9 ms·

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you

by darawk 8y ago

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? In other words, if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? I say this as someone who uses an AdBlocker daily. Of course it's stealing. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site. This may or may not have legal force, but it's clearly stealing. If you don't want to see ads, don't visit sites that have them. THAT is how you retain the sanctity of your experience and avoid stealing.

logfromblammo 8y ago
I'm going to need a Poe's Law check on this one. Sincere or satire?
- darawk 8y ago
  Sincere.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    Content creators have a privilege granted by copyright law to control the manner in which their work is distributed. Once the copy has passed to another, the law does not grant any further control over what the recipient may do with it privately. That is governed by explicit licensing terms. Websites may have a terms of use document that offers an adhesion contract for licensing the copyrighted materials served by the site. But such terms are not necessarily enforceable in every jurisdiction. And the onus is on the provider to enforce their licenses. Therefore, if the license contract states that a user may not read article X unless they also watch advertisement Y, it is in the site's interest to not serve X until after proof of Y has been returned. One cannot steal what was given freely. And it isn't exactly clear what remedy should be available to sites from users that breach an adhesion contract that has no technical measures implemented for enforcement. It isn't stealing. It is a civil licensing violation, at best.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
This attitude is ridiculous. It's akin to saying I'm obliged to read a whole book.
- darawk 8y ago
  You are if the author makes it a term of the sale.
  - iamatworknow 8y ago
    Or else what? The author won't sell me another one? That's his only recourse, just like how the website owner's only recourse is to make the terms explicit by blocking the content if I block your ads, which some sites already do, and which I gladly avoid.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    This isn't correct. I believe there are extensive restrictions on what type of terms are considered "reasonable", especially between consumers and corporations. Arbitrary contract terms aren't automatically viewed as valid and binding by the courts.
    - darawk 8y ago
      You're correct, and this is the path to the primary legitimate argument against the view that you're morally obligated to view ads. None of the things other people are saying in response to me represent correct understandings of the issue. This is its crux: Can users meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit?
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > Can users meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit? Yes, of course. But the issue isn't with that, but with how these terms work. The terms start to apply after the user has read and considered them. If you want to limit access to some content unless the user agrees to your terms, you're free to do so. But you can't give the content, and then retroactively ask user to accept the terms and expect them to agree because they already got the content.
jasonkostempski 8y ago
"Of course it's stealing. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site." No it's not and no you aren't. Entering a public area isn't trespassing and there's no such thing as a contract you implicitly agree too.
- darawk 8y ago
  ...you consider private websites to be public areas?
  - sbarker 8y ago
    is browsing an open s3 bucket hacking?
    - darawk 8y ago
      Of course not, but that's a non-sequitur. A privately owned store has a public entrance, but we also are happy to accept the right of the store owner to charge admission or kick out people who cause trouble. Entering the store is not burglary, but staying there against the wishes of the owner is trespassing.
      - civilitty 8y ago
        No one is preventing you from refusing to service a GET request.
      - horsawlarway 8y ago
        Sure, but they haven't expressed any wishes at all. If a site blocks me because I have an adblocker, I happily leave. But if a site sends content to my machine... that's on them.
        darawk 8y ago
        > But if a site sends content to my machine... that's on them. Do you apply this moral principle in other areas? If your friend leaves their wallet at your house, do you consider the money in it to be yours?
TremendousJudge 8y ago
>if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? You have the right to say it, and I have the right to ignore it, because that's the way the Internet is implemented. You may pretend that it works differently, but until the day it works like broadcast TV, users will have the right to pull whatever content they want from servers.
- darawk 8y ago
  You have the right to possess it, and I have the right to take it by force, because that's the way physical reality is implemented. Arguing that implementation implies natural rights is a pretty silly path.
  - TremendousJudge 8y ago
    Humans didn't implement physical reality, you have no choice but to live in it. If you use the internet to distribute your content however, you agree to its rules. And unlike physical reality, you may choose another platform to distribute it that conforms to your views. You may say that the internet is the most popular way to distribute content, but it didn't get there by accident.
    - darawk 8y ago
      You believe that protocols ought to represent binding contracts, then? Does that mean that exploiting bugs and stealing people's money is a perfectly legal and justifiable use of the internet?
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Protocols and legal considerations go together. Exploiting bugs and stealing money is also breaking the law. The issue sites have with ad blocking is because they demand from their visitors more than they agreed to on the protocol level.
      - 8y ago
Glyptodon 8y ago
No, I think if creators release their content in the world it becomes the world's. If you want to set terms rent a shed in the Nevada desert, charge admission, and make people leave their phones outside. The idea that there are "terms" when there's never even been a negotiation is absurd.
- darawk 8y ago
  > No, I think if creators release their content in the world it becomes the world's. If you want to set terms rent a shed in the Nevada desert, charge admission, and make people leave their phones outside. The law disagrees. Intellectual property is a real thing. You can argue that it shouldn't be, but it is. Releasing something into the world doesn't mean that you no longer own it. > The idea that there are "terms" when there's never even been a negotiation is absurd. There has been a negotiation. Sites have a TOS. The fact that you choose not to read it does not mean that you can ignore it.
  - Glyptodon 8y ago
    It seems you missed reading about the royalties you'd owe for quoting my HN comments. It's all in my Comment Usage TOS. If you'd found them you'd know that there are fees associated with quoting my comments. But no worries, since you have such a clear understanding of things I'm sure you realize that you've stolen $500 from me and violated my Comment Usage TOS. Please pay up. I'm really glad we had this negotiation, by the way.
yoz-y 8y ago
I agree with you. The thing I do not like with the current ads on the internet is that you are implicitly agreeing to a contract which is written nowhere and that you have no way of reading.
