I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any
person, by any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is required, with intent to avoid payment.
I have seen several links here recently to sites that bypass paywalls;
should that be allowed on UKLM?
I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under Section
11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any person, by
any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is required,
with intent to avoid payment.
I have seen several links here recently to sites that bypass paywalls;
should that be allowed on UKLM?
I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any
person, by any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is required, with intent to avoid payment.
I have seen several links here recently to sites that bypass paywalls;
should that be allowed on UKLM?
I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any
person, by any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is >required, with intent to avoid payment.
I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any
person, by any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is required, with intent to avoid payment.
I have seen several links here recently to sites that bypass paywalls;
should that be allowed on UKLM?
I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any
person, by any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is required, with intent to avoid payment.
I have seen several links here recently to sites that bypass paywalls;
should that be allowed on UKLM?
I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any
person, by any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is required, with intent to avoid payment.
I have seen several links here recently to sites that bypass paywalls;
should that be allowed on UKLM?
On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 15:50:54 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any
person, by any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is >>required, with intent to avoid payment.
The vast majority of Internet paywalls are porous, and deliberately
so. From a technical perspective, a porous paywall strikes the right
balance between maximising revenue and ensuring widespread
availability. But a corollary of this is that there will always be
means of exploiting the porosity and accessing the content without
paying. If so, it is not fraudulent to use the non-paywalled means of
access.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any
person, by any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is
required, with intent to avoid payment.
I have seen several links here recently to sites that bypass paywalls;
should that be allowed on UKLM?
It is well known that some sites use JavaScript to generate a paywall or sign-up page. As this runs on one’s own computer and is under the control of the user, it cannot be illegal, unlawful, or even immoral, to disable JS and so avoid some at least of these barriers to these sorts of sites. There are doubtless other ways to restrict the availability of such sites.
I use a smartphone for internet access, but don’t usually use its embedded web browser, except to access JS-controlled pages due to the browser’s JS having been disabled.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in news:jvkg6kds83le401r2a1tr2abcg8nhe5tki@4ax.com:
[quoted text muted]And yet people have been threatened with prosecution as violations of
the Computer Misuse Act 1990 for speculative navigation around
accessible website elements unlinked from intended high level navigation pages of mainstream websites.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 19:59:20 +0000, Peter Walker wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in
news:jvkg6kds83le401r2a1tr2abcg8nhe5tki@4ax.com:
[quoted text muted]And yet people have been threatened with prosecution as violations of
the Computer Misuse Act 1990 for speculative navigation around
accessible website elements unlinked from intended high level navigation
pages of mainstream websites.
I am pretty certain that there has been a case where it was suggested
that merely typing a URL would fulfil the criteria of "unauthorised
access".
If that is the case, then it's (yet) another law where you need a level
of competence in the justice system that may be lacking.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:51:15 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:05:17 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006
Fraud Act 2006 Section 11:
Note 34: "Section 11 makes it an offence for any person, by any
dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is required, with >>intent to avoid payment."
Sorry, meant to give link to above:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/notes/division/5/11
The reason that I posted this originally is that moderators here are
very cautious about allowing any material that might be libelous or
referring to matters that are sub judice; I'm surprised they are not similarly concerned at allowing something that may be illegal under
the Fraud Act.
On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 23:33:47 +0100, Mark Goodge ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 15:50:54 +0100, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> >>wrote:
I have seen elsewhere that bypassing a paywall may illegal under
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006 which makes it an offence for any >>>person, by any dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is >>>required, with intent to avoid payment.
The vast majority of Internet paywalls are porous, and deliberately so. From >>a technical perspective, a porous paywall strikes the right balance between >>maximising revenue and ensuring widespread availability. But a corollary of >>this is that there will always be means of exploiting the porosity and >>accessing the content without paying. If so, it is not fraudulent to use the >>non-paywalled means of access.
I'm not sure of your logic there. If I go out and leave my house
unlocked, it's still illegal for some one to enter it and steal my
property. Why should a paywall being less than totally effective make >stealing a service ok?
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that certain >users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention did not
exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such as those
commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous paywalls. You, on >the other hand, do not intend that some people will be able to walk into
your house and remove property while you are out.
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that certain users should not be hindered by the paywall.
On 16/07/2025 20:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that
certain users should not be hindered by the paywall.
You may be right, but I don't think I'd want to be in court arguing that paywalls are intentionally porous. Unless you could provide documentary evidence of the intention, I suppose?
