Quote:
Originally Posted by kjk
Sure. And some software is sold without copy protection, but with just a written license saying "limited to one user", that no one ever reads. Like OSX Leopard, which they sold the identical package as both a family pack and a single user pack, even though everyone knew they were the same, and there was no copy protection or licensing issues.
We bought the family pack. But, that's just us.
|
The difference is that Apple didn't give you OSX without asking for money first. The NY Times distributes the content to the user and
then attempts to obscure it. It's a silly way of doing things, at best. It's not a serious attempt at a paywall. Handing someone something, and
then expecting them to pay for it is a bad business plan. The proper order of operations is:
1) Accept Payment
2) Grant Access
If you don't even bother to lock up the content, and just hand it over, you can't blame people for accessing it.
The problem is, the effort they would've had to put into a serious paywall here is
trivial. It's the equivalent of taping the key to your house on the outside wall, right under the security code to turn off your alarm system, with a note that said, "Go ahead. Have at it."