If I could pay somehow on a per-article basis, for the articles I stumbled upon - I would. I don’t regularly read NYT and would have no use for a monthly subscription as HN is the only place I see (unfortunately) regularly posting from NYT.
What we need is some kind of universal pass for articles that you pay a monthly fee for, and then as you read the articles from the sites it supports, it pays that publisher.
Additionally, the poster asked for a workaround - not to be lambasted for their choice to do so. :)
They still are doing it - the issue of course is blendle wants me to be the portal from which I read all my news - and I want to read it from wherever, my account bring debited when I read a blendled page.
>> the issue of course is blendle wants me to be the portal from which I read all my news
Bahaha, yeah, no. That’s not what I’m talking about.
Imagine we could also pay a generic monthly fee for e.g. access to Netflix, Disney+, etc, and the profits go to the services we are watching at the time.
All this celebration of Disney+ is honestly sad af, and shows just how out of touch people are.
We are in days worse than cable television, except that it’s on demand.
Yup. This. No, I don’t need yet another company having my info - I’m demanded to sign up on a brand new computer I just set up - I don’t even get a free article anymore.
Tested it on a VPN to make sure, even.
I think ‘quality journalism’ can do without stopping to this level.
I do but I have no idea if this is good journalism. I've been disappointed by the New York Times before, but that's irrelevant. According to the FAQ, you're not supposed to post articles behind a paywall which doesn't have a workaround; I'm just wondering what the workaround is. I see you can create an account but I don't know if that really counts.
So because it's worth it to you it shouldn't be pirated? As if your opinion on what laws are worthwhile to follow are somehow better than the actual law?
The law is a sham that's routinely changed in favor of those who make the most money. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's right. The law also applies differently based on who you are and how much justice one can afford. I also think you're exaggerating. Someone saying if content is worth something to you, you should be willing to okay for it is a far cry from them labeling themselves the arbiter of copyright like you seem to have done.
That perspective on the law is a non starter. It's just not true. Picking and choosing what is okay to infringe is by definition being an arbiter of copyright law.
