8 ms·

Last time I looked at Brave, it was replacing some served ads with its own ads. I do not think that's ok.

Overtonwindow 10y ago
I think that's very much ok. At least someone is paying attention to the ads, and curating them so they're not the same awful ads we've been getting. If the current browsers cared anything about our viewing experience we would never get kicked into the app store, or bombarded by some autoplay video, but we do and it's not stopping. Bring on Brave.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  It's not their site, and it's not their content. It is not ok, not in the least.
  - sp332 10y ago
    It's the not the site owner's browser, so it's fine.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - bduerst 10y ago
      >so it's fine. Not according to copyright law. Just because you have a computer (with a browser) doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content.
      - curioussavage 10y ago
        A law does not establish if something is really immoral. And until people with dollar signs in their eyes don't have all the sway in making those calls I reserve the right to resist. Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it. Real ownership is the ability to exert control over something. Divulged information cannot be controlled by the original source.
        st3v3r 10y ago
        So resist by not visiting those sites. Once you say that you are still entitled to the content, you have lost any claim to moral high ground, and are just acting like an entitled child. "Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it." This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use.
        curioussavage 10y ago
        Oh I don't feel entitled to it at all. But If I send you a GET request and you will just send it to me now questions asked then I'm going to ask for it. Nice try. Your variation of the old "if you don't like it why don't you just move" argument is the more childish response. Besides, enforcing this intellectual property racket is paid for by my tax dollars. Lets call those "contributions" to the cause my dues. "This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use." Exactly. You imply that it is written in stone that ip is a sacred thing. Not everyone agrees.
        st3v3r 10y ago
        So why should anyone pay you for work you've done?
        sp332 10y ago
        Usually there's a contract of some sort involved. What does that have to do with copyright?
      - sp332 10y ago
        Whoever owns the copyright for the page content doesn't own the copyright for the ads. They are separate works. If I have a copyrighted work that says "please insert an ad from Google here" I am under no obligation to do so.
        bduerst 10y ago
        Copyright includes exclusive rights to determine use and distribution of a work of art. That means copyright owners may determining how their work is distributed, including requiring the bundling with other approved works for combined consumption.
        sp332 10y ago
        Sure, but drive-by contracts are not enforceable. You'd have to present me with the terms of use and let me agree to them before showing me the content.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >but drive-by contracts are not enforceable Copyright itself isn't a contractual agreement, even though a SaaS TOS may lay out copyright agreements. Websites typically list their copyright publicly, and claiming negligence (typically) isn't considered a valid defense to infringement.
        sp332 10y ago
        Copyright is a limitation on distributing a work, not on receiving one. Copyright has no bearing on me after I get a work, as long as I don't distribute it to anyone else.
      - wyager 10y ago
        > doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content. Am I allowed to scribble in a book that I bought? Rip out the pages?
        bduerst 10y ago
        Depends on the type of book and the copyright holders intentions for their work.
        wyager 10y ago
        No, it actually doesn't. If I own a book, I can do anything I want to it. I thought it was obvious that my question was entirely rhetorical. Your response speaks to the insanity people have become accustomed to in IP law.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >If I own a book, I can do anything I want to it. Unless it's for fair use, you can't photocopy your textbook, for example. I think you may just be learning about the nuances of intellectual property for the first time.
        sp332 10y ago
