4 ms·

Yes, I have, one is intentional and the other is not.

by Touche 11y ago

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
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        1. You said no one will sue because it would be bad PR. There are plenty of reasons not to sue beyond being wrong. 2. When has ignorance of TOS being upheld in court to invalidate a contract with regard to ad blocking?
- Touche 11y ago
  I'm blocking it once it reaches my computer. The website doesn't have any say with what happens on my computer. I'm not hacking their servers or doing anything their servers disallow. My web browser is sending them a request and they are responding with content. That's their only point at which they have a say in what happens.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    The same applies to the ATT hacking I linked elsewhere https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer The court did not agree that "the server sent me the data so it's legal" is valid.
    - Touche 11y ago
      I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding this. The case you linked to involves someone exploiting a bug in a server. There's no bugs or exploits involved with the ad-blocking scenario. Sure, the website intends me to view the site with the ads, but what you are failing to understand is, they have no moral or legal right to tell me what I do with the bytes that they purposefully, in full awareness, sent me.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        How is "bug" defined, and why does it make a legal difference in liability? What does "in full awareness" mean? If they knew you were blocking ads, they wouldn't have sent it. The bug is that they didn't detect it. Why is ATTs thing a bug and this not?
        Touche 11y ago
        You can't be serious with this. You think it's a bug that a website doesn't know what I'm going to do with the bytes they send to me? I think the fundamental issue you are having is that you don't believe in property rights. Namely you don't think that my computer is mine, and that stuff that gets transferred to it; assuming the transfer was done legally in good faith, belongs to me. I highly doubt you feel this way about meatspace; I doubt you think someone who hands me an apple has the right to tell me how to eat it. Yet when it comes to computers, you do feel this way. pdkl95 has done a much better job than me of arguing this point, so I should probably just stop. But it bears repeating: HTTP is not a contract. Sending me your content is not me agreeing to do stuff that is linked on some other page. If you want me to agree to view ads, or paypal you $20 first, or give you my first born child; you need to send me to another page first where I agree to it. TOS is not a gotcha. You can't trick people to agreeing to something; there has to be a "meeting of the minds".

Yes, I have, one is intentional and the other is not.

by Touche 11y ago

Yes, I have, one is intentional and the other is not.

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
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      1. You said no one will sue because it would be bad PR. There are plenty of reasons not to sue beyond being wrong. 2. When has ignorance of TOS being upheld in court to invalidate a contract with regard to ad blocking?
Touche 11y ago
I'm blocking it once it reaches my computer. The website doesn't have any say with what happens on my computer. I'm not hacking their servers or doing anything their servers disallow. My web browser is sending them a request and they are responding with content. That's their only point at which they have a say in what happens.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  The same applies to the ATT hacking I linked elsewhere https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer The court did not agree that "the server sent me the data so it's legal" is valid.
  - Touche 11y ago
    I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding this. The case you linked to involves someone exploiting a bug in a server. There's no bugs or exploits involved with the ad-blocking scenario. Sure, the website intends me to view the site with the ads, but what you are failing to understand is, they have no moral or legal right to tell me what I do with the bytes that they purposefully, in full awareness, sent me.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      How is "bug" defined, and why does it make a legal difference in liability? What does "in full awareness" mean? If they knew you were blocking ads, they wouldn't have sent it. The bug is that they didn't detect it. Why is ATTs thing a bug and this not?
      - Touche 11y ago
        You can't be serious with this. You think it's a bug that a website doesn't know what I'm going to do with the bytes they send to me? I think the fundamental issue you are having is that you don't believe in property rights. Namely you don't think that my computer is mine, and that stuff that gets transferred to it; assuming the transfer was done legally in good faith, belongs to me. I highly doubt you feel this way about meatspace; I doubt you think someone who hands me an apple has the right to tell me how to eat it. Yet when it comes to computers, you do feel this way. pdkl95 has done a much better job than me of arguing this point, so I should probably just stop. But it bears repeating: HTTP is not a contract. Sending me your content is not me agreeing to do stuff that is linked on some other page. If you want me to agree to view ads, or paypal you $20 first, or give you my first born child; you need to send me to another page first where I agree to it. TOS is not a gotcha. You can't trick people to agreeing to something; there has to be a "meeting of the minds".