I use outline.com to get past these attempts to block the EU:
It almost always works. As does archive.is, if you want to see more of the page's original layout.
It almost always works. As does archive.is, if you want to see more of the page's original layout.
But you're right that it does validate the LA Times's decision to not spend resources on it, if there's an easy way to offload the legal worry to another company.
Another aspect: I've set up my browser to be pretty aggressive about blocking ads & trackers, to the extent that in practice any website is limited to tracking only what they can collect server-side, with first-party isolation; as such, GDPR doesn't give me that much extra protection when I'm interacting with sites that I'm not actively giving my personal details to.
I'd still appreciate the additional protections GDPR provides, in terms of control over that server-side tracking, and when interacting with sites that do know who I am; and I see the value in even the protections I don't personally benefit from, for the sake of people who aren't tech-savvy enough to lock down their browsers to the same extent (and to deal with it breaking sites, when that happens). So I'm still a fan of GDPR in general - it's just that, when it comes to me personally, just passively browsing a site, my own browser set-up is adequate for my liking.
Eh... maybe? I mean, you could achieve the same end result with a proxy/VPN and your browser's reader mode - to do it that way wouldn't be copyright infringement, would it? I feel like, in principle, Outline should be treated the same.
But on the other hand, the fact that they're transforming the page server-side, and caching it there, may push it over the line in the eyes of the law. IANAL, I don't really know.
To be honest, copyright law is such a tangled mess, I don't really give it much thought. Outline does the job, and if anyone's going to get into trouble it'll be them not me, so I'm happy enough.
They will probably be auto-DMCA'd soon.