Because people reading an elaborate, richly designed, deeply researched, and entertainingly written article about a font will really be grasping for straws trying to defend their unwillingness to pay?

It's original reporting, so the usual copout of calling it worthless as soon as it appears in more than one publication doesn't work.

It's a metered paywall, so their insistence that they only read a single article from the NYT, like, once per year is provably wrong.

The topic is rather whimsical, and unlikely to be of much consequence for anybody's life. That makes any sort of appeal to a "right to be informed" or sumsuch rather flimsy.

Because nytimes doesn't want to be mirrored. A mirror would be a kind of arms race between nytimes and the mirror.

We don’t have a legal way.

FTFY

We have a technical method to do so, but the site has not been created, that I know of. For example:

* A domain name like ipfs://nytimesmirror.com that mirrors nytimes articles (at the same relative URLs) * Some kind of crowdsourced process for content curation.

I'm aware that it's not legal, but I wouldn't be against it. Content piracy has been a catalyst for change. I simultaneously would be willing to pay nytimes for access to their content but I'm not willing to sign up to a $15 / month subscription. So if their content was widely pirated using delivery method like IPFS they might be incentivized to problem solve that for me.

> Content piracy has been a catalyst for change.

Yet paying for content has been a catalyst for...content.

> they might be incentivized to problem solve that for me.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Use of an IPFS DNSlink TXT record would make it not decentralized.