Ethics of Bypassing Paywalls on News

[AlexB23]

Is it immoral to bypass paywalls? This is a question that many of us internet users might have asked. I will provide a secular and theological explanation of why bypassing paywalls is immoral, though I do bypass paywalls myself, often to help others on CF get access to news from New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and others. In the very near future, I will post a companion to this post, discussing why paywalls might be unethical. EDIT April 18, 2024 @ 6:15 PM: I will no longer be using paywall bypassing software to access or to summarize paywall articles, as the wonderful folks on this forum have changed my mind. From now on, all articles summarized by me or AI will be articles that are meant to be publicly available or open-access. For articles behind a paywall, some local libraries have legal agreements with news agencies to allow readers to access articles using a library card code. So, if you folks want to read a WaPo or NYT article for free (legally), please contact your local library for more information.

This type of popup is known as a paywall (Wiki link), for those who have not heard this term. A paywall is used to restrict access to news articles that require a subscription. Some newspapers, such as The Guardian, BBC (news) and the Onion (satire) do not use paywalls, and instead run on an ad-revenue and/or donation-based fee model.

Secular Perspective

1. Intellectual Property Rights: Paywalls are often used by publishers to protect their intellectual property and generate revenue. By bypassing them, one is essentially stealing the content that the publisher has worked hard to produce and distribute.
2. Fairness and Integrity: Paywalls create a level playing field for all consumers who are willing to pay for the content. By bypassing them, one is not contributing to the revenue stream that supports the creation and distribution of quality journalism or research.
3. Moral Responsibility: By paying for content, one assumes moral responsibility for supporting the creators and ensuring that they can continue to produce high-quality work. Bypassing paywalls undermines this responsibility and can lead to a culture of entitlement and disregard for the value of intellectual labor.

Biblical Perspective:

1. Stewardship: The Bible teaches that we are stewards of God's resources and are called to use them wisely and responsibly (2 Corinthians 9:6-8). By paying for content, we are being good stewards of the resources that God has given us and supporting those who produce valuable content.
2. Honesty and Integrity: The Bible also teaches that we are called to be honest and have integrity in all our dealings (Proverbs 12:22, Ephesians 4:25). By bypassing paywalls and taking content that is not rightfully ours, we are violating these principles.
3. Supporting the Work of God's People: The Bible encourages us to support those who labor in the Lord's work, including teachers and preachers (1 Timothy 5:17-18). By paying for content, we are supporting those who are producing valuable work that can help us grow in knowledge and understanding.
4. Fruits of the Spirit: The fruits of the Spirit include kindness, generosity, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). By paying for content and supporting those who produce it, we are exhibiting these fruits in our lives and contributing to a culture of generosity and fairness.

In conclusion, from both a secular logical reasoning/ethics perspective and a Christian Biblical perspective, bypassing paywalls is immoral. It undermines intellectual property rights, creates an unfair playing field, violates moral responsibility, and goes against principles of stewardship, honesty, integrity, and supporting the work of God's people.

 

[zippy2006]

Good, and, "Thou Shalt Not Steal."

 

[Hazelelponi]

I absolutely agree with your premise here. If someone is doing a job, such as journalism, and they are making their living off it then paying for it is the same as buying the newspaper - which everyone used to do.

Now instead of paper news, it's digital news and there's no more paper boy riding his bike down the street...

But it's still news, and people are still making their living bringing the information to people in order to keep them informed about important events of our day.

So not paying for it is theft, the same as if you picked up a newspaper and walked out of the store without paying for it.

Thou shalt not steal is the Bible verse to support the premise.

There's some sites that are behind paywall that I absolutely will not read from because I will not financially support that kind of nonsense, however, because I feel that way I also don't care what they have to say about literally anything. So I'm good never reading them. Ever. I won't steal their content because I care less than nothing about it.

If it's not worth buying it's not worth stealing in my mind. But I might be weird. Lol...

