[Zev]

Think about Instapaper's use case: Offline or slow connection. On iPhones or iPod touches.

There's no point in having a social network button when you can't reach Digg or Reddit to submit or to vote. There's no point in having a blank space for an ad, if the user doesn't have a persistent internet connection that can be used to retrieve the ad to show on your page.

And because this is an iPhone or an iPod touch, the screen space is still limited. This means: Only having the text of the site - the essential content - is the goal for the end user. For the end user, this is very much preferred to displaying the entire webpage and zooming back and forth (while ignoring ugly empty spaces for ads that didn't load). Or maybe your ads are in flash and just won't load at all, because they can't be displayed.

I can't disagree with your right to make money from ads. I can only point out my right to not want to waste bandwidth (which can be expensive if going over the limits with the iPhone, on AT&T at least) in order to display useless content that does't contribute anything to the item I wish to read. And I can ask you to revisit your stance on Instapaper. Because as a consumer of content, presumably someone who you may potentially target, your stance seems irrational.

[jmackinn]

Sorry, but I don't see where you are getting the idea that you have a 'right to not want to waste bandwidth'. That is your choice, not a right, so if you don't want to waste bandwidth then don't use high bandwidth sites.

While I can certainly see why someone would want to use Instapaper and that it clearly has a lot of benefits for the user, that doesn't change the fact that their app operates in a grey area of copyright infringement.

Just because something is practical does not mean that it is therefore legal.

[makecheck]

And content providers have a choice, too. No one is forcing them to put their stuff out on the Internet, in a wide open format, where anyone can just take it.

But ad-supported pages are equivalent to selling newspapers in giant heavy boxes, where you can't just get the newspaper, you have to take all the crap in its box. Well what if you don't want to carry a whole box? What if it would take you 10 times as long to bring the newspaper home by carrying the box? Would you not be tempted to rip open the box and just take the paper? Or, tempted to just go away, and not take the box or the stupid paper? At some point, the obnoxious mechanism outweighs the value of the content.

Instead, there could be a stack of papers on a table, with a cup and a sign "please deposit 50 cents". Some people will take a paper and leave nothing. Others will leave 50 cents. Still others will leave a buck or two, because they want to. You might even see people drop off a new stack of papers for you, and not care if you get the cash. Maybe somebody else sees your stuff (because it's not locked in boxes), and that leads to other opportunities. So maybe it isn't "fair" that some people pay more than others, but this is certainly does not spell doom for the content provider.

[Zev]

...that doesn't change the fact that their app operates in a grey area of copyright infringement.

Like I mentioned earlier: I'm not as informed in copyright law as I would like. Would you mind pointing out to me where this is a grey area? Since I'm personally an American citizen, where - in the US Code, the DMCA, or some other law that we have - is this a grey area?

[jrockway]

It's not a grey area. Buying a book and skimming the boring parts is not illegal.

[natrius]

Making a copy of the book without the boring parts is illegal. This is what I think Instapaper does.

[jrockway]

It's perfectly legal if you do it for your own personal use.

[natrius]

Instapaper does it for commercial use. If the iPhone app does it client side, then it is probably legal. If it's server side, probably not.

[Zev]

Thats basically what I thought. Perhaps I should have said "Where you think this is this a grey area."