"Mr Goodge, are you really saying that because my garden wall is 3 feet
high, rather than 20 feet topped with barbed wire, I want thieves to
clamber in and steal my veg?"
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 19:05:17 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006
Fraud Act 2006 Section 11:
Note 34: "Section 11 makes it an offence for any person, by any
dishonest act, to obtain services for which payment is required, with
intent to avoid payment."
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that
certain users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention
did not exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such
as those commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous
paywalls.
You, on the other hand, do not intend that some people will be able
to walk into your house and remove property while you are out.
I'm sure there are people who would happily let a tradesman wander into
their house while they the resident were absent, and remove some
nominated appliance for repair.
In message <41vf7kl29klif91tpn05448psuv6pe282n@4ax.com>, at 20:55:23 on
Wed, 16 Jul 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that
certain
users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention did not
exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such as those
commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous paywalls.
You, on
the other hand, do not intend that some people will be able to walk into
your house and remove property while you are out.
I'm sure there are people who would happily let a tradesman wander into
their house while they the resident were absent, and remove some
nominated appliance for repair.
On 17/07/2025 11:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <41vf7kl29klif91tpn05448psuv6pe282n@4ax.com>, at 20:55:23
on Wed, 16 Jul 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>remarked:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that >>>certain
users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention did not
exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such as those
commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous paywalls.
You, on
the other hand, do not intend that some people will be able to walk into >>> your house and remove property while you are out.
I'm sure there are people who would happily let a tradesman wander
into their house while they the resident were absent, and remove some >>nominated appliance for repair.
Landlords/letting agents often lend house keys to tradesmen to effect
repairs when the residents are at work.
Maybe an owner occupier would do the same: it a matter of trust.
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that certain users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention did not
exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such as those
commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous paywalls. You, on the other hand, do not intend that some people will be able to walk into
your house and remove property while you are out.
There is also the fact that many paywalls are implemented using client-side technology. The entire content is delivered to your browser, but the publisher requests that your browser hides some or all of it from you unless you choose to pay. The publisher does not, though, have any means, either technical or legal, of enforcing that request. If your browser does not comply with that request, then the publisher has no recourse.
Let me give another analogy. The grounds of many stately homes are open to the public on payment of a fee. However, many of the grounds of stately
homes are also crossed by public rights of way[1]. The owners of the stately homes are not permitted to obstruct these rights of way or charge a fee for using them. So, provided you are willing to walk from a location beyond the perimeter, there is always a way to enter the grounds without payment. The grounds have a porous paywall, so to speak, and the relatively small number of people who take advantage of it are not committing any offence.
On 16/07/2025 20:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that certain >> users should not be hindered by the paywall.
You may be right, but I don't think I'd want to be in court arguing that >paywalls are intentionally porous. Unless you could provide documentary >evidence of the intention, I suppose?
"Mr Goodge, are you really saying that because my garden wall is 3 feet
high, rather than 20 feet topped with barbed wire, I want thieves to
clamber in and steal my veg?"
On 2025-07-16, Mark Goodge wrote:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that
certain users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention
did not exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such as
those commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous
paywalls. You, on the other hand, do not intend that some people will
be able to walk into your house and remove property while you are out.
There is also the fact that many paywalls are implemented using
client-side technology. The entire content is delivered to your
browser, but the publisher requests that your browser hides some or all
of it from you unless you choose to pay. The publisher does not,
though, have any means, either technical or legal, of enforcing that
request. If your browser does not comply with that request, then the
publisher has no recourse.
When VCRs became affordable for ordinary people, someone argued that fast-forwarding through commercials was stealing. [eyeroll]
On 2025-07-16, Mark Goodge wrote:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that certain >> users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention did not
exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such as those
commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous paywalls. You, on >> the other hand, do not intend that some people will be able to walk into
your house and remove property while you are out.
There is also the fact that many paywalls are implemented using client-side >> technology. The entire content is delivered to your browser, but the
publisher requests that your browser hides some or all of it from you unless >> you choose to pay. The publisher does not, though, have any means, either
technical or legal, of enforcing that request. If your browser does not
comply with that request, then the publisher has no recourse.
When VCRs became affordable for ordinary people, someone argued that >fast-forwarding through commercials was stealing. [eyeroll]
A better analogy here would be an expectation of privacy. Consider, for >example, if you were into naked gardening, and complained that I could see >you engaging in said practice.
