4 ms·

Your failing monetization strategy is none of my concern. Run a Patreon or allow me to donate once every while instead of potentially hurting me psychologically

by Zelmor 11y ago

Your failing monetization strategy is none of my concern. Run a Patreon or allow me to donate once every while instead of potentially hurting me psychologically. If you hold the opinion that i have no right to your ccontent without paying, use a paywall or similar. But your suggestion that I have no right to something is utter hogwash. Where are your basis for such claims? Where have I signed anything regarding this? People calling out others and saying that another person has no right to this and that is nothing but forceful catering. You see others live happily and call them out on it. Go live in the pit of your misery if you will, but cease telling others what they can or cannot do.

ikeboy 11y ago
>Where have I signed anything regarding this? By accessing and continuing to access a website, you agree to their terms.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  HTTP is not a contract; there are no "terms".
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    By the same logic, hacking is just sending bytes over a network, so it can't be illegal. Unfortunately for you, the law is smarter than that.
    - Touche 11y ago
      An HTTP request is not hacking. It's a GET followed by a 200 OK. The server has the option to redirect to a paywall, or respond with 403 Forbidden, or do any number of things. That they are responding with 200 is not a bug that we're exploiting maliciously.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        Exploiting a server that exposes a root console by mistake would also be fine under the same logic. You haven't given any principled distinction between the two.
        Touche 11y ago
        Yes, I have, one is intentional and the other is not.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        By installing an adblocker, you're intentionally blocking access. Is your argument that you didn't realize the website didn't allow it? You think that will hold up in court?
        walterstucco 11y ago
        yes it will. that's why no ad company has ever sued people blocking ads. it would be a very bad advertising...
        ikeboy 11y ago
        Ad blockers have been sued before. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/27/german-broadcasters-adblock-rtl-prosiebensat1-eyeo http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/27/german-broadcas... That was in Europe, and for "non competition", not breach of contract as I'm suggesting. Also, "nobody will sue me" does not mean you're doing the legal or moral thing.
        walterstucco 11y ago
        > Also, "nobody will sue me" does not mean you're doing the legal or moral thing It means there is no legal basis to do that. You were asking if those arguments could stand in a court, they already did. So the answer is: YES
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > By the same logic Your "hacking" analogy is irrelevant; hacking and contracts are completely different categories of law. > the law I am very familiar with contract law. You might want to read about it sometime. HTTP does not involve an offer, a meeting of the minds about the obligations the contract would create for each party, or anything that signals acceptance of the offer. If you want to argue that an HTTP request creates any obligation for either party, then you need to show the elements[1] that created the contract. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements_of_contract_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements_of_contract_...
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        There are two different points here. Firstly, the claim that merely requesting data can't be illegal is shown to be wrong by hacking, which is illegal even if it only consists of requests. Second, the comparison to contracts is when the TOS was agreed to. Even the EFF agrees that they can be legally binding, as I linked to elsewhere. https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-t... See also http://www.law360.com/articles/726505/expect-lawsuits-against-ad-blockers http://www.law360.com/articles/726505/expect-lawsuits-agains...
        pdkl95 11y ago
        > hacking Asking for a page over HTTP isn't hacking; again, this is entirely off-topic. > TOS The TOS wasn't even presented to the client. (an <a> tag to the TOS isn't a the TOS itself, nor is it an offer of a contract. It isn't even an "invitation to treat". > agreed to Nothing has been agreed to. An HTTP request sends a GET, and the server volunteered to send a page of content as their reply. They could have sent an offer of a contract, or some sort of "access denied" message, or any other response. > See also LOL. That page is a nice example of properly handling a request. The use of ad blockers is on the rise, especially... </div> <div style="font-weight: bold"> To view the full article, register now. </div> Sorry, no, I'm no going to register for a shady site like that just to read someone's legal fantasies. See what just happened there? They made an offer, I declined to accept it and didn't receive the content. You negotiate the contract before you exchange consideration. > /articles/726505/expect-lawsuits-against-ad-blockers I'm sure there will be lawsuits against ad blockers. That's what failing businesses do. That doesn't mean their claims are valid. Contracts are not surprises or gotchas. Show how the elements of a contract (an offer, acceptance of that offer, each party's intent to be bound, and the exchange of consideration), or your claims are just wishful thinking.