- horsawlarway 8y ago
  Hey, cool fact: you're not entering any such contract, and the idea that you are is insane. There's no such thing as an implicit contract in this case (and most cases in general). If he chooses to serve his content and I choose to not read parts of that's fine.
horsawlarway 8y ago
> If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. If you'd like to chose to not display your content when I have a blocker enabled, so be it, I'll leave and never come back. But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off. I'm not stealing when I drive by billboards without reading them, I'm not stealing when I turn my tv off when commercials come on, I'm sure as fuck not stealing when I block your ads. If you'd like to enter into a contract that actually tries to enforce your ludicrous idea that my attention is implicitly yours to demand, I'd suspect you'll find very few takers...
- darawk 8y ago
  > We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. That's fine for you to say, it just doesn't happen to be true. TOS are enforceable to some degree. > But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off. So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?
  - johnpowell 8y ago
    If I click a link on Google there is no TOS. If you want to show a screen with the TOS when I visit your site and make me agree to view your ads you can totally do that. And I will click the back button.
    - iamatworknow 8y ago
      Some sites pretty much do this already (Popular Mechanics, for one). I get a nice popup when I arrive at their site that says I need to turn off my adblock to continue. I actually don't even use adblock -- I use pihole, which means I'd have to add who-knows-what domains to my DNS whitelist (not just popularmechanics.com, because if it wasn't already permitted I wouldn't have even got to the page with the popup). So back button it is.
BonesJustice 8y ago
> Of course it's stealing. Oh, really? What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy. And what about data brokers? My browsing history is my work product; I create it through my own actions. Much of the information that data brokers sell about me would not and could not exist without my direct contributions. When they sell that data, do I get an appropriate share of their profits? No. They are regularly stealing and profiting from my work. The websites you claim I'm 'stealing' from are giving away tons of my information without anything even approaching affirmative consent.
- darawk 8y ago
  > What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy. Yes, even then. You have no right to the content they produce. They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It's that simple.
  - BonesJustice 8y ago
    > They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It's that simple. What 'terms'? They're essentially giving third parties the ability to inject anything they want into their websites. How can they meaningfully establish 'terms' if they have willingly given up the ability to hold up their end of those terms? If, the first time I visit a website, they actually bother to: 1. Disclose everything they and their affiliates will do with my information; 2. Disclose the sources of any and all content that will be served; 3. Get my affirmative consent before allowing me in; 4. Not share *any* information until I consent; Then, and only then, would there be some reasonable semblance of 'terms'. As things are now, they couldn't possibly do any of that, because they themselves don't even know what they're serving up, or what will be done with my information. If your 'terms' are, "we can do anything we want with your device and Internet connection when you visit our website, but you can't do anything except view what is served to you, as it is served", then you do not have terms; you have a farce.
LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
Its relative easy to replace a raw-ressource producer? Nearly everyone who is bodily able and has the land- can farm or mine. You can specialize in a certain fruit, or in a certain growth method- but these are easily copied, and thuse the price differences in the long run always gets equalled out or - if there is a surplus, even drop below the point of creation. Content can be created by nearly everyone who is able to write sentences and glue stockfootage into it. Its the agriculture of the e-industry, the raw ressource. Once it is created, you loose controll over it, it goes from hand to hand, is traded, trafficked, refined and reused. And all those millers, traders, feedalot farmers, butchers and finally the customers- of the content world will be better off then the content creators - perpetually for eternity by the nature of the trade. The only way out, is to create brands and fashion waves ala "organic" content. Which if succesfull will be aped by all and surplanted. Contentcreators - welcome to hell.
a1369209993 8y ago
> Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? That is it exactly. If you (knowingly/willingly) transmit information to a person, what they do with their copies of it is entirely up to them. This is items zero and one in (my particular ordering of) the set of inalienable right fundamental to sapient beings. If you don't want people to read your articles without seeing your ad, then don't publish your articles.
- darawk 8y ago
  So, if someone tells you the password to their bank account, does that entitle you to the money in it?
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    If they intended to give me root access to the account, then yes. In the much more likely case that it was unintentional, I should badger them until they change their password. If they gave me the password unwillingly (eg, because they wanted me to deal with financial issue for them and their bank doesn't support more fine-grained authorization), same caveat. In either case, the problem is that the bank thinks that "[password]" is something only they know, and the solution (changing their password) has nothing to do with anything I actually do with the information, aside from (not) lying to the bank about my identity/money-ownership.
danbolt 8y ago
When I was a child, I would record cartoons on the VCR. When the commercials started, I would stop the recording and resume once the programme began again. I think I would mute the TV too! There was certainly a way that the distributors wanted me to consume the content with the ads, but I'd think that my muting and selective recording was socially okay. The media companies were welcome to stop broadcasting cartoons and sell movies or high-margin DVDs if they wanted. I don't really see a bunch of HTML and JavaScript as any different. I'd prefer that they revert to a paywall if they don't like the their content being modified locally by the end-user.
c22 8y ago
I'm curious about this point of view. Would you consider it stealing if you read the before-the-fold content of a newspaper through the glass of the dispenser and then didn't buy the newspaper? Would it be different if you did it at a newsstand? At a coffee shop? If I buy a newspaper, read it, and then give it to a friend, would that be a form of theft? Is using a Tivo to prerecord a show then fast-forwarding through the ads stealing? What about just using the mute button? What if I watch all the ads but never buy any of the advertised products? From my point of view advertisers pay to access channels where they believe their messages will have an impact. Presumably they will pay more for higher-impact channels and less for low-impact ones, it would be unreasonable for them to expect their message to have 100% consumer penetration. If people without technical expertise have chosen to package "valuable" content along with a low-impact advertising channel in a way where the ads can be trivially stripped and relying on these ads to be profitable I posit that these entities deserve to go out of business and stripping their ads is no more stealing than buying a gizmo from a company that has unwisely decided to offer their product for less than it cost to produce.