        The answer is yes, you are allowed to scribble in a book you own and tear out pages. The answer does not depend on the "type of book" or any copyright licenses. According to US law, I am also allowed to make copies for personal use, and several other "fair use" cases, absolutely regardless of licenses.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >Fair use Precisely. Simply owning a book doesn't mean "I can do anything I want to it". The same applies to copyright material online - just because you own a computer doesn't mean you own the intellectual property on it. You're free to scribble on your computer case though.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      The same argument could be used to not pay you the money your employer pays you.
      - sp332 10y ago
        My employer and I have an agreement that we came to ahead of time. It's not like I showed up, started working, and then demanded money. I have no idea what argument you think I'm making that would be comparable to being employed.
- DaemonHN 10y ago
  In my opinion, replacing ads is worse than simply ad-blocking. Imagine a scenario where a replaced ad actually degraded the website's performance more so than the website's own ads, which is not all that far-fetched, and users end up blaming the website for having crappy ads. Additionally, what if Google and Mozilla started doing that with their browsers, would you still be okay with it?
  - curioussavage 10y ago
    Brave has the incentive to want to make their browser the best way to see websites, as such its in their interest to make sure that doesn't happen. In any case its easy to turn off. In my experience any user who can't do that is the type that doesn't care either way.
cryptarch 10y ago
And I think a site's ToS could potentially forbid this and thus provide an avenue to sue either you, Brave or both. Aside from that, I don't think the "my device, my choice" adblock arguments go here. I think it's pretty obviously immoral.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  You mean unethical.
  - jcoffland 10y ago
    http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/ http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/
- curioussavage 10y ago
  You send me some html, css and Javascript from YOUR domain to MY computer. I reserve the right to do what I want with it. YOU have NO right to determine what I do with it after you send it to me. It is pointless to think that rules regarding that can be enforced anyways. To me that is the reality of the situation, its like we are debating if gravity should pull us down or not. Edit: for civility (with lack of sleep as the excuse).
  - seibelj 10y ago
    This person's phrasing of his / her sentiment is a tad off-putting, which is why I imagine people are downvoting, but honestly I see it as the same way: I made a TCP request and fetched your data. How my data display device (i.e. web browser) displays it is up to me. If I choose to alter it or enhance it, that's up to me. It was your decision to send me your data, not to tell me how to display it.
    - hsod 10y ago
      This assumes that there is no implicit or explicit agreement between you and the content host. What if the site's TOS made you explicitly agree not to block ads (not in a hidden legalese way but with clear UX)? Would that change your calculus? What if the site owner was a friend of yours, and asked you personally not to block ads? Would that?
tombrossman 10y ago
I don't particularly like ads but I don't have a problem with the idea of ad substitution. This isn't very different from ad injection that WiFi hotspot and other captive portal operators do. For me, it is more about privacy than not seeing ads (provided the ads are not annoying and don't interfere with my viewing content). Now for Brave, their incentive is to maximize profits just like any other ad broker. This is not necessarily aligned with my interests as a user. I get their theory, I just worry about how this works out in practice. To trust Brave, I have to believe they will never get greedy and never relax their privacy or security standards, even if these interfere with profit-making. That's a big ask. I would be tempted, too. I also have concerns about 'malvertising', which has affected many high-profile sites who employ world-class security teams. They haven't been able to stop malware infecting their users via ads. Admittedly this whole comment is pure FUD but that's just it - I am not certain Brave is the answer, and the easiest thing for me to do is keep using an open-source browser with an ad-blocker. Bonus, I'm using NoScript and have a gigabit FTTH connection and let me tell you, the web is lightning fast! Good luck Brave team, but I don't think I am your target demographic.

