4 ms·

> vandalize What a huge sense of self-entitlement. Your rights as a publisher do not extend to my computer and what I do with the data after you send it to me.

• mahranch 11y ago
  > What a huge sense of self-entitlement. Your rights as a publisher do not extend to my computer But the content itself isn't yours. You are not entitled to view that content. The creator put it up with the expectation that people would/will be viewing the ads right along side the content. It's that expectation and assumption that supersedes everything else. It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities". The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement. I say it's load of rubbish. The content creators (publishers) are the ones who get to dictate terms, end of story. You're not paying anything to consume that content and you didn't create it, so your "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all). You're entitled to absolutely nothing. Let me ask you a question: If instead, a website says "I have this content you want to see. In order to view it, you must view this ad first. Click "Yes" to accept and view the ad. Click "No" to go back to Google.com." is that any different to you? It shouldn't be. Also, that's where the internet is headed if more people adopt your entitled mentality. If I'm a publisher, I'd be doing something similar. No, if I were a publisher, I'd be trying to get all the big name publishers/advertisers to do that too. They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works. :P
  • pdkl95 11y ago
    > But the content itself isn't yours. Correct. I never said it was mine. That still doesn't give you rights over what software I run on my computer. > You are not entitled to view that content Correct. You can choose not to send it to me. The difficulty you seem to be having is that the you don't seem to understand what your rights are. You can choose not to do business with me. You can also prevent me from distributing extra copies of your work (copyright). You do not have the right to control how someone uses your work after you hand it over. This is known as the doctrine of first sale[1]. In spite of a lot of people trying to pretend they have rights over how content is used, wishful thinking doesn't create rights contrary to past court decisions. > expectation For the 100th time, an expectation is not a contract. > It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities". What you call "semantics and 'technicalities'" are the law. > The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement. Advertisers and their apologists are trying to cover up years of legal missunderstanding and business models that depend on an incorrect understanding of the alw. It's easier to accuse others of "entitlement" than admiting your business model is going to fail. Oh, and that "entitlement"? We are entitled to something - the law. > Let me ask you a question: [click-through model] Yes, that would be fine, assuminng the click-through makes a proper offer (which shouldn't be hard). > It shouldn't be. But one of those makes a contract, and the other is wishful thinking and in some casses a deliberate attempt to mislead. If you think that creating a proper contract is too much of a burden and will drive away traffic, then you might want to realize that the market is trying to inform you what the actual value of your "content" is. > They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works. Do you really think people simply don't understand this? I've never met anyone who didn't understand that some things currently depend on advertisements for income. Now when are you going to start understanding how contract law works? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
    • DanBC 11y ago
      You don't know where the websites you request content from are located, and so you have no idea whether they're operating under US law or not.
      • 11y ago
  • qu4z-2 11y ago
    > The content creators (publishers) are the ones who get to dictate terms, end of story. Compelling argument there. > You're not paying anything to consume that content and you didn't create it, so your "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all). Well, they're not paying me to view their ads, so their "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all).
    • mahranch 11y ago
      > Compelling argument there. I don't know if you're being facetious, but it's not an argument, it's a simple fact. If I create a painting, a movie or a song, and I don't want anyone to see those things, that's my choice. If I instead want to charge $20 to see my movie or view my painting, that's also my choice. It's my content, not yours. Therefor, everything with regards to that content is done on my terms. I mean, I even legally own the content and it's automatically protected by copyright laws. So... I'm not sure what else to say. > Well, they're not paying me to view their ads, so their "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all). Huh? Why should you get paid at all? Did you create the content? Did the website come knocking on your door? No, you went to its door, and you want to view its content. Do you think you should get paid for watching regular TV because there are commercials between breaks of your favorite show? Of course not. Because those ads pay for the show. That's right. That toothpaste commercial that aired during the 3 minute break of The Big Bang Theory paid for the show. That's where the phrase "The big bang theory was brought to you by...." you hear at the end of TV shows comes from. Much the same, the ads on websites pay for the content in a similar way. It's absolutely shocking how people don't understand this concept. They actually believe all this stuff is and should be free to them. Wow, just wow.