- darawk 8y ago
  > Would you consider it stealing if you read the before-the-fold content of a newspaper through the glass of the dispenser and then didn't buy the newspaper? Would it be different if you did it at a newsstand? At a coffee shop? Reading through the glass may be a bit different, because the glass is transparent on purpose to entice you to buy the paper, so they intend for you to do that. That is, it's part of the deal they're making with you. > Is using a Tivo to prerecord a show then fast-forwarding through the ads stealing? Yes. > What about just using the mute button? Yes. > What if I watch all the ads but never buy any of the advertised products? No. Advertising is a risk taken by the advertiser. The contract is that they pay for the content and you consume the message. You're under no obligation to be impacted by that message. > From my point of view advertisers pay to access channels where they believe their messages will have an impact. Presumably they will pay more for higher-impact channels and less for low-impact ones, it would be unreasonable for them to expect their message to have 100% consumer penetration. If people without technical expertise have chosen to package "valuable" content along with a low-impact advertising channel in a way where the ads can be trivially stripped and relying on these ads to be profitable I posit that these entities deserve to go out of business and stripping their ads is no more stealing than buying a gizmo from a company that has unwisely decided to offer their product for less than it cost to produce. I think you're right in a certain sense, but also conflating some things. Let me clarify a bit. If a website clearly states "You must watch the ads in order to consume our content", then I believe it is stealing to contravene that. They have stated their terms, and are providing content to you contingent upon your adherence. If you break that agreement, you're stealing. Simple as that. If the agreement is not explicit, that's less clear. If the website does not say that you have to watch the ads to view the content, then i'd say that it's not stealing. Same with television, by the way. The litmus test for stealing here is breaking an agreement. I believe fundamentally that any content creator has the right to specify the terms by which their content is consumed. If one of those terms is 'watch the ads', then you are morally obligated to watch the ads. If they don't specify, then i'd say you're free to do as you wish.
jdietrich 8y ago
This is an old argument. If I record a TV program off-air and fast-forward through the commercials, am I stealing? If I arrive at the movie theater 20 minutes late to skip the trailers, am I stealing? If I change radio stations during the commercials, am I stealing? If my DVR automatically skips commercials, am I stealing? If I'm an eccentric billionaire and have my butler clip the advertising from my magazines and newspapers with scissors before I see them, is that stealing?
- darawk 8y ago
  That depends on the nature of the agreement. If the content creator says "yes you must consume the ads in order to view the content", then you are stealing. If they don't say that, then you aren't.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? To state the same points others already did in a different way - you put out data on the Internet, over HTTP protocol. You agreed to abide by the terms of the involved protocols, which say that if I send a proper HTTP request to your public server, and your server responds with data, then you gave me that data and it's now mine to view[0]. The browser is merely a rendering device for that data. At the HTTP level, you have no right or way to dictate to me what program should I use to render the data. Want the data rendered your way? Use a different protocol, leave HTTP alone. Now you're free to use technical and legal means to enforce your business model. It's your prerogative. Please do make me register an account and consent to a TOS contract, and deny access if I don't. HTTP protocol supports that too. If you do that, then I'll be morally and legally expected to follow the contract. But if you serve stuff unconditionally on publicly routable servers, you have no moral right to tell people what to do with that data. EDIT: also, you're free to detect I'm not parsing your content correctly (by e.g. not requesting appropriate files from your servers, or not running scripts that ping you back), and refuse to send me more content. That's your right. But if you send me content, your rights end, and I decide how I want to view it. -- [0] - There are legal caveats there that supersede this basic idea, like copyright and unauthorized access, but there are no laws nor any reasonable moral expectation that would force me to render the data I received in exactly the way the server wants.
- darawk 8y ago
  > you have no right or way to dictate to me what program should I use to render the data Why not? Why am I not allowed to say "If you want to consume my content, you need to view it in Firefox", if you don't want to agree to my terms, don't view my content. This is how all contracts work. This is how all business works. Why is the internet different?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > Why is the internet different? The Internet isn't really different, it's just people are bending over backwards to have their cake (send free content) and eat it too (tell people how they're supposed to view that content). When you're serving stuff over HTTP, you're giving me data in response to a valid HTTP request. That data is a binary/text blob. The HTTP protocol does not include any technical or legal provision that allows you to control how I interpret that binary/text blob. You can say "only for Firefox" all you want, but the only way to make it meaningful is to not send the data unless you're sure I'll be using Firefox to view it. I'm focusing on the protocol here for a reason. That protocol comes with the set of expectations; probably the most important is that you get to decide how you respond, but not what I do with that response. Understanding of that is necessary to draw correct analogies to other real-world practices. So a real-world analogy would go like this: you've set up a stand on the street, with a big sign saying "FREE BOOK ABOUT CATS". I come to you, and ask if I can have that book (GET request). You give me a book (content) and a hat with a company logo (an ad). I leave you, and on my way discover that the first page of the book says, "you can only read this book if you're wearing the hat that was given to you". It would be ridiculous of you to expect me to honor the request in that book. Hell, it would be ridiculous of you to require that I actually read the book. Maybe I only needed it as paperweight, or as starter fuel for a wood-burning stove. Oh, and I threw the cap you gave me away, without even looking at it. The only implicit contract we had in this example was that I might get a free book if I ask nicely. That's also the only implicit contract that you get when you host a publicly routable HTTP server.
TravelTechGuy 8y ago