 

[partinobodycular]

Is it immoral to bypass paywalls? This is a question that many of us internet users might have asked. I will provide a secular and theological explanation of why bypassing paywalls is immoral, though I do bypass paywalls myself, often to help others on CF get access to news from New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and others. In the very near future, I will post a companion to this post, discussing why paywalls might be unethical.

This type of popup is known as a paywall (Wiki link), for those who have not heard this term. A paywall is used to restrict access to news articles that require a subscription. Some newspapers, such as The Guardian, BBC (news) and the Onion (satire) do not use paywalls, and instead run on an ad-revenue and/or donation-based fee model.

That's one of my pet peeves with society. It divides people between those who have the ability to pay, and those who don't. Personally, whenever I see a paywall or a subscription, who's sole purpose is to restrict access to only the rich, then I'm very apt to want to tear that wall down, or in the very least I'm gonna find a way to go around it, over it, or through it.

It's not so much that I need the thing, in fact I'm probably fine without it, it's just the idea that because I'm poor, someone has decided that I'm not good enough to have it. What if that paywall simply said "Whites Only"? Somehow, society has gotten the idea that it's okay to discriminate against the poor. It's their moral character that's in question, and not the moral character of the person treating them like second class citizens.

So you can go ahead and make all the moral judgments that you want to... but personally, I'm gonna be overturning the tables of the money changers, and not thinking twice about it.

 

[JosephZ]

It divides people between those who have the ability to pay, and those who don't. Personally, whenever I see a paywall or a subscription, who's sole purpose is to restrict access to only the rich, then I'm very apt to want to tear that wall down, or in the very least I'm gonna find a way to go around it, over it, or through it.

Prior to the digital age, did you break into the newspaper racks and grab a newspaper? Put 50 cents in and take all the copies. Of course you didn't.

Could you read your local newspaper, US Today, or The New York Times for free? No, you couldn't.

Did you think the news outlets were discriminating against the poor in the past when their publications were strictly in print form and they charged for them? The thought probably never entered your mind.

 

[partinobodycular]

Did you think the news outlets were discriminating against the poor in the past when their publications were strictly in print form and they charged for them?

Yes. That's the heart and soul of capitalism. Servicing the needs of the people with money, at the expense of the people without it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes. That's the heart and soul of capitalism. Servicing the needs of the people with money, at the expense of the people without it.

If you don't think the news services the needs of the poor then I think your mistaken. The news helps keep us informed about things that can affect the poor just as much as the wealthy.

I'm living on disability so I mostly rely on things that are Ad supported as opposed to paying, and to date I have never used an ad blocker so as to make sure I'm "paying" for the content by putting up with ads.. (though I'm pretty careful about what sites I visit as a result).

But there's a couple things I will subscribe to when the subscription is low enough cost, because I can spare a few dollars on things I find worthy...

And I find the news as worthy now as I did when I had subscriptions for the news papers back in the day.

I also had magazine subscriptions back in the day too, delivered monthly.

Just because all of it is digitized now doesn't mean we should just get it free.

We really should be Christians first. I know we aren't perfect but we should at least strive to show a living Christ to the people around us the best we can. He is who we emulate, and my Jesus doesn't think people have to work for free to serve our needs or that other people should buy your newspaper because they might have more than you. (Though if they do out of kindness it's always welcome I'm sure)

As Jesus said, the poor will always be with us. It's our actions we will be judged for, and there's no room for excuses there. If you don't think someone else has good behavior, it's not an excuse to have bad behavior.

It's a reason to show through action that we can rise above the world in Christ, which doesn't mean "oh I'm better than you" it's a reminder to us that Christ is our strength, not ourselves, even when our flesh is weak.

 

[Matt5]

Websites make the bypass option available, but they don't have to. They can make it impossible or very hard to bypass if they want to. Many websites want their articles viewable if found via Google search. If I just Google search for a title or snippet of text, then I'm in. Or some other website may have that exact article.