If the fence was ten feet high and I was using a periscope, then yes,
that would potentially be voyeurism. But it would be hard to make such
a claim if the fence was only three feet high and I was simply
observing you from a normal position in my own garden.
On 2025-07-16, Mark Goodge wrote:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that certain >> users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention did not
exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such as those
commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous paywalls. You, on >> the other hand, do not intend that some people will be able to walk into
your house and remove property while you are out.
There is also the fact that many paywalls are implemented using client-side >> technology. The entire content is delivered to your browser, but the
publisher requests that your browser hides some or all of it from you unless >> you choose to pay. The publisher does not, though, have any means, either
technical or legal, of enforcing that request. If your browser does not
comply with that request, then the publisher has no recourse.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:16:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Mark Goodge wrote:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that certain >>> users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention did not
exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such as those
commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous paywalls. You, on >>> the other hand, do not intend that some people will be able to walk into >>> your house and remove property while you are out.
There is also the fact that many paywalls are implemented using client-side >>> technology. The entire content is delivered to your browser, but the
publisher requests that your browser hides some or all of it from you unless
you choose to pay. The publisher does not, though, have any means, either >>> technical or legal, of enforcing that request. If your browser does not
comply with that request, then the publisher has no recourse.
When VCRs became affordable for ordinary people, someone argued that >>fast-forwarding through commercials was stealing. [eyeroll]
And that's similar, of course, to the argument about ad-blockers. Which have been repeatedly found to be lawful when challenged in court. And the reason they are lawful is also relevant to the question of bypassing most porous paywalls.
The reason ad-blockers are lawful is that nobody has a right to force you to download certain content from a web server (and recent legislation related
to cookies and the like has only enhanced, not weakened, that principle). An ad-blocker is, essentially, a selective downloader, which allows your
browser to download some content but not other content. And, of course, the content it downloads is the content you want to see, and not the ads. That principle is so well-established that there is no serious legal challenge to it any more.
With a porous paywall implemented via a client-side script, therefore, there is, equally, no obligation on the viewer to download the script which controls the paywall. If your browser downloads the content, but not the script which would hide the content, then you are not breaking any law. It is, after all, no different to using "view source" (or opening developer tools) and reading the article that way.
The same applies to porous paywalls which rely on cookies, user-agents or referers. These are all entirely optional; there is no legal obligation on a browser to send any data which is requested by a web server (and, again, the various cookie privacy laws have enhanced that principle). The server can,
of course, make a best-effort attempt to detect when a client is sending unusual or deliberately manipulated data, or is withholding data which would normally be expected, and in turn withhold content requested by the client. But the operators of the server have no legal right to insist that the
client provides them with any data at all. The only recourse a content provider has against either an ad-blocker or a porous paywall blocker is to detect its use and refuse to supply the content.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:16:27 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Mark Goodge wrote:
The point is that porous paywalls exist because it is intended that
certain users should not be hindered by the paywall. If that intention
did not exist, then the paywall would not be porous. And sites such as
those commonly mentioned here and elsewhere only work on porous
paywalls. You, on the other hand, do not intend that some people will
be able to walk into your house and remove property while you are out.
There is also the fact that many paywalls are implemented using
client-side technology. The entire content is delivered to your
browser, but the publisher requests that your browser hides some or all
of it from you unless you choose to pay. The publisher does not,
though, have any means, either technical or legal, of enforcing that
request. If your browser does not comply with that request, then the
publisher has no recourse.
When VCRs became affordable for ordinary people, someone argued that
fast-forwarding through commercials was stealing. [eyeroll]
I believe that is still quite a mainstream view in the US.
In fact wasn't/weren't TiVo first hammered for allowing their PVRs to
upload files with timestamps that allowed subscribers to simply watch
advert free ?
On 2025-07-18, Mark Goodge wrote:
The same applies to porous paywalls which rely on cookies, user-agents or
referers. These are all entirely optional; there is no legal obligation on a >> browser to send any data which is requested by a web server (and, again, the >> various cookie privacy laws have enhanced that principle). The server can, >> of course, make a best-effort attempt to detect when a client is sending
unusual or deliberately manipulated data, or is withholding data which would >> normally be expected, and in turn withhold content requested by the client. >> But the operators of the server have no legal right to insist that the
client provides them with any data at all. The only recourse a content
provider has against either an ad-blocker or a porous paywall blocker is to >> detect its use and refuse to supply the content.
How does this apply to using "archival" sites, though?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:44:46 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |