Is it illegal to get around a paywall?

[Mise]

Is it illegal to use e.g. NoScript or changing your User Agent to get around a website's paywall? Preferably under UK law.

Note to mods: I'm not suggesting anyone do anything illegal, just asking whether it is illegal or not.

 

[illram]

I'd imagine it would be at the very least a potential copyright violation, in the UK and elsewhere. In the US that is a civil matter unless you do it for commercial purposes, then it becomes a crime. Also in the US, there are a variety of laws about unauthorized access to computers and networks that may be applicable, unsure about the UK.

 

[mdwh]

I'd imagine it would be at the very least a potential copyright violation, in the UK and elsewhere. In the US that is a civil matter unless you do it for commercial purposes, then it becomes a crime. Also in the US, there are a variety of laws about unauthorized access to computers and networks that may be applicable, unsure about the UK.

Is accessing a public webserver, that's been connected to the public Internet, that happily shares pages over the public world wide web, unauthorised access?

Note, I'm not saying you're wrong - you may well be right. I'm just noting how odd this situation is for the law to treat it in terms of unauthorised access. On a similar note, in the UK it's copyright infringement to copy a CD you bought to your own mp3 player - so we have the problem that even if something is technically copyright infringement, that doesn't necessarily tell us how enforceable it is.

 

[Mise]

Thanks! Is it illegal to develop a tool like NoScript then? Or is it just illegal to use NoScript on particular websites that have javascript-based paywalls?

 

[illram]

If it were illegal then the illegal act would be using it and not developing it. I've used NoScript and it seems to have a variety of alternative uses.

 

[Mise]

Hmm, there's two bits to that - (a) that using it and not developing it is what's illegal, and (b) that it has other uses as well. If someone made an extension specifically to get round e.g. the NYT paywall (there are a few that do this), would developing it be illegal because it has no other uses, or would it be legal to develop to illegal to use?

Sorry if these are silly questions I don't really know where or how to ask them otherwise...

 

[illram]

It really depends on the law, these things are very specific. Most laws regulate distributing it and using it but not strictly coding it, which might run into more serious enforceability issues.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Well, suppose its one of those badly-coded ones requiring cookies or something. Really, legally, its as illegal as it is to delete your cookies. But there may be some copyright issues so I don't know really. I'm not a lawyer though and this is sort of silly and if they really wanted people to pay they would probably use some form of a login system.

 

[wolfigor]

its as illegal as it is to delete your cookies.

as far as I know it is not illegal to delete cookies from your system (actually it's something good to do if you care about your privacy)

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Thats what I was trying to say. But it came out clumsy sounding.

 

[GoodGame]

If it were illegal then the illegal act would be using it and not developing it. I've used NoScript and it seems to have a variety of alternative uses.

The main reason for NoScript was to protect against JavasScript-based hacking/viruses I believe.

 

[Souron]

I don't think it would qualify as a copyright violation. But you are bypassing a security system. That's like picking a lock.

On the other hand, the access restricting organisation has no right to restrict the software you use to access there site. So it's not your fault if you access their site without a javascript enabled browser and access content they don't wish you to see. If they really don't want you to see it they should not give your computer access.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I don't think it would qualify as a copyright violation. But you are bypassing a security system. That's like picking a lock.

I think its more like having a very flimsy doorframe and managing to rip off the lock. Because a lot of times what they use for the paywalls can't be called "security"

 

[wolfigor]

I think its more like having a very flimsy doorframe and managing to rip off the lock. Because a lot of times what they use for the paywalls can't be called "security"

it's more like not having the walls itself.
Technically if you have a browser that doesn't execute scripts you not even aware that there is a paywall.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

it's more like not having the walls itself.
Technically if you have a browser that doesn't execute scripts you not even aware that there is a paywall.

I'm no good with analogies.

 

[Mise]

Ok, so, if a website makes its articles freely available (i.e. without a paywall), would I still be infringing copyright or something if I made an app that allowed someone to view and download those articles? The site in question has its own app but that app is not free and requires a subscription, even though the content itself is freely available on their website.

