- 118comments
- 9comments
- 199comments
- 16comments
- 44comments
- 8comments
- 37comments
- 64comments
- 217comments
- 12comments
- 234comments
- 145comments
- 41comments
- 42comments
- 91comments
- 22comments
- —discuss
- 167comments
- 15comments
- 11comments
- 118comments
- 85comments
- 8comments
- 23comments
- —discuss
- 140comments
- 238comments
- 15comments
- 16comments
- 74comments
I don't necessarily love paywalls but it seems a bit uncalled for to automate an already well known workaround. Should we be actively subverting business models?
What is the workaround?
Google the headline.
It does feel excessive or cynical or something to install an actual app to work around a paywall. The WSJ organization says, you must pay us $28.99 a month for full access to this content. That's the value they've placed on their content, that's the price they are charging, and that's what people should pay.
The fact that they also make most if not all of the content available on a "complimentary" basis via Google suggests that they do value occasional visits from non-subscribers.
However if millions of non-subscribers were to install a paywall avoidance app and access the full content on a daily basis, this would probably violate the spirit of "occasional".
I used to subscribe to the WSJ year after year, since about 1999 when they charged $79/year. When it climbed over $120/year, I gritted my teeth and resubscribed, because I still valued the content. But $28.99/month is ridiculous, and I suspect they only get that from larger corporate accounts that have negotiated volume discounts and such. Everyone else either googles the articles or has given up.
To my mind, it's better to have high readership numbers, e.g. Facebook with 1.5 billion free subscribers, versus high subscription rates and a limited readership, but I have no idea how their business model works.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Google ban this sort of installing, too, recently? I added it like that, it installed, and then it says "not from Chrome Web store" on the Extensions page, and shows it as disabled, and can't be enabled.
If you ask me, I think this was a completely unnecessary and definitely self-interested move from Google, but since most here on HN bought Google's narrative and thought it's a good idea "because security" (with zero data to back it up), and didn't speak out against it, now we're stuck with this.
Having to enable Developer Mode and drag and drop an extension was more than enough "security". They didn't have to limit them to the Chrome store, just like they don't limit much more complex and more dangerous Android apps from being installed from other places, when you check the Unknown sources button.
Now try to add this extension in the Chrome store, and watch how you're promptly deleted by Google. And now hopefully people will understand why Google's latest move was completely self-interested and also unnecessary security wise. It was designed specifically to reject this sort of extensions from working on Chrome.
One more thing to ponder about: Even Apple doesn't completely ban native apps from running from other sources. It still gives you the option to install Mac apps from other sources. Chrome doesn't (anymore).
How do developers test their own extensions then? Surely there must be a way around this.
EDIT: I just followed the installation instructions and it worked fine. It says "Not From Chrome Store" but it's still enabled.
You need the source code of the extension and not the .crx to be able to load it and use it as a developer.
If you install via "load unpacked extension" you can get around it.
On recent versions of Chrome you cannot install any non webstore CRX, developer mode or not.
What version of Chrome? I'm using 36.0.1985.125 and it worked just fine.
When you restart, it would be disabled. There are two ways around the block. The first has been mentioned above - load unpacked extension.
The second is much more of a hassle and didn't work for me. It involves using group policy to whitelist the extension.
Ah ok, I had to kill all the background processes to really "restart" Chrome. Thanks.
mmmmm... even if I don't like paywall, I don't think that it's a good idea: when journalists aren't paid, they aren't working... and then, only advertisers will deliver the news. And I'm not sure that it would be a good thing...
Is it better for the journalists that people close the tab a second after noticing the paywall? Because most will.
That's a decisions for the journalists to make, not for you.
Well now you're just taking the argument to the opposite extreme. The company chose a business model and this add-on infringes on their rights.
This doesn't infringe on their rights. They have the right to choose not to deliver the content and to respond with a 403. If they choose to deliver the content and respond with a 200, that's their decision. At that point, you're welcome to read it however you like.
Most will close the tab... or wait a free digest from a third-party... but the few that will pay will help validate the business model, help journalists to earn their lives and do their job, and ultimatly keep the freedom of information.
However I can agree with that kind of behaviour against business monopolies (for example microsoft few years ago, before gDocs and OpenOffice) because they're not playing by the rules (so they deserve it).
But in this case: I can see everyday what "free newspapers" (using advertising & students copying Reuters newsfeed) did to "real newspapers": now it seems here, in France, that journalists just don't have any time to check, to think, to explain... to do their job in fact. When they have a paid job. And, at the end, it's the information freedom for everybody that has been hurt.
I suspect the journalists would make a lot more money if they put adverts on their online articles rather than a leaky paywall.
Update: I took it down. See my top-level comment.
this is theft, eh?
Reading the contents that result from a response which has a status code of 200 - no matter how you choose to read them - is never theft.
technically, and legally, because of the workaround, it's not. ethically it is
Show HN: A Chrome extension to get around paying for your app/service.
Appears to work as an Opera extension in both Opera & Opera Next by enabling developer mode in opera://extensions and dragging the wsj.crx into the window and installing...
Update: Hi HN. I made this in about 30 minutes because I was frustrated that I couldn't read a link from the HN homepage even though I am a WSJ home delivery subscriber.
I didn't think about the implications of releasing it, and now I regret it. I have changed the page to apologize and remove the download.
I put the source on GitHub if anyone is curious about intercepting headers in Chrome. I still think it's useful for the source to be out there for the small number of cases where a well-meaning person really needs to access the WSJ without paying for some reason.
If anyone from the WSJ is on here: my bad.
The days of free content must be coming to an end. iTunes is a great example you create a great product and put great content behind it. People will pay for quality.
Unfortunately, there are still people who think journalist should work for free. Can you imagine your boss saying to you " great work however, as nobody is paying I cant pay you". Also as previously discussed if the only revenue is add revenue who then controls the content ?