I would consider this contract to be more "legal" if it contained the other side of the equation: By looking at the ads and executing the code we download to your computer, our site assumes full responsibility for the code, ads and content, and will reimburse you for any damage (physical, material, emotional) caused to you by the software we serve. We will not blame it on the "ad network", or "ad exchange" or a "google". Nope - if you got it from us, it's ours. So feel safe in deactivating your ad-block and surfing our site, because we got your back!
- darawk 8y ago
  And as a consumer of content, it is absolutely within your rights to only frequent websites that have that clause.
  - ggg9990 8y ago
    You seem to consider the consumer the only “agent” — they have to make the decision on what sites to visit, they have to comply with the terms of the implicit agreement... what are the obligations of the publisher?
    - darawk 8y ago
      A publisher chooses what to publish. The agent chooses what to consume, on the terms specified by the publisher. If they don't like those terms, they don't consume. If publishers don't get enough consumers due to onerous terms, they relax their terms. That's how our system is supposed to work.
      - ggg9990 8y ago
        But couldn't this be framed as: the viewer chooses what to request. The agent chooses how to respond, based on the terms offered by the requestor. They could require a payment, a login, or a promise to view ads before responding.
mnm1 8y ago
In my terms of service for my website, I state clearly that all visitors must pay me a billion dollars when viewing my page. You think that is stealing too? There's zero difference between the two. If blocking ads is stealing, then certainly, not paying me a billion dollars for every page view is massive theft. I not only want to recover the billions that people owe me, but I now should have the right to get the state to prosecute them and they should spend a significant portion of their lives in jail for such felonious theft. Or, maybe blocking ads isn't stealing, only suggesting that it is is clearly an argument that hasn't been through through at all.
mikestew 8y ago
What makes you think you have the right to the content The fact that my web browser received a 200 from the server. Server seemed to think it's okay to give it to me. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site. I will once again remind those that pull out this argument that the "implicit agreement" is that my web browser sends a request, and if the server thinks I am worthy of viewing the content, it sends said content along with a "200: everything is A-Okay! Happy to be of service!". If the server thinks me unworthy, it can send a 403. If someone wishes to redefine the "implicit agreement", please include a reference to the relevant RFC. Because otherwise it's just some marketing person trying to redefine the world the way they wished it were. Should someone care to redefine the World Wide Web experience such that I do not control what my browser displays, well, maybe the WWW isn't appropriate for their business.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- darawk 8y ago
  You seem to think technical implementations matter for some reason. I find that rather odd. Do you think that someone leaving their front door open entitles you to the contents of their home?
  - mikestew 8y ago
    Whether if it's the contents of a home or the contents of a text file sitting on a web server, if I ask, "can I have the contents of that, please?" and they answer in the affirmative then the answer to your question is, umm, yes? And should I decide to leave items that I don't want, I don't see where the homeowner has reason to complain.
    - darawk 8y ago
      So, you consider a GET request to be the equivalent of an unconditional request for content. That's an interesting perspective. What if the GET request delivers you the terms of a contract, that then requires a POST request containing "agree=yes" to the terms of the initial GET request to obtain the actual content, and the terms of that first stage GET request say "You must not use an ad blocker when viewing the second stage GET request".
ngold 8y ago
How are ads not stealing bandwidth and electricity?
rdiddly 8y ago
Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising. Sound ridiculous? That's because a web request and response is a collaborative effort of the two computers. The World Wide Web wasn't built for this kind of shitty, vaguely-adversarial, commercial-transaction-like interaction that everybody seems to want to turn everything into. If you place your "content" for "consumption" on the World Wide Web, you are saying clients can connect to that server and request content. To say that certain content is mandatory is completely ridiculous. Restricting content can only be subtractive, that's why a paywall is the only sustainable model for anyone who insists on eternally Septembering their way to profit and riche$ on the WWW.
- darawk 8y ago
  > Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising. Great, and if those are your terms and conditions, guess what, nobody forces you to visit their websites.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    Obviously. Just like nobody forces them to answer HTTP requests. Your comment is mighty thin gruel, intellectually speaking. Couldn't handle reading the second whole paragraph where it's revealed that this is a thought experiment?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Look, the only implicit conditions on the Web are those of networking protocols - which work in the following way: I can request whatever I want. You can do whatever you want with my request - namely serve it (e.g. HTTP 200 + data), refuse to serve it (e.g. HTTP 4xx / 5xx), or ignore it (just terminate the TCP connection, or not accept it in the first place). Whatever you choose, our interaction ends there. Whatever you sent me is now mine to interpret the way I want. Anything beyond that is defined by laws, and there are no laws that tell me I have to use a Typical Browser in a Typical Configuration to render all the data you sent me with a HTTP 200 response. There are no such laws, and there can't be, because they would be completely ridiculous.
dbasedweeb 8y ago
Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? Sure, if they’re on a private network. If you’re broadcasting though, hell no. It would be like a tv network demanding that you don’t use a DVR because it lets you skip ads. If you want the benefits of broadcasting to the open web, you’ve already tacitly agreed to let people consume that the way they see fit. You don’t get to set the volume of their audio, or anything else, including what gets displayed.
matheusmoreira 8y ago
>Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? >you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? No. >What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? The server has already sent it to me. The data is already in my computer. I can do whatever I want with it. Does a magazine publisher get mad if I rip out the advertisement pages and throw them in the trash? >You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site. Nobody implicitly agrees to anything. Is that even a thing? People simply open up sites and consume whatever's on them. >Of course it's stealing. >it's clearly stealing That's about as dishonest as claiming piracy is stealing. Making copies of something doesn't subtract the original from its owner, therefore it is obviously not stealing. It's called artificial scarcity for a reason: it doesn't actually exist. Receiving ad-loaded copies of something and then using a computer program to remove the noise is not stealing, it is user experience improvement.