I figure it's just like making a web-browser. It's really no different.

 

[Abaddon]

probably.. since they won't get any of the normal add revenue from you browsing their site?

 

[illram]

The question is not "can I do this legally" the question is "will someone sue me."

Short Answer: You can get sued.

Long Answer: You will need to review the copyright terms for each provider. Generally, they are written as broadly as possible. If a site has their own pay app that does what you want to do for free, then I would definitely expect to hear from them.

Example of a copyright notice:

Copyright Notice

All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company or in the case of third party materials, the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only.

Links to Web sites other than those owned by The New York Times Company are offered as a service to readers. The editorial staff of The New York Times was not involved in their production and is not responsible for their content.

For further information, see Section Two of the Terms of Service.

To contact other Times departments, see the Help section of NYTimes.com.

Basically, newspapers technically have the right to control how their articles are distributed or used for commercial purposes. E.g., NY Times has the right to control how and when people "reproduce, distribute, transmit, display, publish or broadcast" their articles. Most news web sites have similar notices. So, if I created a site that took NY Times articles and posted them on my site for others to look at and download, even if I attribute it to NY Times, I am infringing their copyright by providing access and distributing their content without permission for my non-personal use. (Free does not equal non commercial.) I am also taking away hits on their webpage.

If I code a web browser like Firefox where a user has to direct themselves to NY Times' web page, that is one thing. But if I create an app that takes the article and provides it to the user anywhere other than on a site run or authorized by the NY Times to host the article, I am technically violating their terms of use.

 

[Mise]

Well the app doesn't reproduce it anywhere, it just downloads it from the news website (one copy) and displays it on the user's phone. The app, which is on the user's phone, connects to the website (just as a browser would), and downloads the HTML (just as a browser would). But, unlike a browser, what it then does is strip out all the adverts and pictures and things and just leaves the text. So the entire webpage is downloaded, but only the text is displayed to the user. I'm not sure whether that counts as modifying the content, because the content (i.e. the article) is intact, it's just presented in a different way.

To clarify, imagine if you had a web-browser that was incapable of viewing pictures or flash or CSS, etc. It would just show you the article and a blank space everywhere else. That's what this app is going to do.

 

[illram]

But the user does not go to NYTimes.com (or wherever), the app does, and gets the content and gives it to the user? If I were the NYTimes (or whoever) I would say that is "reproducing, distributing, transmitting, displaying, publishing or broadcasting" without their consent. It's not a portal to their website, it is taking their content, stripping it of all the revenue generating things they put with it such as ads and so on, and distributing it to a user. Stripping out pictures would in fact be directly altering the story so that in and of itself would clearly violate the letter of their terms of service.

This is discussed in even more detail in their terms of service. Bolded parts are where I think you might run into issues.

Spoiler :

2. CONTENT ON THE SERVICES

2.1 The contents of the Services, including the Site, are intended for your personal, noncommercial use. All materials published on the Services (including, but not limited to news articles, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips and video clips, also known as the "Content") are protected by copyright, and owned or controlled by The New York Times Company or the party credited as the provider of the Content. You shall abide by all additional copyright notices, information, or restrictions contained in any Content accessed through the Service.

2.2 The Services and Contents are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in Section 2.3 of these Terms of Service), create new works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content or the Services (including software) in whole or in part.

2.3 You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Services for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein. Copying or storing of any Content for other than personal use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from The New York Times Rights and Permissions Department, or the copyright holder identified in the copyright notice contained in the Content.

2.4 The Content of the Services is owned or licensed to NYT. Certain Content is furnished by the Associated Press and Reuters, which will not be liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any such Content, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising therefrom.

Now perhaps you could have an argument that you are now downloading anything, you are simply providing a more expedient way for the user to download copies for their personal use. But forget the legal jargon for a second: Would the NYTimes ever make any money if people could do this? No. Your app, if popular, cuts into their bottom line so you would inevitably hear from someone's attorneys if your app became popular. Basically if you take content from any user's site and transmit it to someone else you are potentially opening yourself up to liability. This is different from a program which displays content like Firefox--what you're describing is slightly different.