4 ms·

I don't think it follows generally that, if something is offered without monetary cost but with terms of use, and you don't like those terms, you are free to us

I don't think it follows generally that, if something is offered without monetary cost but with terms of use, and you don't like those terms, you are free to use it in violation of those terms. For example GPL code is often $0, but that doesn't give me the option of ignoring the copyleft provisions if I don't like them. The only valid options are to comply or to not use it.

StockHuman 5y ago
That's an excellent point, and I agree - not just here, but in practice as well - I go out of my way to respect the GPL and similar licenses for my own work and others'. My respect of copyleft does not come from a want to adhere to legal terms, but instead an appreciation for what those terms hope to achieve more broadly, and the positive impact they have on society. As I described in another comment, I do not owe FAANG respect or legal cooperation it doesn't reciprocate. Of course, if you feel like it's your duty to run the web without adblockers, I understand that, and more power to you.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I’m curious, which laws have FAANG broken that they haven’t already been fined for?
  - StockHuman 5y ago
    That's a strange question, I have no private data about current of future lawbreaking. We know they're keen to lobby and litigate their way out of laws, and pay paltry fines when they fail to do so, but I cannot predict the next instance beyond enumerating any currently ongoing cases.
BeetleB 5y ago
> I don't think it follows generally that, if something is offered without monetary cost but with terms of use, and you don't like those terms, you are free to use it in violation of those terms. I honestly wonder how well this has been tested in courts for web sites. As an example, if I visit a web site that has a "Terms of Use" link, but I don't click on the link, will the courts still rule that I'm bound by them? An extreme case: If there is a static web site with images, and somewhere on the page there is a Terms of Use along the lines of "If you view these images you must pay me 10 cents", then is that legally binding? (Note: Copyright is very different from "terms of use"). I vaguely recall there was a ruling that if you buy a physical item and its terms of use are in the box (i.e. you cannot view it without buying), then you are not bound by them. Of course, this is not analogous.

StockHuman 5y ago

That's an excellent point, and I agree - not just here, but in practice as well - I go out of my way to respect the GPL and similar licenses for my own work and others'. My respect of copyleft does not come from a want to adhere to legal terms, but instead an appreciation for what those terms hope to achieve more broadly, and the positive impact they have on society. As I described in another comment, I do not owe FAANG respect or legal cooperation it doesn't reciprocate. Of course, if you feel like it's your duty to run the web without adblockers, I understand that, and more power to you.

endisneigh 5y ago
I’m curious, which laws have FAANG broken that they haven’t already been fined for?
- StockHuman 5y ago
  That's a strange question, I have no private data about current of future lawbreaking. We know they're keen to lobby and litigate their way out of laws, and pay paltry fines when they fail to do so, but I cannot predict the next instance beyond enumerating any currently ongoing cases.

BeetleB 5y ago

> I don't think it follows generally that, if something is offered without monetary cost but with terms of use, and you don't like those terms, you are free to use it in violation of those terms. I honestly wonder how well this has been tested in courts for web sites. As an example, if I visit a web site that has a "Terms of Use" link, but I don't click on the link, will the courts still rule that I'm bound by them? An extreme case: If there is a static web site with images, and somewhere on the page there is a Terms of Use along the lines of "If you view these images you must pay me 10 cents", then is that legally binding? (Note: Copyright is very different from "terms of use"). I vaguely recall there was a ruling that if you buy a physical item and its terms of use are in the box (i.e. you cannot view it without buying), then you are not bound by them. Of course, this is not analogous.