Copyright isn't being circumvented - the content of the website is made available for the public and the website just grabs what is publicly available.

Redistributing copyrighted content is the literal definition of copyright infringement. Using it for your own purposes, without distribution, is another story.

This link was posted with intent to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material. The person who posted it justified posting the link by saying some people don't have a subscription.

I understand that some people think copyright shouldn't exist, but it clearly is being circumvented here.

Legally it's infringement but I don't have a lot of sympathy for semi-porous paywalls getting circumvented. If they don't want free readers, they can set up a hard paywall. If they offer free samples and I occasionally take one I'm not going to feel bad about it, or worry about that specific type of copyright infringement making it more difficult for journalists to make a living.

In the context of use on hacker news, I think the fair use exemption for public comment is a sufficient justification, which is likely why they allow its use.

I'll start caring about copyright when the government starts caring about my personal information that is being traded around the internet (with the help of journalism). Information is money, and we're all being stolen from.

If OpenAI doesn't need to respect copyright why should we?

Copyright is dead.

I think copyright should exist, but it only exists in that you can put a gate around it. The website makes the content available freely for the public, just use incognito mode or something or change your IP address and you get access to it.

If this was, for example, was only content behind a paywall that would make more sense to suggest there is a copyright violation here.

Is there a micropayment option or something? I wish I could friction-free, buy access to these sites al al carte without dealing with them directly or setting up a recurring subscription directly with them.

Best we can do is a monthly subscription, with every dark pattern known to man to prevent cancellation.

They should learn to code.

I don't know why this is downvoted, it's the truth. NYT actually has a "gift article" functionality that makes it easy to share articles with non-subscribers.

I'm a subscriber, but not everyone is.

Subscribers can share the link as a gift, so readers can see the original, not the proxied version.

I cannot trust that a gift link does not tie to my IRL identity I subscribe under. I can trust that archive links do not. The NY Times gets my money either way. It's an opsec concern. Trust no one.

If someone wants to post gift links in every thread, just let me know who to pay to enable that, I am happy to.

And by making it easy for them to circumvent copyright, they have even less incentive to support the journalists who did the reporting.

You are 100% correct. I find the attitude that everything should be free a bit tedious. But then again, why does the truth have to be paywalled while lies are free. I believe it is a detriment to society that we cannot publicly find reporting. Yes I know now come the cynics who will argue bias. But that’s just a failure of reading comprehension, not fair reporting doctrine.

So yes. I’m with you 100%.