by darawk 8y ago

logfromblammo 8y ago

I'm going to need a Poe's Law check on this one. Sincere or satire?

darawk 8y ago
Sincere.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Content creators have a privilege granted by copyright law to control the manner in which their work is distributed. Once the copy has passed to another, the law does not grant any further control over what the recipient may do with it privately. That is governed by explicit licensing terms. Websites may have a terms of use document that offers an adhesion contract for licensing the copyrighted materials served by the site. But such terms are not necessarily enforceable in every jurisdiction. And the onus is on the provider to enforce their licenses. Therefore, if the license contract states that a user may not read article X unless they also watch advertisement Y, it is in the site's interest to not serve X until after proof of Y has been returned. One cannot steal what was given freely. And it isn't exactly clear what remedy should be available to sites from users that breach an adhesion contract that has no technical measures implemented for enforcement. It isn't stealing. It is a civil licensing violation, at best.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

This attitude is ridiculous. It's akin to saying I'm obliged to read a whole book.

darawk 8y ago
You are if the author makes it a term of the sale.
- iamatworknow 8y ago
  Or else what? The author won't sell me another one? That's his only recourse, just like how the website owner's only recourse is to make the terms explicit by blocking the content if I block your ads, which some sites already do, and which I gladly avoid.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  This isn't correct. I believe there are extensive restrictions on what type of terms are considered "reasonable", especially between consumers and corporations. Arbitrary contract terms aren't automatically viewed as valid and binding by the courts.
  - darawk 8y ago
    You're correct, and this is the path to the primary legitimate argument against the view that you're morally obligated to view ads. None of the things other people are saying in response to me represent correct understandings of the issue. This is its crux: Can users meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit?
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      > Can users meaningfully agree to the terms of websites they visit? Yes, of course. But the issue isn't with that, but with how these terms work. The terms start to apply after the user has read and considered them. If you want to limit access to some content unless the user agrees to your terms, you're free to do so. But you can't give the content, and then retroactively ask user to accept the terms and expect them to agree because they already got the content.

jasonkostempski 8y ago

"Of course it's stealing. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site." No it's not and no you aren't. Entering a public area isn't trespassing and there's no such thing as a contract you implicitly agree too.

darawk 8y ago
...you consider private websites to be public areas?
- sbarker 8y ago
  is browsing an open s3 bucket hacking?
  - darawk 8y ago
    Of course not, but that's a non-sequitur. A privately owned store has a public entrance, but we also are happy to accept the right of the store owner to charge admission or kick out people who cause trouble. Entering the store is not burglary, but staying there against the wishes of the owner is trespassing.
    - civilitty 8y ago
      No one is preventing you from refusing to service a GET request.
    - horsawlarway 8y ago
      Sure, but they haven't expressed any wishes at all. If a site blocks me because I have an adblocker, I happily leave. But if a site sends content to my machine... that's on them.
      - darawk 8y ago
        > But if a site sends content to my machine... that's on them. Do you apply this moral principle in other areas? If your friend leaves their wallet at your house, do you consider the money in it to be yours?

TremendousJudge 8y ago

>if you write an article, you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? You have the right to say it, and I have the right to ignore it, because that's the way the Internet is implemented. You may pretend that it works differently, but until the day it works like broadcast TV, users will have the right to pull whatever content they want from servers.

darawk 8y ago
You have the right to possess it, and I have the right to take it by force, because that's the way physical reality is implemented. Arguing that implementation implies natural rights is a pretty silly path.
- TremendousJudge 8y ago
  Humans didn't implement physical reality, you have no choice but to live in it. If you use the internet to distribute your content however, you agree to its rules. And unlike physical reality, you may choose another platform to distribute it that conforms to your views. You may say that the internet is the most popular way to distribute content, but it didn't get there by accident.
  - darawk 8y ago
    You believe that protocols ought to represent binding contracts, then? Does that mean that exploiting bugs and stealing people's money is a perfectly legal and justifiable use of the internet?
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Protocols and legal considerations go together. Exploiting bugs and stealing money is also breaking the law. The issue sites have with ad blocking is because they demand from their visitors more than they agreed to on the protocol level.
    - 8y ago

Glyptodon 8y ago

No, I think if creators release their content in the world it becomes the world's. If you want to set terms rent a shed in the Nevada desert, charge admission, and make people leave their phones outside. The idea that there are "terms" when there's never even been a negotiation is absurd.

darawk 8y ago
> No, I think if creators release their content in the world it becomes the world's. If you want to set terms rent a shed in the Nevada desert, charge admission, and make people leave their phones outside. The law disagrees. Intellectual property is a real thing. You can argue that it shouldn't be, but it is. Releasing something into the world doesn't mean that you no longer own it. > The idea that there are "terms" when there's never even been a negotiation is absurd. There has been a negotiation. Sites have a TOS. The fact that you choose not to read it does not mean that you can ignore it.
- Glyptodon 8y ago
  It seems you missed reading about the royalties you'd owe for quoting my HN comments. It's all in my Comment Usage TOS. If you'd found them you'd know that there are fees associated with quoting my comments. But no worries, since you have such a clear understanding of things I'm sure you realize that you've stolen $500 from me and violated my Comment Usage TOS. Please pay up. I'm really glad we had this negotiation, by the way.

yoz-y 8y ago

I agree with you. The thing I do not like with the current ads on the internet is that you are implicitly agreeing to a contract which is written nowhere and that you have no way of reading.

horsawlarway 8y ago
Hey, cool fact: you're not entering any such contract, and the idea that you are is insane. There's no such thing as an implicit contract in this case (and most cases in general). If he chooses to serve his content and I choose to not read parts of that's fine.

horsawlarway 8y ago

> If you don't want to see the ad, simply don't read the article. What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. If you'd like to chose to not display your content when I have a blocker enabled, so be it, I'll leave and never come back. But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off. I'm not stealing when I drive by billboards without reading them, I'm not stealing when I turn my tv off when commercials come on, I'm sure as fuck not stealing when I block your ads. If you'd like to enter into a contract that actually tries to enforce your ludicrous idea that my attention is implicitly yours to demand, I'd suspect you'll find very few takers...

