[tsuujin]

> …on the other never ever pay for any of it.

How do you know that the parent comment here doesn’t ever pay for journalism? For all you know they pay for literally every publisher out there except for this particular one.

I pay for some journalism, but I reader mode others. Things rarely exist at the polar extremes. Usually my willingness to pay depends on the value proposition, if they’re asking me to pay for a lot of content I have no interest in I’m not likely to subscribe.

Perhaps it’s less a moral question for the consumer and more a logistical question for publishers to make it viable to pay for only the content we actually consume.

[s1artibartfast]

It all comes down to motivated thinking and rationalization.

The pizza place doesn't sell peperoni I want à la carte, so I steal them. This is OK because I sometimes pay for food elsewhere.

[omgmajk]

This is as bad of an argument as "You wouldn't steal a car" regarding piracy of media. Stealing a physical thing is never the same as obtaining a digital copy of something.

[s1artibartfast]

I think "You wouldn't steal a car" is a reasonable comparison.

In both situations you're taking something without the consent of the owner

[tsuujin]

The pizza place doesn’t require you to sign up for a monthly pizza subscription to get a single slice.

[s1artibartfast]

No, but it decided what goods it will sell and what it won't.

If the pizza place only offered monthly subscriptions, do you think that would make it ethical to steal a slice?

Not liking the price or product offered isn't a moral justification for stealing it.

[tsuujin]

The problem with subscriptions is that you don’t have unlimited means, which means you can only afford a certain number of subscriptions. A subscription is always more than the cost of a single purchase, so by forcing you to subscribe the company is coercing you into also choosing them for the next purchase as well.

Yeah, you can go to another pizza place to get the pepperoni that you want, but you have already subscribed to the first place and it is a nontrivial decision to not utilize the subscription you already have. Plus the new place will require you to subscribe and now you’re paying far more than the two slices would have actually cost you if you were allowed to buy by the slice.

If you want to talk ethics, pursuing exclusively a business model that is anticompetitive via a reduction in consumer choice per transaction is on the wrong side of that line. I don’t fault people for opportunistically avoiding the paywall.

[s1artibartfast]

All I'm hearing is that you don't like the price and think that justifies stealing.

[tsuujin]

Then you didn’t read what I wrote?

I don’t like anti-competitive, anti-consumer sales tactics. When that is all that is offered, I don’t blame people for finding ways around it.

What if instead every pizza place said “you must pay for five slices up front”? If you want a single slice, you have to pay for five. You get the next four without paying, but you have to buy them all up front.

Now you have purchased your five slices, but the next time you want pizza you want something that isn’t offered where you bought from last time. You can go across the street to where they have what you want, but you have to pay for five slices.

Now you have purchased ten slices and consumed two. Is that fair? What happens when you decide that the next slice you want isn’t offered at either of the two places you bought from before? Now you’ve bought fifteen slices and eaten three.

At what point do you decide to eat what you don’t really want simply because you’ve already paid for it? At some point this choice is taken away from you entirely because you can’t reasonably afford another five slices.

Subscription exclusivity in pricing is anti-consumer. They’re pushing you to consume only from them because they know you have to decide based on your means rather than purely what they offer.

[fortran77]

You can go to a newsstand and by a NY Times.