Re: however on the good side
Looks like I might be the first (and only?) one to point this out, but this is about more than potentially breaking the law. What about ethics? Seems to be that it's a case of misplaced entitlement. It's available, so I should be able to get it for free.
Here's how I see the situation. Content provider (say, a magazine or newspaper) offers products (articles) for purchase. After all, they've got to eat too. First five or so are on them. Then you're supposed to pay.
How is this different from a food place that hands out free samples to passers-by - one per visitor, please? Do you just keep coming back in a different disguise?
If you want to down-vote this, fine. But it'd be good to also drop a comment on your rationale.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