darawk 8y ago
> We've entered no contract, you have no right to dictate any terms to me at all. Period. That's fine for you to say, it just doesn't happen to be true. TOS are enforceable to some degree. > But to make an assumption that you have any sort of control of my time and attention is insidious. Fuck off. So, you think you have a right to their work product, but they don't have a right to your attention? Why the asymmetry?
- johnpowell 8y ago
  If I click a link on Google there is no TOS. If you want to show a screen with the TOS when I visit your site and make me agree to view your ads you can totally do that. And I will click the back button.
  - iamatworknow 8y ago
    Some sites pretty much do this already (Popular Mechanics, for one). I get a nice popup when I arrive at their site that says I need to turn off my adblock to continue. I actually don't even use adblock -- I use pihole, which means I'd have to add who-knows-what domains to my DNS whitelist (not just popularmechanics.com, because if it wasn't already permitted I wouldn't have even got to the page with the popup). So back button it is.

BonesJustice 8y ago

> Of course it's stealing. Oh, really? What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy. And what about data brokers? My browsing history is my work product; I create it through my own actions. Much of the information that data brokers sell about me would not and could not exist without my direct contributions. When they sell that data, do I get an appropriate share of their profits? No. They are regularly stealing and profiting from my work. The websites you claim I'm 'stealing' from are giving away tons of my information without anything even approaching affirmative consent.

darawk 8y ago
> What about the websites who allow dozens of third parties to serve me an unknown quantity and quality of content that I did not request? They steal my bandwidth, compute cycles, and privacy. Yes, even then. You have no right to the content they produce. They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It's that simple.
- BonesJustice 8y ago
  > They offer it up for you, contingent upon you consuming it commensurate with the terms they've set out. If you don't like those terms, don't consume the content. It's that simple. What 'terms'? They're essentially giving third parties the ability to inject anything they want into their websites. How can they meaningfully establish 'terms' if they have willingly given up the ability to hold up their end of those terms? If, the first time I visit a website, they actually bother to: 1. Disclose everything they and their affiliates will do with my information; 2. Disclose the sources of any and all content that will be served; 3. Get my affirmative consent before allowing me in; 4. Not share *any* information until I consent; Then, and only then, would there be some reasonable semblance of 'terms'. As things are now, they couldn't possibly do any of that, because they themselves don't even know what they're serving up, or what will be done with my information. If your 'terms' are, "we can do anything we want with your device and Internet connection when you visit our website, but you can't do anything except view what is served to you, as it is served", then you do not have terms; you have a farce.

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago

Its relative easy to replace a raw-ressource producer? Nearly everyone who is bodily able and has the land- can farm or mine. You can specialize in a certain fruit, or in a certain growth method- but these are easily copied, and thuse the price differences in the long run always gets equalled out or - if there is a surplus, even drop below the point of creation. Content can be created by nearly everyone who is able to write sentences and glue stockfootage into it. Its the agriculture of the e-industry, the raw ressource. Once it is created, you loose controll over it, it goes from hand to hand, is traded, trafficked, refined and reused. And all those millers, traders, feedalot farmers, butchers and finally the customers- of the content world will be better off then the content creators - perpetually for eternity by the nature of the trade. The only way out, is to create brands and fashion waves ala "organic" content. Which if succesfull will be aped by all and surplanted. Contentcreators - welcome to hell.

a1369209993 8y ago

> Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? That is it exactly. If you (knowingly/willingly) transmit information to a person, what they do with their copies of it is entirely up to them. This is items zero and one in (my particular ordering of) the set of inalienable right fundamental to sapient beings. If you don't want people to read your articles without seeing your ad, then don't publish your articles.

darawk 8y ago
So, if someone tells you the password to their bank account, does that entitle you to the money in it?
- a1369209993 8y ago
  If they intended to give me root access to the account, then yes. In the much more likely case that it was unintentional, I should badger them until they change their password. If they gave me the password unwillingly (eg, because they wanted me to deal with financial issue for them and their bank doesn't support more fine-grained authorization), same caveat. In either case, the problem is that the bank thinks that "[password]" is something only they know, and the solution (changing their password) has nothing to do with anything I actually do with the information, aside from (not) lying to the bank about my identity/money-ownership.

danbolt 8y ago

When I was a child, I would record cartoons on the VCR. When the commercials started, I would stop the recording and resume once the programme began again. I think I would mute the TV too! There was certainly a way that the distributors wanted me to consume the content with the ads, but I'd think that my muting and selective recording was socially okay. The media companies were welcome to stop broadcasting cartoons and sell movies or high-margin DVDs if they wanted. I don't really see a bunch of HTML and JavaScript as any different. I'd prefer that they revert to a paywall if they don't like the their content being modified locally by the end-user.

c22 8y ago

I'm curious about this point of view. Would you consider it stealing if you read the before-the-fold content of a newspaper through the glass of the dispenser and then didn't buy the newspaper? Would it be different if you did it at a newsstand? At a coffee shop? If I buy a newspaper, read it, and then give it to a friend, would that be a form of theft? Is using a Tivo to prerecord a show then fast-forwarding through the ads stealing? What about just using the mute button? What if I watch all the ads but never buy any of the advertised products? From my point of view advertisers pay to access channels where they believe their messages will have an impact. Presumably they will pay more for higher-impact channels and less for low-impact ones, it would be unreasonable for them to expect their message to have 100% consumer penetration. If people without technical expertise have chosen to package "valuable" content along with a low-impact advertising channel in a way where the ads can be trivially stripped and relying on these ads to be profitable I posit that these entities deserve to go out of business and stripping their ads is no more stealing than buying a gizmo from a company that has unwisely decided to offer their product for less than it cost to produce.

