12/29/2023 0 Comments Textify leakRather than tearing your hair out with the sheer guilt of listening to music that you haven’t paid for, you can rest easy knowing that this site is completely legit. You can try the web version to get a feel for it here.ĭubset-DJ Defined Radio ĭubset is an online radio station that’s defined by the DJs that make the mixes. But if letters aren’t your thing, you can reformat your images using a number of other styles like Pointillism, bubbles, pixels, mosaic, whatever suits your mood. You can then play around with different variables to create a customized image, changing the typeface, the boldness, the size, and the quantity of letters until your image has become an abstracted portrait. The size of the per-play fee was negotiated Ī visually impressive photography app that turns your photos into collections of letters, namely A, B and C. Each artist could receive one check per month from FINSERV. Each radio station could write one check per month to FINSERV (plus a list of songs played). It was a very pragmatic solution compared to making 10 4 radio stations and 10 4 artists negotiate 10 8 legal contracts. FINSERV aggregated the payments and distributed the money to the artists. They collected fees from radio stations playing music. There used to be a company in Schenectady, NY named FINSERV. Consumers, not providers need to be in control of payment methods, and consumers want a central deal rather than negotiations with each source.īy the way, Steve Jobs was not the inventor of the iTunes idea. IMO online news is exactly analogous to online music. Similarly, I would be willing to pay $0.10 per article regardless of source. I'm willing to pay $25/month for access to all news from all sources, but not $25/month for access from a single source. The more positive approach would be a central clearing house for payments analogous to iTunes for music. The NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post were among the first ones I blocked. In Google News, every link includes a button for "ignore this source in the future" So if I'm annoyed by being blocked, I go back to Google News and exclude that provider as a future news source. It is extra annoying when you arrive there from a news aggregator like Google News, because when you clicked on the link, you don't know where it will take you. That would be a welcome feature in search engines. I recognize that reselling copies of the content, or giving it away and thereby depriving the owner of revenue that he might otherwise receive, is more like the theft of unsecured property in the analogy, in that it deprives the owner of a benefit of ownership however, even that does not deprive the owner of possession of the thing owned. I think that your analogy is flawed, in that people who circumvent content access restrictions for their own use do not deprive the owners of the content, as people who take things from open store windows deprive the owners of the things taken. I find it especially obnoxious when a high-SEO-rank site like the NYT does it with an AP story that's readly available for free if you go to sites that don't have as high an SEO ranking. Instructive information on how to present such an advisory is readily available. I think that it's obnoxious to allow paywalled or registrant-only content in a list of links presented in response to a search engine query without an advisory in the link that the content is restricted. I mean, why pay for what I want when I can get it for free? Sometimes when I pass stores in the alleyway I find some windows unlocked. I did not know about your trick, good to know. I can just use Tor Browser to access any article. Several newspapers let me read a few articles per day, then I can only see the titles but when I click on them I am redirected to a page saying I have read too many articles to continue reading and that I should either wait 1 more day or subscribe to the newspaper. When such things come in front of the website, hiding the content, sometimes blocking the element with ublock origin's picker work. Is this normal/legal? I mean, why pay $2, when you can just do what I did? From there, I can just read the page's content. That prevents the "wall blocking" mechanism from coming up. I've found that I can reload the page and immediately click the stop loading button on my browser. Sometimes when a website has a paywall or other "wall" (maybe cookies enabling, account/email registering, etc.), the page starts to load and then a few seconds later an image will appear that says you have to do x/y/z to see the article.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |