[abenedic]

Of course it is obvious, it is just that almost no one online believes that the information contained within is worth enough to subscribe, and there is not a frictionless way to compensate the other the $0.03 cents worth of value I potentially got from the article.

[organsnyder]

Then don't read it. If it's valuable enough to pirate, it's valuable enough to pay for.

[revel]

The problem is that this is not true and everyone knows it. What you've hit on is the core problem facing digital media today. I subscribe to several online news services but the WSJ is not one of them. I wouldn't mind paying the $0.03 (or whatever) to read this article but there's no way I'm going to add another $100 per year subscription to my media diet, and particularly not given the state of the WSJ political and opinion sections. I love the finance and tech side, but, my God, the rest of the paper has become a parody of itself! I'm sure many other folks out there feel the same way about WAPO or NYT. The regional papers have it even worse, even though they perform, arguably, the most valuable service of any outlet.

This problem is so severe that I would argue that it's tearing Western civilization apart. So-called "fake news" is a problem that only exists because real news is expensive to create and needs be heavily subsidized to exist whereas fake news is cheap to make but heavily subsidized by bad actors. This is perhaps the single most important problem in media today. If you can solve the business problem behind content creation you'll be an absolute hero; but I really doubt that shaming people for reading pirated articles is going to do it.

[Scoundreller]

Netflix for news!

[mehrdada]

Piracy is "the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea."

Looking at that page does not attack or rob anyone. The use of that word is simply perpetuation of Hollywood propaganda.

[mc32]

Maybe it's more akin to Boycotting.

It's not robbing someone but it is removing some potential revenue. And, so I don't come across as hypocrite, I also circumvent the vast majority of subscriptions, but I realize I am denying some miniscule revenue and over time, all added up, could be something.

So the problem is _both_ friction and circumvention in the least, as well as overcharging. Would I pay for Cable? No. Would I pay for Netflix? Why not. They offer a good product at a very reasonable price with little friction and I would not try circumvention, because there is no reason.

[mehrdada]

> but it is removing some potential revenue

Dozens of studies about music have proven this theory false. In fact music “piracy” likely has increased their revenue because they spread music. Intuitively you can see why labels have gave in to free as supported YouTube models as opposed to locking them down; they wouldn’t have done this had CD sale revenue was higher, but in aggregate having people’s attention is worth more. Similarly, I can for sure let you know that I would not pay for WSJ if I couldn’t read their articles under any capacity. For me not to be able to read it just decreases their network and thus their value in other ways. And now that I’m more familiar with them I might pay one day.

[mc32]

YT, unless you subscribe, shows ads. News sites which let you browse unimpeded show ads --but have those ads blocked by many. So, when they try to make a quid pro quo bargain (ads for content) people often don't like complying with their end of the bargain.

Music has evolved into paid services or ad supported services. News content so far has failed with the ad supported model and unless they create some cartel (a spotify for news, let's say) they have little alternative beside the direct subscription model.

[hyperbovine]

Yeah, but they succeeded in redefining it. Remember when we used to say global warming? C'est la vie.

[obpacheco]

i like the way you think

[manicdee]

On the flip side, if it’s valuable enough to pirate, the shipping company should have had better security.

[analognoise]

I asked that question once, apparently crews aren't armed and it's a big deal to start shooting at people at sea. There are videos of people fending off pirates (actual, sea based pirates) with water hoses.

I don't get that - it seems pretty obvious you could arm a crew and fend off some assholes with AK47s (you have the high ground, lots of corridors, time to prepare and can afford some .50's on the deck) - but then again, I'm so American I am practically a Bald Eagle.

[jimjimjim]

escalation. Shipping companies don't want to have to worry about how much armament is enough. Also it blurs the lines between a cargo ship with defense against pirates to an armed ship that may have cargo. But yeah some ships now have mercenaries.

[stale2002]

Or, instead of that, if someone is unwilling to pay you money for something, then you should get a better business model, instead of trying to brow beat them with silly morality arguements.

[paulcole]

If I don’t like the price of something, I just don’t buy that thing.

I don’t make up excuses about friction and arbitrary value and then feel justified about taking it without paying.

[JacobJans]

You're arguing that it's OK to steal, as long as you don't steal very much.

[stale2002]

So your argument is that I wouldn't download a car?

[UpshotKnothole]

Stealing: The felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, not theft. Playing word games like “piracy” or “stealing” doesn’t strengthen your case, rather it exposes a central weakness. If what you’re claiming is so terrible, why do you have to pretend that it’s actually something else? This is an old game that was started in the 80’s by industry groups, and its sad to see it internalized by people on HN who should know better.

If you want to argue the merits or downsides of copyright infringement, do so, but don’t move the goalposts to unrelated crimes.