Is this a paywall website now?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
If CN want to charge for their content that’s their right. Having lived through the CD burner and Napster era and not stealing content then, I’m not going to start now.
My main browser's settings only retain cookies for the sites I need to retain cookies for, the rest get flushed. One of the unintended consequences of this is that paywalled sites that offer limited page views with the limit count controlled by cookies do not work as intended. That is not my fault, that is a design issue. Either the designers are not aware that not every user keeps all their cookies all the time, or they have made a decision that they don't really care about such users. I really don't think you can accuse me of stealing.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
My main browser's settings only retain cookies for the sites I need to retain cookies for, the rest get flushed. One of the unintended consequences of this is that paywalled sites that offer limited page views with the limit count controlled by cookies do not work as intended. That is not my fault, that is a design issue. Either the designers are not aware that not every user keeps all their cookies all the time, or they have made a decision that they don't really care about such users. I really don't think you can accuse me of stealing.
I’m not accusing anyone else, I’m saying I’m not going to start doing something I don’t currently do to circumvent the paywall the CN have out in place.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
I might argue that flushing cookies you don't need is actually good practice.

The bigger problem with CN's implementation is that it doesn't just require the use of cookies, it requires the use of third party cookies in order to work - the login credentials are stored, IIRC, on a Future cookie, not CN's.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Does anyone know how much they charge for the subsequent months? All I see is the first month offer, but no info on what will follow, which is very weird. Maybe more details are displayed only after one registers their account with the main site, which seems to be the prerequisite for being able to subscribe?
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Does anyone know how much they charge for the subsequent months? All I see is the first month offer, but no info on what will follow, which is very weird. Maybe more details are displayed only after one registers their account with the main site, which seems to be the prerequisite for being able to subscribe?
I heard it's $5 but I've not looked into it.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
I might argue that flushing cookies you don't need is actually good practice.

The bigger problem with CN's implementation is that it doesn't just require the use of cookies, it requires the use of third party cookies in order to work - the login credentials are stored, IIRC, on a Future cookie, not CN's.
It certainly is, no arguments against that.


The law in this area, specifically DMCA, is actually quite poorly written, but I think that's probably because of these kind of filters. You can either hard filter and only allow subscribers, offer a trial period that still requires people to sign up with a payment option, or you can do this "first X articles free" method that relies on some sort of tracking. There's quite a bit of discussion around it, but it seems like you certainly could be taken to court for flushing cookies AND accessing more articles if that's the way the paywall works. Clearly it's extremely unlikely to ever happen to anyone.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Accessing content for free that you are supposed to pay for is stealing, whether it's really easy to do or not. If someone forgets to lock their rental property that doesn't mean you can go and stay in it for free.
Pirating is clearly illegal. I’d like some support for the statement that deleting cookies is illegal as well. If it’s legal, then it’s not stealing and not equivalent to entering another’s property unauthorised.

Notice how much weight “supposed” carries in your sentence. You are not generally supposed to pay to read the articles.
 
Feel free to expand it to “delete cookies in order to read more than 5 articles per month” (which was the implied meaning from the context).
(a)Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.


You can read the rest here:

 
Reactions: jmdirt
The law in this area, specifically DMCA, is actually quite poorly written, but I think that's probably because of these kind of filters.
The law is kind of weird on some of these things, I agree. I once got the UCI annual accounts early (such excitement!) because the PDF's URL was pretty obvious (last year's URL with the new date). I have seen such URL 'hacking' classed as illegal but I've also seen tech folk argue that security through obscurity is no defence (literally and legally). Arguably if you put something on the web it's published and it's up to you to secure it properly. CN can say 'you should have third party cookies enabled to access this site' (they don't) but really it's up to them to make access impossible without them, which they could do but don't want to.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
I should also point out that I primarily know of the existence of the CN paywall through this thread. I think I have been hit with the message about it just once, and I have seen the new log-in link a few times. But on a general day-to-day level, there is nothing on the CN site telling me I must not flush my cookies if I want to access the site. On a general day-to-day level, there is nothing on the CN site saying it has implemented a paywall of any kind. On that basis I don't think this can really be compared with breaking and entering.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Cookies aren’t a technology that “effectively controls access to a work” as they aren’t needed for one to read the articles.
You're not the judiciary, so you don't get to decide what a statue does and doesn't cover based on how you define a sentence. Unless you have case-law specifically stating this isn't covered then that's really the end of the discussion. I've provided you the law, you can find plenty of legal opinions on the matter and you can go and read into and see how the judiciary in places, because WIPO is covered under other statues in different territories, generally fall on these things. You know you are gaining free access to content for which you're supposed to be paying a fee to the rights holder. How you square that circle is up to you.
 