I guess it all depends on how you bypass.

I'm not going to break into a website in order to view an article, but I might Google search for it in order to see if other viewing options are available. Sometimes that means I just don't get to read the article.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes. That's the heart and soul of capitalism. Servicing the needs of the people with money, at the expense of the people without it.

So you are asserting that breaking through a paywall is not theft, but resditribution of wealth.

On the other hand one consequence of the digital revolution is that quality newspapers that invest in serious investigative journalism are having such work compromised through loss of revenue. I don't have any major objecctions to the resdistribution of wealth, but I have profound objections to reducing the power of this aspect of the Fourth Estate.

 

[AlexB23]

So, I like all your guys' posts so far. I see the reason why bypassing paywalls is theft such as stated by @JosephZ , @Hazelelponi and @zippy2006 , while on the other hand, I see why paywalls could produce a divide in who has quality information, and who does not as stated by @partinobodycular . For me, I do not read the news that often, but since joining CF, I have started reading the articles posted by people on here, so I bypass the paywalls to summarize articles for people, as not everyone has a WP or NYT subscription. I am just the messenger here. For ethical reasons, I will not divulge the name of the paywall bypassing system, but it runs inside an ad blocker.

Mr. @partinobodycular , what are your thoughts on this futuristic system known as Pay-What-You-Want (PWYW), which is a modern term for donation run systems? Here is a journal article (it is open access), by the Germans (well, not the 1940s ones) about the PWYW system: https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14312/7/393.pdf


This is an explanation of the PWYW system, in a nice little table, cos tables are cool.

Category	Description
Definition of PWYW System	The Pay What You Want (PWYW) pricing strategy is a flexible pricing model that allows customers to set their own price for goods or services being offered. This means that buyers can decide how much they are willing to pay for a product or service instead of following a fixed price point established by the seller.
Benefits of PWYW System	1. Increased customer satisfaction: Customers appreciate having control over what they pay and may feel more positive about their purchase experience. 2. Improved brand loyalty: By offering flexibility and trusting customers' judgment, businesses can foster stronger relationships with their audience. 3. Potential for higher revenue: Depending on implementation, some companies have found that allowing customers to choose their prices leads to increased sales due to reduced barriers to entry. 4. Enhanced social proof: Businesses using PWYW models often see an increase in word-of-mouth marketing as satisfied customers share their experiences with others. 5. Reduced waste and inventory costs: In certain industries like foodservice, PWYW systems can help reduce spoilage and lower overall operational expenses.
Drawbacks of PWYW System	1. Risk of underpricing: Some customers might take advantage of this system by paying significantly less than market value, leading to potential profit loss. 2. Difficulty setting expectations: It can be challenging to establish appropriate benchmarks for fair payment, making it difficult for consumers to determine suitable amounts. 3. Time consumption: Managing a PWYW system requires additional resources dedicated to processing payments, handling customer inquiries, and tracking data. 4. Negative impact on perceived quality: If not executed carefully, implementing a PWYW model could lead customers to question the product or service's worthiness, thereby harming its reputation. 5. Limited applicability: Not all products and services lend themselves well to PWYW arrangements, particularly those with high production costs or rigid industry regulations.
Real-World Examples of PWYW Systems	Company/Industry/Person
Radiohead	British rock band Radiohead released their album "In Rainbows" via a PWYW download platform in 2007, generating significant buzz and debate around the unconventional approach.
Panera Bread Cares	Select locations of the popular bakery chain offer a PWYW program called "Panera Cares," which aims to provide affordable meals for individuals facing financial hardships while promoting community engagement. DISCONTINUED: 2019
Humble Bundle	A digital storefront specializing in video games, books, software, and other forms of entertainment offers periodic bundles where customers can pay any amount above a minimum threshold, with proceeds going towards charity causes.
Amanda Palmer	Independent musician Amanda Palmer raised almost $1.2 million through Kickstarter in 2012 using a PWYW pledge structure, demonstrating the power of fan support when given greater autonomy over contributions.
One World Everybody Eats	Nonprofit organization advocates for and supports restaurants adopting PWYW models, aiming to alleviate hunger and build connections within communities. CLOSED: 2012

 

[zippy2006]

I am just the messenger here. For ethical reasons, I will not divulge the name of the paywall bypassing system...

