hansolo comments on New York Times sues maker of Brave web browser

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

IP rights are pretty awesome for a lot of engineers, writers and artists.

Regardless, anyone who's paywall can be defeated by a little JS switcheroo has dogshit for a paywall. If I have apple trees in my yard, and my fence is made of 7 or 8 sticks, when people stop by and snack on an apple, should I be mad at them or myself?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

Is it possible that Brave is accessing NYT through NYT subscribers using their browser?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

Sure, but it might be hard for NYT to make the case for that. All the browser fingerprint would say is "Chrome" and have spoofed data after that.

I expect they did some trial and error to demonstrate what's happening before filling a lawsuit over it.

That being said, NYT just told everyone how to get free NYT. Best advertising Brave ever had.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago

Also, I think the NYT made it easy to bypass so they can pick up the non-savvy or richer readers who otherwise wouldn't pay for something that is literally free, while still not limitting access and thereby reach. It might not be incompetence.

It's a hard balance to strike, because the best advertising for your paper is articles people send to each other. If nobody can read them, then nobody will become intrigued by a subscription, but if they are totally free nobody will bother subscribing.

That's why some sites have a certain number of free articles a month.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent