4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- bad_user 11y ago
  The EULA is a contract and as long as it exists then nothing else gives you the right to use that software. Not sure how you can argue otherwise. You also keep mentioning the doctrine of first sale, but it doesn't apply in the way you think it does. You absolutely do not have the right to do whatever you want after something has been distributed to you and this is because the copyright owner can impose usage limitations on distribution. For example this is why non-commercial agreements in EULAs are legal. On having an environment that can run the script, the law can distinguish between doing it on purpose versus having technical limitations. You don't have a defense when you cherry pick what Javascript to run on the same webpage. And as a final note, the moral high ground of publishers is completely irrelevant to the issue of you infringing on their rights. If you don't like the law, then push for changes. Or otherwise vote with your wallet (or eyeballs). Otherwise this is a fallacy used to justify your own immoral actions.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > The EULA is a contract and as long as it exists then nothing else gives you the right to use that software. Not sure how you can argue otherwise. For the 100th time, I'm not running their software. They don't have the right to force me to run any particular software.

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.

bad_user 11y ago
The EULA is a contract and as long as it exists then nothing else gives you the right to use that software. Not sure how you can argue otherwise. You also keep mentioning the doctrine of first sale, but it doesn't apply in the way you think it does. You absolutely do not have the right to do whatever you want after something has been distributed to you and this is because the copyright owner can impose usage limitations on distribution. For example this is why non-commercial agreements in EULAs are legal. On having an environment that can run the script, the law can distinguish between doing it on purpose versus having technical limitations. You don't have a defense when you cherry pick what Javascript to run on the same webpage. And as a final note, the moral high ground of publishers is completely irrelevant to the issue of you infringing on their rights. If you don't like the law, then push for changes. Or otherwise vote with your wallet (or eyeballs). Otherwise this is a fallacy used to justify your own immoral actions.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > The EULA is a contract and as long as it exists then nothing else gives you the right to use that software. Not sure how you can argue otherwise. For the 100th time, I'm not running their software. They don't have the right to force me to run any particular software.