Content not available for licensing is a justification for infringement? That doesn't ring true at all for me - exclusive content is often much more valuable to a business than content that's licensed. I doubt anyone would think that goldman sachs coverage being distributed by morgan stanley would fit under some "no harm, no foul" ethos even if Morgan significantly improved on the layout of the pages.

I don't agree with the infringement, I just think that boiling it down to "stealing" is too reductionist. The reality here is a bit more complicated.

Seriously, I think I am the only person who doesn't think it is OK to torrent Game of Thrones. :)

Is there a rock bottom hackernews will reach for leaning on shockingly bad analogies to make a point?

Its their content, just because they won't let you use it doesn't mean you can break in and grab it.

They also don't have an API, and they also don't allow you to pay for a license or API for websites.

Do you have anything you're unwilling to sell? And if so is it cool if I just take it?

This is unfortunately an increasingly common viewpoint. See for example the recent "Take My Money, HBO" site where people justify pirating the content because HBO won't sell episodes/seasons directly to them.

While I agree with you that taking something somebody isn't selling is wrong, it is still a force any content creator must come to terms with if they want to be realistic about 21st century content creation.

The difference here is that CL still has the content. We always end up in the same fruitless discussion with different subjects: software patents, content, digital media. Should you be able to own something if copying it is practically free? The only right answer is "no", but nobody likes it.

What about if instead of taking it I take a picture with my "3D camera" and then have my "3D printer" create one.

Am I still stealing it?