I think that's very much ok. At least someone is paying attention to the ads, and curating them so they're not the same awful ads we've been getting. If the current browsers cared anything about our viewing experience we would never get kicked into the app store, or bombarded by some autoplay video, but we do and it's not stopping. Bring on Brave.

st3v3r 10y ago
It's not their site, and it's not their content. It is not ok, not in the least.
- sp332 10y ago
  It's the not the site owner's browser, so it's fine.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bduerst 10y ago
    >so it's fine. Not according to copyright law. Just because you have a computer (with a browser) doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content.
    - curioussavage 10y ago
      A law does not establish if something is really immoral. And until people with dollar signs in their eyes don't have all the sway in making those calls I reserve the right to resist. Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it. Real ownership is the ability to exert control over something. Divulged information cannot be controlled by the original source.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        So resist by not visiting those sites. Once you say that you are still entitled to the content, you have lost any claim to moral high ground, and are just acting like an entitled child. "Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it." This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use.
        curioussavage 10y ago
        Oh I don't feel entitled to it at all. But If I send you a GET request and you will just send it to me now questions asked then I'm going to ask for it. Nice try. Your variation of the old "if you don't like it why don't you just move" argument is the more childish response. Besides, enforcing this intellectual property racket is paid for by my tax dollars. Lets call those "contributions" to the cause my dues. "This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use." Exactly. You imply that it is written in stone that ip is a sacred thing. Not everyone agrees.
        st3v3r 10y ago
        So why should anyone pay you for work you've done?
        sp332 10y ago
        Usually there's a contract of some sort involved. What does that have to do with copyright?
    - sp332 10y ago
      Whoever owns the copyright for the page content doesn't own the copyright for the ads. They are separate works. If I have a copyrighted work that says "please insert an ad from Google here" I am under no obligation to do so.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Copyright includes exclusive rights to determine use and distribution of a work of art. That means copyright owners may determining how their work is distributed, including requiring the bundling with other approved works for combined consumption.
        sp332 10y ago
        Sure, but drive-by contracts are not enforceable. You'd have to present me with the terms of use and let me agree to them before showing me the content.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >but drive-by contracts are not enforceable Copyright itself isn't a contractual agreement, even though a SaaS TOS may lay out copyright agreements. Websites typically list their copyright publicly, and claiming negligence (typically) isn't considered a valid defense to infringement.
        sp332 10y ago
        Copyright is a limitation on distributing a work, not on receiving one. Copyright has no bearing on me after I get a work, as long as I don't distribute it to anyone else.
    - wyager 10y ago
      > doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content. Am I allowed to scribble in a book that I bought? Rip out the pages?
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Depends on the type of book and the copyright holders intentions for their work.
        wyager 10y ago
        No, it actually doesn't. If I own a book, I can do anything I want to it. I thought it was obvious that my question was entirely rhetorical. Your response speaks to the insanity people have become accustomed to in IP law.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >If I own a book, I can do anything I want to it. Unless it's for fair use, you can't photocopy your textbook, for example. I think you may just be learning about the nuances of intellectual property for the first time.
        sp332 10y ago
        The answer is yes, you are allowed to scribble in a book you own and tear out pages. The answer does not depend on the "type of book" or any copyright licenses. According to US law, I am also allowed to make copies for personal use, and several other "fair use" cases, absolutely regardless of licenses.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >Fair use Precisely. Simply owning a book doesn't mean "I can do anything I want to it". The same applies to copyright material online - just because you own a computer doesn't mean you own the intellectual property on it. You're free to scribble on your computer case though.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    The same argument could be used to not pay you the money your employer pays you.
    - sp332 10y ago
      My employer and I have an agreement that we came to ahead of time. It's not like I showed up, started working, and then demanded money. I have no idea what argument you think I'm making that would be comparable to being employed.
DaemonHN 10y ago
In my opinion, replacing ads is worse than simply ad-blocking. Imagine a scenario where a replaced ad actually degraded the website's performance more so than the website's own ads, which is not all that far-fetched, and users end up blaming the website for having crappy ads. Additionally, what if Google and Mozilla started doing that with their browsers, would you still be okay with it?
- curioussavage 10y ago
  Brave has the incentive to want to make their browser the best way to see websites, as such its in their interest to make sure that doesn't happen. In any case its easy to turn off. In my experience any user who can't do that is the type that doesn't care either way.

cryptarch 10y ago

And I think a site's ToS could potentially forbid this and thus provide an avenue to sue either you, Brave or both. Aside from that, I don't think the "my device, my choice" adblock arguments go here. I think it's pretty obviously immoral.

jcoffland 10y ago
You mean unethical.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/ http://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/
curioussavage 10y ago
You send me some html, css and Javascript from YOUR domain to MY computer. I reserve the right to do what I want with it. YOU have NO right to determine what I do with it after you send it to me. It is pointless to think that rules regarding that can be enforced anyways. To me that is the reality of the situation, its like we are debating if gravity should pull us down or not. Edit: for civility (with lack of sleep as the excuse).
- seibelj 10y ago
  This person's phrasing of his / her sentiment is a tad off-putting, which is why I imagine people are downvoting, but honestly I see it as the same way: I made a TCP request and fetched your data. How my data display device (i.e. web browser) displays it is up to me. If I choose to alter it or enhance it, that's up to me. It was your decision to send me your data, not to tell me how to display it.
  - hsod 10y ago
    This assumes that there is no implicit or explicit agreement between you and the content host. What if the site's TOS made you explicitly agree not to block ads (not in a hidden legalese way but with clear UX)? Would that change your calculus? What if the site owner was a friend of yours, and asked you personally not to block ads? Would that?

tombrossman 10y ago

I don't particularly like ads but I don't have a problem with the idea of ad substitution. This isn't very different from ad injection that WiFi hotspot and other captive portal operators do. For me, it is more about privacy than not seeing ads (provided the ads are not annoying and don't interfere with my viewing content). Now for Brave, their incentive is to maximize profits just like any other ad broker. This is not necessarily aligned with my interests as a user. I get their theory, I just worry about how this works out in practice. To trust Brave, I have to believe they will never get greedy and never relax their privacy or security standards, even if these interfere with profit-making. That's a big ask. I would be tempted, too. I also have concerns about 'malvertising', which has affected many high-profile sites who employ world-class security teams. They haven't been able to stop malware infecting their users via ads. Admittedly this whole comment is pure FUD but that's just it - I am not certain Brave is the answer, and the easiest thing for me to do is keep using an open-source browser with an ad-blocker. Bonus, I'm using NoScript and have a gigabit FTTH connection and let me tell you, the web is lightning fast! Good luck Brave team, but I don't think I am your target demographic.