      • pdkl95 11y ago
        > I even legally own the content and it's automatically protected by copyright laws. You seem to have a poor understand of how this works. This is understandable, because a lot of people use incorrect terms like "intellectual property". Creative works are not "property", because they are not a scarce resource. The entire concept of "property" rights is an attempt to solve the problem that two people cannot use the same scarce good. Freaking out when other people reuse your ideas - which are infinitely copyable without depriving anyone of their copy - is a childish reaction. However, to "promote the sciences and useful arts", we invented a government-granted temporary monopoly on certain types of creative works (which we call "copyright" and "patent"). These monopolies do not create "property"; they merely grant you the exclusive right to sell or distribute a given idea for a period of time. > I even legally own the content No, you don't. You have a copyright on some creative works. This copyright creates a few rights related to distribution/etc. It does not create "property". These temporary monopolies follow an entirely different set of laws than property rights. For specific information on those laws, I suggest talking to an actual lawyer. > the ads on websites pay for the content You've repeated this a lot in this thread. I guarantee you that nobody here misunderstands this point, or is confused where the funding for some websites (or TV shows, etc) currently comes form. > They actually believe all this stuff is and should be free to them. Making up straw-man opponents is an easy way to argue, and helps you avoid cognitive dissonance. It might help if you stop ascribing the intentions you think some of us have, and start listening to the facts we're trying to tell you. I have suggested alternative ways of funding (ads are only one way to fund creative works). I have also tried to explain that there is a difference between your distribution rights, and what someone can do with your creative works once you hand them over. You must get really annoyed at the very-large number of people that use Tivos to skip commercials on the TV they watch. That is their right. Technology has simply advanced far enough that the average person can start exercising their rights to consume the creative content however they want. Unfortunately, quite a few people have been ignoring our warnings over the last 20+ years that these advances in technology are probably going to change certain business models that relied on people not skipping commercials. These changes in technology also enable new business models, including some that nobody has even thought of yet because the internet is still "new". Some people (Netflix is a canonical example) have explored new business models and have adapted well to the new market landscape. Others... have not. I suggest exploring new business ideas in your endeavors - I'm sure there are ways you can adapt. On the other hand, if you insist on following this incorrect model of the world where you make up contract law and legal obligations, and pretend ideas are property, you are going to have a harder and harder time. This is a fact of the market, not a cry for "free stuff".
• bad_user 11y ago
  > Vandalism is a criminal charge - are you also going to claim I'm a criminal if I use some scissors to cut ads out of a magazine after receiving it in the mail? That's a strawman argument. > What law, exactly, are you claiming is being violated? A good summary is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention > A script that detects if I don't download an ad is not DRM Except that such a script is DRM by definition.
  • beagle3 11y ago
    > That's a strawman argument. No it isn't. Running an adblocker is exactly instructing my computer to use scissors and cut out the ads from the page. What is the difference in your opinion? To make it easier to compare, assume I am Trump/Koch wealthy, and I ask my butler Jeeves to cut the ads out of every newspaper I receive. Did I or Jeeves vandalize or violate any law? Now, times have changed, and JeevesBot is a robot rather than a person. Does that qualify as vandalism or violation? And now the newspaper has been replaced with an on-line one, and JeevesBot has been replaced by AdBlockPlus. How is it any different? How is it a strawman? > Except that such a script is DRM by definition. The DMCA requires an "effective" DRM. I'm not sure if there is a body of law about what constitutes "effectiveness", but I'd be surprised if "please show this ad" can be considered "an effective DRM. Furthermore, the DMCA does NOT prohibit me from editing e.g. DVDs - it just prohibits me from distributing those edited copies. And all AdBlockPlus does is edit pages so that they are more to my liking - just as my user CSS does, and as my preselected fonts do. I think your interpretation of the law is wishful thinking. It's not that DRM/DMCA cannot be, in some form, used to make some forms of ad blocking illegal. I suspect it can. But I am also quite sure that DMCA does not apply to web advertising (and ad blocking) as they are practiced today.