to access or run some programme/script on my computer which I have not given them the legal authority to, then that organisation will be in for a very nasty shock when criminal warrants are served on them.
As for this video, It shows people how to legally disallow authority to the NYT on their system and therefore is not showing circumvention of anything, especially when circumvention implies the bypassing of something fully controlled by someone else, in this case the NYT, which is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It has little to do with anything else.
Chairman Mao would be proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you trust them with your credit cards?
What does poor security of their own content do to the NY Times reputation for security overall?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would you trust them with your credit cards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would you trust them with your credit cards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt java bloat
Now I understand why Mike doesn't care that Techdirt is bogged down with so much Java script. He never sees it. This site loads a lot faster with Java off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt java bloat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt java bloat
and every Java programmer will absolutely agree with that ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Documents (5 files) 15 KB (123 KB uncompressed)
Images (43 files) 54 KB
Objects (1 file) 180 KB
Scripts (27 files) 239 KB (511 KB uncompressed)
Style Sheets (7 files) 51 KB (84 KB uncompressed)
Total 538 KB (952 KB uncompressed)
and I have ads turned off totally, Its the scripts and 1 object (flash swf file of some weirdness) that makes this site very slow sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt has at least 13 sites running about 36 scripts,
If only to deny these commercial entities information that they -- or some /national/ spy agency -- will eventually use against you, everyone should use Noscript and a hosts file. It's not merely that you've nothing to hide, it's just plain none of their business. They're only /looking/ for ways to annoy you at best, and the possibilites of /doing evil/ are enormous. By selling your personal data to whoever (last I heard Google gets $25 for it), they get around what's left of the 4th amendment. -- And most are again saying so what? Well, the full explanation is in Orwell's "1984". The goal is to spy on everyone /all/ the time, because that's what gov'ts /like/ to do, and along with bank and credit card reporting, it means TOTAL CONTROL. -- Just say no now while you still can.
As for sites that require javascript, with Noscript it takes only right click and allow. -- BUT there's a poison pill even in Noscript, as it comes set to allow the worst offenders access on every site: you should remove its entire white list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt has at least 13 sites running about 36 scripts,
I, for one, am glad that Mike makes enough money (off of me and other techdirt readers) to keep this site going. Keep up the good work Mike!
As for you, if you don't like it, don't visit the site. You won't be missed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First ammendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First ammendment
My interpretation is that "products" and the rest would not include speech as clearly would be a website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private Browsing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYT and DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably.
But all these IP and supposed 'protection' laws being put in are just to make sure we are ALL guilty of something - all the time. It's the only easy way to run a police state, like our 'leaders' endeavor to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The BIG problem is that politicians give grants and tax-exemptions to various organizations and companies. Then those SAME organizations/companies turn around and *fund their campaigns*.
It's basically just money laundering, but since they are 'good organizations' with their parasitic politicians protecting them, the justice department could care less.
So much for the 'rule of law' in the formerly United States of America - now known as the Tyrannical States of America, or TSA for short.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY Times? Hava
I've said for the last couple of years I'd be very happy if Hava just vanished. Shamefully, most of the idiotic planet runs on a .js script.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
last word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]