But if the text is already loaded and just hidden after the fact - which absolutely is the case at least some% of the time, you don't, in any reasonable sense of the term, bypass anything, the information is already there. Not to mention the free articles w/o paywall one can and sometimes will get to access.

Yeah, cuts it off ... after all the text is already loaded. Been able to copy and paste article text to read at my leisure many times.

This might be a bit of a tangent, but I wonder how much of their stuff is truly paywalled - given that you do seem to get some % of articles that are free outright, it seems you also can see some% that are free before a paywall pops up, and other articles where you can either pause the page load, or do ctrl+a and ctrl+c to select the article before the paywall goes up (and then paste into a text editor to view at your leisure).

Not to mention the question of how many articles from the NY Times are claimed to be paywalled that are of older content - as in, stuff that would be public domain being pre-1929 (and available elsewhere as well).

For me, it just seems like a lot that hinges on what actually is truly paywalled, if soft paywalls count (like the one I mentioned where you can copy the text before a paywall pops up), and the like.

How much of that growth was organic to begin with? How much of it was from being forced to upgrade (in some cases over a month ahead of the EoL date like in my case)?

Not needing it or not seeing uses =/= "useless," that's not how something being useless or not works. ~_~

Underpriced according to who?

The market has a certain load it can bear in terms of how high it goes, but how is that the same thing as "this thing is underpriced?." Not to mention that it requires ignoring the role of scalper bots that can buy up supply faster than organic humans - even those intending on scalping (but doing so w/o bots) - can buy (especially if you factor in website crashes from the influx of bots).

How do we know that the scalpers would not just continue, but raise their prices even more? It may seem a silly question to some, but IDK, it's the first one that stands out in response to the idea of just raising prices.

What do you mean by this?

Do you know what a faulty comparison is? I'm guessing you don't.

I wonder if there is a way to keep track of a purchase being made by a connection to a particular website. If so, I don't see why they couldn't track the time taken to make one or more purchases, and deny it automatically if under a particular threshold.

Sure, bot makers could just adjust for it, but at some point they would adjust the time taken by the bot by so much that they would absolutely lose that speed advantage bots have to humans, IMO leveling the playing field dramatically.

People using AI for arguably positive things doesn't become bad just because bad peoiple use it, or it is used in bad ways. That's terrible logic whether applied to technologies, members of a fandom or hobby, or whatever. Use of AI to drive audio unmixing and editing in the likes pf SpectraLayers, or the likes of Project Revoice using it to give people who lost their voice to diseases like ALS their voice back have NOT been negated, this is beyond retarded logic.

Kind of ironic to say given the incredibly faulty logic at work in these comments.

Are the people pleading actually rolls of Bounty in human skin suits? How else can they plead "Quilty?"

One problem with this hypothesis I see is ... didn't a company that makes porn movies get caught seeding their own torrents - which blew up in their face after they tried taking to court people who torrented said movies?

I can't help but imagine that would make such maneuvers, similar maneuvers, seem less likely to work - that there are cases of people trying it only to have it blow up in their faces, I mean.

How did shoplifters force a store, any store, to potentially understaff their stores (adequate staffing being, time and again shown in virtually every training videos that exists / has been leaked online to be an effective deterrent? How did the shoplifters force a store to take a method that has real potential problems?

They didn't. Only the store choose to do that.

This "SOLELY X makes Y do Z" thing is not logical.