The fact that you will not divulge the name of the system for ethical reasons is already evidence that using such a system is immoral. If it is immoral to take apples from a tree without paying, then taking apples without paying and distributing them to others for free is more immoral than simply taking apples, not less immoral. It is not being "a messenger," it is being "a black-market distributer." In this case you are consuming the apples as well, but even if you abstained from eating the apples it would still be immoral.

 

[partinobodycular]

First off, love your response. It does however, provide me with a couple of salient points to address.

Just because all of it is digitized now doesn't mean we should just get it free.

Fundamentally you're correct. But it really has very little to do with the fact that things are now digitized. It has to do with the way that society has been structured from it's very earliest days... by a system of laws and punishments. A system that has served it's purpose well, even though it's rarely meant the equitable distribution of opportunities.

Our American forefathers said it beautifully in the 'Declaration of Independence':

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Inspirational words indeed, and on it's face it's a noble cause. Unfortunately, God may endow us with certain unalienable rights, but life doesn't distribute them equally to all, and we, at least up to this point have been incapable of changing this, with poverty, and social upheaval an inevitable consequence, not simply because people are evil, but because life is neither easy nor fair, and laws, as much as they may seek to, can't change the inequitable nature of life itself.

But digitization does give us one thing... it gives us the opportunity to begin to chip away at the barriers between the haves and the have nots. When the cost between providing something to the few becomes veritably the same as providing it to everyone, then I would think that it's in society's best interest to do the latter.

Currently, thanks to ACP I pay nothing for internet access. It may not seem like much, but it's a start. Our goal should be that it's only a start. Hopefully the day will come when our ability to provide for our unalienable rights will equal God's purpose in endowing us with those rights. To that end we should be looking for every opportunity to do so, and not looking to deny to the poorest of us access to things that should be available to all of us.

We really should be Christians first. I know we aren't perfect but we should at least strive to show a living Christ to the people around us the best we can. He is who we emulate, and my Jesus doesn't think people have to work for free to serve our needs or that other people should buy your newspaper because they might have more than you. (Though if they do out of kindness it's always welcome I'm sure)

In this case I think that we can agree, that it's better to be a Christian in actions only, than to be a Christian in name only. I'll take the former over the latter every time. In fact, I'm a bit biased as to which group is actually worthy of the name.

 

[partinobodycular]

So you are asserting that breaking through a paywall is not theft, but resditribution of wealth.

I'm asserting that it's a reasonable form of social protest against a system that's unwittingly designed to place barriers between the haves and the have nots.

On the other hand one consequence of the digital revolution is that quality newspapers that invest in serious investigative journalism are having such work compromised through loss of revenue.

Something that we can agree is in serious need of reform with the advent of fake news and misinformation threatening the very fabric of society itself. The question is, how long will a news source that relies upon a paywall to fund its operations survive in a world driven by clickbait?

It seems to me that all that you're going to end up doing is driving the most naive among us to the news sources most likely to mislead them.

I don't have any major objecctions to the resdistribution of wealth, but I have profound objections to reducing the power of this aspect of the Fourth Estate.

Perhaps, if done correctly, we can empower both the poor, and those vested with keeping them informed. But with a paywall you may be fated to losing them both.

 

[partinobodycular]

Mr. @partinobodycular , what are your thoughts on this futuristic system known as Pay-What-You-Want (PWYW), which is a modern term for donation run systems?

First off, it's not Mr., but the show of respect is duly noted.

I think that attempts at changing the system are noble endeavors, but unfortunately doomed to fail... until the day that one doesn't. And that day will probably come one arduous step after another. Things such as "Buy a pair, give a pair" may be little more than marketing schemes, but they do in a sense allow for voluntary wealth redistribution.

Who knows, given the right opportunity people may be capable of doing on their own what governments never could. Technology is creating wealth, it would be an awful shame to waste it on acquiring stuff. Give people the mindset and the opportunity to share, and perhaps you can change the world.

 

[partinobodycular]

If it is immoral to take apples from a tree without paying, then taking apples without paying and distributing them to others for free is more immoral than simply taking apples, not less immoral. It is not being "a messenger," it is being "a black-market distributer." In this case you are consuming the apples as well, but even if you abstained from eating the apples it would still be immoral.

Don't forget that in the OT farmers were commanded to leave the edges of their fields for the poor. When people are denied access to things that others take for granted, it's wrong to judge them for wanting a slice of what someone else has an overabundance of. You can call their actions immoral if you want to, but I would be more apt to judge the system that creates them, than the person who's simply a consequence of it.

 

[AlexB23]

The fact that you will not divulge the name of the system for ethical reasons is already evidence that using such a system is immoral. If it is immoral to take apples from a tree without paying, then taking apples without paying and distributing them to others for free is more immoral than simply taking apples, not less immoral. It is not being "a messenger," it is being "a black-market distributer." In this case you are consuming the apples as well, but even if you abstained from eating the apples it would still be immoral.

Yeah, but I will make a post tonight (actually tomorrow, cos I had a long day) about why paywalls are unethical. But yeah, I will start summarizing paywall blocked news sites less often for you guys, and eventually reduce that to zero. Your responses here make me realize what I am doing is unethical. Though, prior to 2011, NYT did not have a paywall.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is it immoral to bypass paywalls?

Yes. I have refrained from commenting on your activities on the site (as I am not in charge), but I confess I don't condone your efforts to skirt paywalls and deprive sources of information of their IP/content rights.

I am (or rather my spouse is) a WaPo subscriber, so when I think it important, I use one of my 10 monthly gift articles to provide access here. As WaPo allows.

 

[AlexB23]

First off, it's not Mr., but the show of respect is duly noted.

I think that attempts at changing the system are noble endeavors, but unfortunately doomed to fail... until the day that one doesn't. And that day will probably come one arduous step after another. Things such as "Buy a pair, give a pair" may be little more than marketing schemes, but they do in a sense allow for voluntary wealth redistribution.

Who knows, given the right opportunity people may be capable of doing on their own what governments never could. Technology is creating wealth, it would be an awful shame to waste it on acquiring stuff. Give people the mindset and the opportunity to share, and perhaps you can change the world.

Sorry for assuming that you are a guy. But yeah, the system is probably not gonna change. Yeah, the Gini index of this country is approaching 0.5, meaning we have a lot of inequality, so bypassing paywalls could help.

 

[AlexB23]

Yes. I have refrained from commenting on your activities on the site (as I am not in charge), but I confess I don't condone your efforts to skirt paywalls and deprive sources of information of their IP/content rights.

I am (or rather my spouse is) a WaPo subscriber, so when I think it important, I use one of my 10 monthly gift articles to provide access here. As WaPo allows.

Hey, thank you for explaining this. I use artificial intelligence to reword the articles, so I do not violate copyright, but I see your point. From now on, I will use my library card to access NYT and others instead of the paywall blocker. Is that ethical, to then post the summaries, if I use my library card instead of the paywall blocker as my library gives me free access to these news sites? You guys have made me decide to deactivate my paywall bypass software today, as both groups of people (Christians and atheists) have said the same thing, that paywall blockers are unethical.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, but I will make a post tonight about why paywalls are unethical. But yeah, I will start summarizing paywall blocked news sites less often for you guys, and eventually reduce that to zero. Your responses here make me realize what I am doing is unethical.

Okay, well good for you, that is impressive. I will try to keep an eye out for your post.