by Zelmor 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago

>Where have I signed anything regarding this? By accessing and continuing to access a website, you agree to their terms.

pdkl95 11y ago
HTTP is not a contract; there are no "terms".
- ikeboy 11y ago
  By the same logic, hacking is just sending bytes over a network, so it can't be illegal. Unfortunately for you, the law is smarter than that.
  - Touche 11y ago
    An HTTP request is not hacking. It's a GET followed by a 200 OK. The server has the option to redirect to a paywall, or respond with 403 Forbidden, or do any number of things. That they are responding with 200 is not a bug that we're exploiting maliciously.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      Exploiting a server that exposes a root console by mistake would also be fine under the same logic. You haven't given any principled distinction between the two.
      - Touche 11y ago
        Yes, I have, one is intentional and the other is not.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        By installing an adblocker, you're intentionally blocking access. Is your argument that you didn't realize the website didn't allow it? You think that will hold up in court?
        walterstucco 11y ago
        yes it will. that's why no ad company has ever sued people blocking ads. it would be a very bad advertising...
        ikeboy 11y ago
        Ad blockers have been sued before. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/27/german-broadcasters-adblock-rtl-prosiebensat1-eyeo http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/27/german-broadcas... That was in Europe, and for "non competition", not breach of contract as I'm suggesting. Also, "nobody will sue me" does not mean you're doing the legal or moral thing.
        walterstucco 11y ago
        > Also, "nobody will sue me" does not mean you're doing the legal or moral thing It means there is no legal basis to do that. You were asking if those arguments could stand in a court, they already did. So the answer is: YES
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > By the same logic Your "hacking" analogy is irrelevant; hacking and contracts are completely different categories of law. > the law I am very familiar with contract law. You might want to read about it sometime. HTTP does not involve an offer, a meeting of the minds about the obligations the contract would create for each party, or anything that signals acceptance of the offer. If you want to argue that an HTTP request creates any obligation for either party, then you need to show the elements[1] that created the contract. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements_of_contract_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements_of_contract_...
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      There are two different points here. Firstly, the claim that merely requesting data can't be illegal is shown to be wrong by hacking, which is illegal even if it only consists of requests. Second, the comparison to contracts is when the TOS was agreed to. Even the EFF agrees that they can be legally binding, as I linked to elsewhere. https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-t... See also http://www.law360.com/articles/726505/expect-lawsuits-against-ad-blockers http://www.law360.com/articles/726505/expect-lawsuits-agains...
      - pdkl95 11y ago
        > hacking Asking for a page over HTTP isn't hacking; again, this is entirely off-topic. > TOS The TOS wasn't even presented to the client. (an <a> tag to the TOS isn't a the TOS itself, nor is it an offer of a contract. It isn't even an "invitation to treat". > agreed to Nothing has been agreed to. An HTTP request sends a GET, and the server volunteered to send a page of content as their reply. They could have sent an offer of a contract, or some sort of "access denied" message, or any other response. > See also LOL. That page is a nice example of properly handling a request. The use of ad blockers is on the rise, especially... </div> <div style="font-weight: bold"> To view the full article, register now. </div> Sorry, no, I'm no going to register for a shady site like that just to read someone's legal fantasies. See what just happened there? They made an offer, I declined to accept it and didn't receive the content. You negotiate the contract before you exchange consideration. > /articles/726505/expect-lawsuits-against-ad-blockers I'm sure there will be lawsuits against ad blockers. That's what failing businesses do. That doesn't mean their claims are valid. Contracts are not surprises or gotchas. Show how the elements of a contract (an offer, acceptance of that offer, each party's intent to be bound, and the exchange of consideration), or your claims are just wishful thinking.