The law is kind of weird on some of these things, I agree. I once got the UCI annual accounts early (such excitement!) because the PDF's URL was pretty obvious (last year's URL with the new date). I have seen such URL 'hacking' classed as illegal but I've also seen tech folk argue that security through obscurity is no defence (literally and legally). Arguably if you put something on the web it's published and it's up to you to secure it properly. CN can say 'you should have third party cookies enabled to access this site' (they don't) but really it's up to them to make access impossible without them, which they could do but don't want to.
I can see that, especially if that content is going to be made publicly available. I guess it's similar to people receiving books, music etc. that they have pre-ordered early and listening to it. I could also see the argument that you've had to purposefully search for it, but then it comes down to whether that's deemed enough.

In terms of cookies, Future do state in their terms of service that users must not "(i) Use this Website or any other Future Site or Server in a manner that is inconsistent with these Terms and Conditions and/or any relevant laws and regulations in force from time to time" (for the pedants this is under the member section, which would include us anyway, but future do not define member and this conduct could be applied to anyone who uses the website, it'd have to be decided by the courts). Their cookie policy also states that they use them "to support security measures and to assist in identifying possible fraudulent or abusive activities." so I think they could argue that they are telling you that these cookies are being used in that way. It would all come down to what the courts decide and that seems extremely unlikely to ever happen. Taking someone to court over the $5 or whatever fee and risking losing if it is deemed they could have used other measures doesn't seem like something worthwhile.

I should also point out that I primarily know of the existence of the CN paywall through this thread. I think I have been hit with the message about it just once, and I have seen the new log-in link a few times. But on a general day-to-day level, there is nothing on the CN site telling me I must not flush my cookies if I want to access the site. On a general day-to-day level, there is nothing on the CN site saying it has implemented a paywall of any kind. On that basis I don't think this can really be compared with breaking and entering.
It would be trespass (I think), but you are aware of pay-wall and I've also read opinions that the way the law is written (specifically DMCA so I'm making an assumption the EU/UK/Whatever laws would be the same, which is fair as the EU directive is actually more restrictive than DMCA) it doesn't matter if you know or not (clearly that's again going to depend on the judiciary).

Really, I think it's more an ethical discussion than a legal one, because any legal argument is only going to be decided by the relevant courts, and I think Napster is a good comparison. It gave people free access to something they should have been paying for. Here, removing those cookies gives you free access to something that you should be paying for (and then there's the discussion about the pay-wall not yet being universal, unless they've changed that now). In both cases you get something for free and the rights holder is damaged. Personally, I'm not comfortable doing it, but I can see the argument for it.
 
You're not the judiciary, so you don't get to decide what a statue does and doesn't cover based on how you define a sentence. Unless you have case-law specifically stating this isn't covered then that's really the end of the discussion. I've provided you the law, you can find plenty of legal opinions on the matter and you can go and read into and see how the judiciary in places, because WIPO is covered under other statues in different territories, generally fall on these things. You know you are gaining free access to content for which you're supposed to be paying a fee to the rights holder. How you square that circle is up to you.
You are the one claiming it to be illegal, so the onus to bring evidence of your interpretation of the law is on you.
 
Really, I think it's more an ethical discussion than a legal one,
Looking at it ethically and going back to where this convo really began - you're not going to change your behaviour to circumvent the paywall - I'm not sure it is my responsibility to change my behaviour in order to enable Future to charge me one Euro. Personally I don't actually object to the paywall and if faced with it I would likely pay. But I'm not really being faced with it. From my point of view, the issue is Future's implementation, they're allowing people like me to slip the net, I'm not changing my behaviour in order to slip the net. Were I to change my behaviour in order to be faced with the paywall I would be rewarding their poor implementation. Doubly so if, in order to access CN, I have to set my browser to accept third party cookies for all sites.

(The irony of this, of course, is that Future seem to be implementing their paywall as a way to mitigate the damage when third party cookies go away, they're implementing a paywall in order to build up their own profiles of their users.)
 
Is your argument that cookies are equivalent to Warden in that case and deleting cookies equivalent to Glider?