darawk 8y ago
> Would you consider it stealing if you read the before-the-fold content of a newspaper through the glass of the dispenser and then didn't buy the newspaper? Would it be different if you did it at a newsstand? At a coffee shop? Reading through the glass may be a bit different, because the glass is transparent on purpose to entice you to buy the paper, so they intend for you to do that. That is, it's part of the deal they're making with you. > Is using a Tivo to prerecord a show then fast-forwarding through the ads stealing? Yes. > What about just using the mute button? Yes. > What if I watch all the ads but never buy any of the advertised products? No. Advertising is a risk taken by the advertiser. The contract is that they pay for the content and you consume the message. You're under no obligation to be impacted by that message. > From my point of view advertisers pay to access channels where they believe their messages will have an impact. Presumably they will pay more for higher-impact channels and less for low-impact ones, it would be unreasonable for them to expect their message to have 100% consumer penetration. If people without technical expertise have chosen to package "valuable" content along with a low-impact advertising channel in a way where the ads can be trivially stripped and relying on these ads to be profitable I posit that these entities deserve to go out of business and stripping their ads is no more stealing than buying a gizmo from a company that has unwisely decided to offer their product for less than it cost to produce. I think you're right in a certain sense, but also conflating some things. Let me clarify a bit. If a website clearly states "You must watch the ads in order to consume our content", then I believe it is stealing to contravene that. They have stated their terms, and are providing content to you contingent upon your adherence. If you break that agreement, you're stealing. Simple as that. If the agreement is not explicit, that's less clear. If the website does not say that you have to watch the ads to view the content, then i'd say that it's not stealing. Same with television, by the way. The litmus test for stealing here is breaking an agreement. I believe fundamentally that any content creator has the right to specify the terms by which their content is consumed. If one of those terms is 'watch the ads', then you are morally obligated to watch the ads. If they don't specify, then i'd say you're free to do as you wish.

jdietrich 8y ago

This is an old argument. If I record a TV program off-air and fast-forward through the commercials, am I stealing? If I arrive at the movie theater 20 minutes late to skip the trailers, am I stealing? If I change radio stations during the commercials, am I stealing? If my DVR automatically skips commercials, am I stealing? If I'm an eccentric billionaire and have my butler clip the advertising from my magazines and newspapers with scissors before I see them, is that stealing?

darawk 8y ago
That depends on the nature of the agreement. If the content creator says "yes you must consume the ads in order to view the content", then you are stealing. If they don't say that, then you aren't.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? To state the same points others already did in a different way - you put out data on the Internet, over HTTP protocol. You agreed to abide by the terms of the involved protocols, which say that if I send a proper HTTP request to your public server, and your server responds with data, then you gave me that data and it's now mine to view[0]. The browser is merely a rendering device for that data. At the HTTP level, you have no right or way to dictate to me what program should I use to render the data. Want the data rendered your way? Use a different protocol, leave HTTP alone. Now you're free to use technical and legal means to enforce your business model. It's your prerogative. Please do make me register an account and consent to a TOS contract, and deny access if I don't. HTTP protocol supports that too. If you do that, then I'll be morally and legally expected to follow the contract. But if you serve stuff unconditionally on publicly routable servers, you have no moral right to tell people what to do with that data. EDIT: also, you're free to detect I'm not parsing your content correctly (by e.g. not requesting appropriate files from your servers, or not running scripts that ping you back), and refuse to send me more content. That's your right. But if you send me content, your rights end, and I decide how I want to view it. -- [0] - There are legal caveats there that supersede this basic idea, like copyright and unauthorized access, but there are no laws nor any reasonable moral expectation that would force me to render the data I received in exactly the way the server wants.

darawk 8y ago
> you have no right or way to dictate to me what program should I use to render the data Why not? Why am I not allowed to say "If you want to consume my content, you need to view it in Firefox", if you don't want to agree to my terms, don't view my content. This is how all contracts work. This is how all business works. Why is the internet different?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Why is the internet different? The Internet isn't really different, it's just people are bending over backwards to have their cake (send free content) and eat it too (tell people how they're supposed to view that content). When you're serving stuff over HTTP, you're giving me data in response to a valid HTTP request. That data is a binary/text blob. The HTTP protocol does not include any technical or legal provision that allows you to control how I interpret that binary/text blob. You can say "only for Firefox" all you want, but the only way to make it meaningful is to not send the data unless you're sure I'll be using Firefox to view it. I'm focusing on the protocol here for a reason. That protocol comes with the set of expectations; probably the most important is that you get to decide how you respond, but not what I do with that response. Understanding of that is necessary to draw correct analogies to other real-world practices. So a real-world analogy would go like this: you've set up a stand on the street, with a big sign saying "FREE BOOK ABOUT CATS". I come to you, and ask if I can have that book (GET request). You give me a book (content) and a hat with a company logo (an ad). I leave you, and on my way discover that the first page of the book says, "you can only read this book if you're wearing the hat that was given to you". It would be ridiculous of you to expect me to honor the request in that book. Hell, it would be ridiculous of you to require that I actually read the book. Maybe I only needed it as paperweight, or as starter fuel for a wood-burning stove. Oh, and I threw the cap you gave me away, without even looking at it. The only implicit contract we had in this example was that I might get a free book if I ask nicely. That's also the only implicit contract that you get when you host a publicly routable HTTP server.

