3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  1) The US has been very effective at exporting its IP laws. 2) Jurisdiction.
bad_user 11y ago
> Correct. I never said it was mine. That still doesn't give you rights over what software I run on my computer. When running any piece of software, you can't modify that software unless either its license permits (open source) or otherwise we are talking about copyright infringement. This is usually a take it or leave it thing, as unless the EULA is in conflict with copyright or contract law, then you have to respect it, otherwise you can't use that software. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention So you know, I don't really understand your argument because nobody is forcing you to load those websites in the first place. It's still a gray area because users don't get proper warning before having those cookies set or before being shown those ads. But then again, we are discussing FuckFuckAdBlock, a circumvention mechanism for websites that block ad-block users with proper warnings. > Yes, that would be fine, assuminng the click-through makes a proper offer (which shouldn't be hard). On one hand the anti-adblock functionality is precisely this, because we are talking about websites that say "Hey Bob, we are ad-supported, so if you want to consume our content, then you have to agree to viewing ads". And you know, for me that seems reasonable. And here we are discussing FuckFuckAdBlock. But then the far bigger problem is that you want a "proper offer". So basically if you don't receive a proper offer, you're fine with infringing on the publisher's rights. Now given that you've received proper warning of what you're going to receive, how is that in any way justifiable? So what's that about self-entitlement?
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > you can't modify that software That's offtopic. Some random website does not have the right to force me to run any particular software simply because I requested a page. > EULA ...is not a contract! (in most cases) > forcing you to load those websites Nobody is, and I never claimed anything like that. > proper offer I'm saying that publishers don't get to simply invent new law. Contracts have hundreds of years of history, and they require certain elements to be present. > Infringing on the publisher's rights No rights are being infringed. You are simply refusing to understand that their rights end after they hand over the content... unless they have a contract that says otherwise. Sorry, but just because you don't like the doctrine of first sale and wish it didn't exist doesn't mean you get to make up "rights". If I write a creative work, I have the right to not give or sell you a copy, and I have a temporary monopoly granted by the government that gives me the right to decide who can reproduce my work. I absolutely do not have the right to decide what you do with that work (besides making copies) once I hand it to you. The self-entitlement is on the part of the publishers who want to invent a new right that covers use. Note that publishers can try to detect adblocking all they want, and use any results of that detection (or lack of results) when they decide if they want to send me anything. The catch is that there is no guarantee that their request that I run a particular script, or that I even have a Javascript environment to run that script in the manner they are expecting. I suggest that it may be a bad idea to base your business model on an unreliable source. As for "justifiable" - the advertising industry and the publishers that involve themselves with the ad industry are not exactly standing on moral high ground. If they don't like the hard line some of us are taking regarding ads, they should consider why we are doing so. Tracking is a malicious attack. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

by pdkl95 11y ago

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.

pdkl95 11y ago
1) The US has been very effective at exporting its IP laws. 2) Jurisdiction.

bad_user 11y ago

> Correct. I never said it was mine. That still doesn't give you rights over what software I run on my computer. When running any piece of software, you can't modify that software unless either its license permits (open source) or otherwise we are talking about copyright infringement. This is usually a take it or leave it thing, as unless the EULA is in conflict with copyright or contract law, then you have to respect it, otherwise you can't use that software. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention So you know, I don't really understand your argument because nobody is forcing you to load those websites in the first place. It's still a gray area because users don't get proper warning before having those cookies set or before being shown those ads. But then again, we are discussing FuckFuckAdBlock, a circumvention mechanism for websites that block ad-block users with proper warnings. > Yes, that would be fine, assuminng the click-through makes a proper offer (which shouldn't be hard). On one hand the anti-adblock functionality is precisely this, because we are talking about websites that say "Hey Bob, we are ad-supported, so if you want to consume our content, then you have to agree to viewing ads". And you know, for me that seems reasonable. And here we are discussing FuckFuckAdBlock. But then the far bigger problem is that you want a "proper offer". So basically if you don't receive a proper offer, you're fine with infringing on the publisher's rights. Now given that you've received proper warning of what you're going to receive, how is that in any way justifiable? So what's that about self-entitlement?

pdkl95 11y ago
> you can't modify that software That's offtopic. Some random website does not have the right to force me to run any particular software simply because I requested a page. > EULA ...is not a contract! (in most cases) > forcing you to load those websites Nobody is, and I never claimed anything like that. > proper offer I'm saying that publishers don't get to simply invent new law. Contracts have hundreds of years of history, and they require certain elements to be present. > Infringing on the publisher's rights No rights are being infringed. You are simply refusing to understand that their rights end after they hand over the content... unless they have a contract that says otherwise. Sorry, but just because you don't like the doctrine of first sale and wish it didn't exist doesn't mean you get to make up "rights". If I write a creative work, I have the right to not give or sell you a copy, and I have a temporary monopoly granted by the government that gives me the right to decide who can reproduce my work. I absolutely do not have the right to decide what you do with that work (besides making copies) once I hand it to you. The self-entitlement is on the part of the publishers who want to invent a new right that covers use. Note that publishers can try to detect adblocking all they want, and use any results of that detection (or lack of results) when they decide if they want to send me anything. The catch is that there is no guarantee that their request that I run a particular script, or that I even have a Javascript environment to run that script in the manner they are expecting. I suggest that it may be a bad idea to base your business model on an unreliable source. As for "justifiable" - the advertising industry and the publishers that involve themselves with the ad industry are not exactly standing on moral high ground. If they don't like the hard line some of us are taking regarding ads, they should consider why we are doing so. Tracking is a malicious attack. Live by the sword, die by the sword.