6 ms·
So I can go to a store, I don't like how they make money, I'll just take away whatever I want for free? If you don't like how they make money, do not patronize
by dannyr 11y ago
So I can go to a store, I don't like how they make money, I'll just take away whatever I want for free?
If you don't like how they make money, do not patronize them.
- tertius 11y agoIf it's not harming them, they let me take it and it's not illegal then your comparison is a non-sequitur.
- dannyr 11y agoHow is it not harming them? Sites make money thru advertising and you block those ads. Paywalls don't work for everybody.
- tertius 11y agoThe point being is that your comment is a non-sequitur. My comment, in the end, really doesn't even matter because your comment, to begin with, is not applicable.
- msandford 11y agoIf HTTP was a contract whereby you agreed to look at everything that was sent over then your analogy would make sense. But HTTP is a protocol, not a legally binding contract. So no.
- anseljh 11y agoThe terms of service for the site that's delivered to you over HTTP, though--that is a legally binding contract. Some have no-ad-blocking terms.
- evilduck 11y agoContracts have to be agreed upon by both parties. If you want to have users agree to a ToS and protect your content, you should 401 their requests for your content until that happens. Otherwise fuck off, it's a public request.
- msandford 11y agoIf that were true, then we will start a company together and become rich! 1. Create a website with a TOS that states "all webpages are for your personal consumption only, any permanent copies which are used for business purposes (including indexing!) constitute grave harm to us, worth $100 per instance" 2. Make many, many pages on that website which all link to one another, let's have at least say 1000s of them 3. Ensure that they rank well for very obscure terms, terms which have a very short results list 4. Do not avail ourselves of robots.txt 5. Get our website linked to through means which do not make it obvious that we're trying to get it linked to 6. Wait for google to index the website 7. Gather the evidence of the indexing activity via search results 8. File a lawsuit against google for breach of contract re: TOS and collect millions If what you're saying is true, then this is a literally foolproof plan to become millionaires (or more!).
- monochromatic 11y ago95% of the websites I visit, I've never seen the terms of service. Is it still binding on me?
- wang_li 11y agoThis is brilliant. I've added a request header to my browser: X-You-Owe-Me-If-You-Send-Content-In-Response-To-This-Request: $1,000,000,000 I'm going to be rich, rich, rich!!!!
- anseljh 11y agoDownvoting reality.. nice work, HN! Here's how contracts work: A makes an offer to exchange something of value. If B accepts that offer, there's a contract. How's that work for websites? The website publishes its TOS. You go to the website and are able to look at the TOS. If you keep using the site, you're held to the TOS. You've impliedly agreed to it. If you disagree with it, you can leave. There is certainly some legal fiction going on here. Of course most users don't read the TOS, and even if they tried to, they wouldn't understand them. But courts have enforced them anyway. What would happen if they didn't? It would be anarchy. There are limits to what TOSes can do, sure. But the point of what I said -- that TOS are contracts, and can bind you -- that is true. Mocking that truth is pretty silly and uninformed.
- s73v3r 11y agoNo, that is a cop out and a rationalization for why you feel you're entitled to stuff for free.
- msandford 11y agoI don't use ad blocking software! So it can't be considered that I'm using some kind of cop-out or rationalization, since I'm not doing the thing that is supposedly bad. I think there's a huge difference between what's legal and moral. I think ad blocking is quite legal, and morally questionable. If the publishers want to get together and define a new protocol where acceptance of the terms of the TOS is included in the standard and then convince everyone to switch to it, they're free to do that. I suspect that they won't have any luck, but there's nothing stopping them. Again, I say this as a person who does not use ad blocking software.
- Khaine 11y agoSites like eBay hosted malvertising (http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/ads-on-ebay-and-drudge-report-were-coopted-by-malware-for-three-weeks http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/ads-on-ebay-and-drudg...) for 3 weeks. 3 fking weeks!! This is unacceptable. Simply visiting a website with ads poses a threat to the security of your devices. Until ad networks and publishers fix this, they can go fk themselves. I will block ads to protect my devices.
- sbarre 11y agoNope, you'll just not go into the store. Let's not go through this again, it's been demonstrated over and over that the analogy you are making is flawed.
- s73v3r 11y agoI don't see any flaw in the analogy.
- mikeash 11y agoNot looking at an advertisement is not the same as stealing.
- s73v3r 11y agoExcept having the ads there is the cost for the content you're looking at.
- mikeash 11y agoWhen you buy stuff in a store, the items remain the property of the store until you pay. If you take them without paying then you're stealing. This is firmly enshrined in both morality and law. When you view something with ads, they send you the stuff first, on the hope or assumption that you will later view the ads. No property changes hands at any time.
- humanrebar 11y agoWe're talking about extremely low marginal cost. More like a free glass of water or free use of the restroom than a free pair of jeans.
- dannyr 11y agoMarginal cost? free glass of water? No. Writing articles cost time and money. They are not free.
- tertius 11y agoYes, there is a single one time cost. Redistribution is essentially free, that's the point of the comment.
- tertius 11y agoBeing anti-consumer seems to now be costing money as well. And that is what most if not all ad driven publishing has become. User-hostile.
- humanrebar 11y ago> Writing articles cost time and money. They are not free. I didn't say "no cost", I said "marginal cost". Installing a sink, making cups, etc. also has a relatively high upfront cost (probably more than writing a Buzzfeed article even). The point is that once the article is written and given to the first person, it costs nearly nothing to give it to next person.
- s73v3r 11y agoMarginal cost is irrelevant. Someone had to create the original thing in the first place.
- charonn0 11y agoThat's not a good analogy. Viewing a web ad is more akin to inviting a traveling salesman into your living room, where he has the opportunity to paw through your unmentionables, steal your valuables, and even burn your house down if not closely monitored and restricted in his activities.