TravelTechGuy 8y ago

I would consider this contract to be more "legal" if it contained the other side of the equation: By looking at the ads and executing the code we download to your computer, our site assumes full responsibility for the code, ads and content, and will reimburse you for any damage (physical, material, emotional) caused to you by the software we serve. We will not blame it on the "ad network", or "ad exchange" or a "google". Nope - if you got it from us, it's ours. So feel safe in deactivating your ad-block and surfing our site, because we got your back!

darawk 8y ago
And as a consumer of content, it is absolutely within your rights to only frequent websites that have that clause.
- ggg9990 8y ago
  You seem to consider the consumer the only “agent” — they have to make the decision on what sites to visit, they have to comply with the terms of the implicit agreement... what are the obligations of the publisher?
  - darawk 8y ago
    A publisher chooses what to publish. The agent chooses what to consume, on the terms specified by the publisher. If they don't like those terms, they don't consume. If publishers don't get enough consumers due to onerous terms, they relax their terms. That's how our system is supposed to work.
    - ggg9990 8y ago
      But couldn't this be framed as: the viewer chooses what to request. The agent chooses how to respond, based on the terms offered by the requestor. They could require a payment, a login, or a promise to view ads before responding.

mnm1 8y ago

In my terms of service for my website, I state clearly that all visitors must pay me a billion dollars when viewing my page. You think that is stealing too? There's zero difference between the two. If blocking ads is stealing, then certainly, not paying me a billion dollars for every page view is massive theft. I not only want to recover the billions that people owe me, but I now should have the right to get the state to prosecute them and they should spend a significant portion of their lives in jail for such felonious theft. Or, maybe blocking ads isn't stealing, only suggesting that it is is clearly an argument that hasn't been through through at all.

mikestew 8y ago

What makes you think you have the right to the content The fact that my web browser received a 200 from the server. Server seemed to think it's okay to give it to me. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site. I will once again remind those that pull out this argument that the "implicit agreement" is that my web browser sends a request, and if the server thinks I am worthy of viewing the content, it sends said content along with a "200: everything is A-Okay! Happy to be of service!". If the server thinks me unworthy, it can send a 403. If someone wishes to redefine the "implicit agreement", please include a reference to the relevant RFC. Because otherwise it's just some marketing person trying to redefine the world the way they wished it were. Should someone care to redefine the World Wide Web experience such that I do not control what my browser displays, well, maybe the WWW isn't appropriate for their business.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
darawk 8y ago
You seem to think technical implementations matter for some reason. I find that rather odd. Do you think that someone leaving their front door open entitles you to the contents of their home?
- mikestew 8y ago
  Whether if it's the contents of a home or the contents of a text file sitting on a web server, if I ask, "can I have the contents of that, please?" and they answer in the affirmative then the answer to your question is, umm, yes? And should I decide to leave items that I don't want, I don't see where the homeowner has reason to complain.
  - darawk 8y ago
    So, you consider a GET request to be the equivalent of an unconditional request for content. That's an interesting perspective. What if the GET request delivers you the terms of a contract, that then requires a POST request containing "agree=yes" to the terms of the initial GET request to obtain the actual content, and the terms of that first stage GET request say "You must not use an ad blocker when viewing the second stage GET request".

ngold 8y ago

How are ads not stealing bandwidth and electricity?

rdiddly 8y ago

Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising. Sound ridiculous? That's because a web request and response is a collaborative effort of the two computers. The World Wide Web wasn't built for this kind of shitty, vaguely-adversarial, commercial-transaction-like interaction that everybody seems to want to turn everything into. If you place your "content" for "consumption" on the World Wide Web, you are saying clients can connect to that server and request content. To say that certain content is mandatory is completely ridiculous. Restricting content can only be subtractive, that's why a paywall is the only sustainable model for anyone who insists on eternally Septembering their way to profit and riche$ on the WWW.

darawk 8y ago
> Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising. Great, and if those are your terms and conditions, guess what, nobody forces you to visit their websites.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  Obviously. Just like nobody forces them to answer HTTP requests. Your comment is mighty thin gruel, intellectually speaking. Couldn't handle reading the second whole paragraph where it's revealed that this is a thought experiment?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Look, the only implicit conditions on the Web are those of networking protocols - which work in the following way: I can request whatever I want. You can do whatever you want with my request - namely serve it (e.g. HTTP 200 + data), refuse to serve it (e.g. HTTP 4xx / 5xx), or ignore it (just terminate the TCP connection, or not accept it in the first place). Whatever you choose, our interaction ends there. Whatever you sent me is now mine to interpret the way I want. Anything beyond that is defined by laws, and there are no laws that tell me I have to use a Typical Browser in a Typical Configuration to render all the data you sent me with a HTTP 200 response. There are no such laws, and there can't be, because they would be completely ridiculous.

dbasedweeb 8y ago

Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? Sure, if they’re on a private network. If you’re broadcasting though, hell no. It would be like a tv network demanding that you don’t use a DVR because it lets you skip ads. If you want the benefits of broadcasting to the open web, you’ve already tacitly agreed to let people consume that the way they see fit. You don’t get to set the volume of their audio, or anything else, including what gets displayed.

matheusmoreira 8y ago

>Do you not believe that content creators have the right to set the terms upon which their content may be consumed? >you don't believe that you have the right to say "you may read this article, provided that you also display this ad"? No. >What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? The server has already sent it to me. The data is already in my computer. I can do whatever I want with it. Does a magazine publisher get mad if I rip out the advertisement pages and throw them in the trash? >You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site. Nobody implicitly agrees to anything. Is that even a thing? People simply open up sites and consume whatever's on them. >Of course it's stealing. >it's clearly stealing That's about as dishonest as claiming piracy is stealing. Making copies of something doesn't subtract the original from its owner, therefore it is obviously not stealing. It's called artificial scarcity for a reason: it doesn't actually exist. Receiving ad-loaded copies of something and then using a computer program to remove the noise is not stealing, it is user experience improvement.