Reading a bit further in the document, I really can't see how it compares. What's your point? To play WoW you had to agree to the ToU that forbade bots explicitly. Here's some of CN's cookie policy:

How does Future use cookies?
Future, together with our trusted partners, uses cookies in combination with other information we maintain for a number of purposes, including the following:
1. Essential and Functional Cookies
We use these cookies to enable certain online functionality including:
  • accessing your information so we can provide you with customised content and experiences, or remember the last page you visited on the Services;
  • identifying returning users, registrants and subscribers and allow them to be presented with a personalised version of the site;
  • eliminating the need for returning users to re-enter their login details;
  • commenting on our sites;
  • operating a shopping trolley on a variety of our Services including www.magazinesdirect.com;
  • maintaining your settings and authenticating your identity while you are logged in to the Services;
  • to support security measures and to assist in identifying possible fraudulent or abusive activities.
If you object to the use of essential and functional cookies please see here: How can users manage or opt out of cookies?
[...]
How can users manage or opt-out of cookies?
Some people find the idea of a website storing information on their device a little intrusive, in particular when the information is stored and used by a third party. For example, you may object to being served advertising which is targeted to your interests based on your browsing history. If you would prefer to opt out of cookies, it is possible to control cookies by following the steps below, however you should be aware that you might lose some features and functionality of the website if you do so.
Cookies, including those which have already been set, can be deleted from your hard drive. You can also change the preferences/settings in your web browser to control cookies. Some internet browsers have a ‘Do Not Track or ‘DNT’ setting; this sends a signal to websites asking them not to track your browsing. The following links may be helpful:
Cookie setting in Firefox
Cookie setting in Safari – desktop and mobile devices
Cookie setting in Internet Explorer
Cookie setting in Chrome
Cookie setting in Opera
In some cases, you can choose to accept cookies from the primary site, but block them from third parties. In others, you can block cookies from specific advertisers, or clear out all cookies. Deleting or blocking cookies may reduce functionality of the site. To learn more about how to reject cookies, visit http://www.allaboutcookies.org/ or go to the help menu within your internet browser. If you experience any problems having deleted cookies, you should contact the supplier of your web browser.

~~~

We may delete or block cookies, but then we might lose some features and functionality in turn, that's it. It's explicitly allowed and in no way forbidden to use software that block cookies. So the complete opposite of the case you linked.
 
Last edited:
Looking at it ethically and going back to where this convo really began - you're not going to change your behaviour to circumvent the paywall - I'm not sure it is my responsibility to change my behaviour in order to enable Future to charge me one Euro. Personally I don't actually object to the paywall and if faced with it I would likely pay. But I'm not really being faced with it. From my point of view, the issue is Future's implementation, they're allowing people like me to slip the net, I'm not changing my behaviour in order to slip the net. Were I to change my behaviour in order to be faced with the paywall I would be rewarding their poor implementation. Doubly so if, in order to access CN, I have to set my browser to accept third party cookies for all sites.

(The irony of this, of course, is that Future seem to be implementing their paywall as a way to mitigate the damage when third party cookies go away, they're implementing a paywall in order to build up their own profiles of their users.)
Ethically, the actual function paywall seems irrelevant in your situation. If you’re aware of it, and aware you should be paying, then in my view if you’re not paying, you shouldn’t read the articles. There is the wrinkle there that, for you to actually encounter it and be able to sign up you would have to enable cookies just to access it, which clearly shouldn’t be the case. I guess choosing not to read the articles is a slight behavioural change, but that doesn’t seem a strong argument. You’re not compelled to click on the articles. To be clear though I don’t think this is some massive ethical problem or anything, I’m just saying how I feel about it.

I’m sure Future don’t care very much. They will have decided that a soft pay-wall is going to get more people signing up than a hard one. Maybe they’ll move to a hard pay-wall at some point, but they obviously know it can be defeated and haven’t moved to stop that.
 
Just found out you guys are charging money now. You guys already bombard us with 20 stupid ads every article, you also shill your affiliate links with sponsored articles like the ""reviews"" and ""buyers guide"". Absolutely bonkers!

Pluss the newfound focus on womens cycling on this site that 98% of fans dont even care about to read at all, i bet you guys are hemorrhaging money now. (this is not a knock against womens cycling)
Such a shame, it used to be a good site, especially the forum back in the day. I give it two years max until you are bankrupt.

EDIT: Also i see you have removed the RSS feed, what the hell!!
 
Last edited:
Reactions: jmdirt

ASK THE COMMUNITY