10 ms·

Right of computer owner to access public network resources and display it in the way he wants is above profit incentives of resource provider and above any othe

Right of computer owner to access public network resources and display it in the way he wants is above profit incentives of resource provider and above any other proprietary rights for that matter. For instance, if I receive a HTML/CSS data that displays a trademarked design (which should be kept as a whole), I am able to mangle the presentation part any way I want for personal usage. If I publish a site that's a mangled copy of a trademarked site, that's gray area. For my PC usage, no gray area. Same with disassembling, reverse engineering, etc. Then, I have a right to publish any tools that perform any customizations over owner's items, be them hardware or software. Customizing proprietary software and reselling it is illicit. Customizing for one's own purposes isn't (the proprietor may choose to drop support for owner on his prerogative). Most important point is that YT and alikes want to freeload in the middle area. They want to be free and public, but they want to force the way you consume them. That is a no go. YT can choose to make a closed system, but then they would lose all random people without accounts finding YT links and watching them. Really, tie the google account, and set up watching quotas, direct payment or any other system where YT directly gets "paid back". The user can use his tokens to access streams from wherever he wants, youtube-dl or whatnot.

_Algernon_ 3y ago
The right to general purpose computing should be part of the constitution in any country that claims to value free speech.
- bcjordan 3y ago
  Freedom of expressions
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  And who is obligated to provide these resources? There is a big difference between the government not being able to restrict you in some way, and some party providing you with something (general purpose computing in this case). Presumably someone should have provided printing presses as well.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    You pay for drinking water, it's still a human right. You have the right to free speech, but aren't entitled to somebody else providing you with a platform. These things aren't incompatible. This would be more about putting a limit on the degree to which this right can be impeded in the legal system and by regular laws which happens to be the main point of a constitution.
    - acdha 3y ago
      What right do you think is being violated, though? It’s not like anyone is arguing that you must use YouTube so I don’t see freedom of association or your control of what you do on your computer being impacted. I would support claims if, say, a public school required students to watch videos but that would be against the school for having picked an unsuitable vendor rather than YouTube.
      - _Algernon_ 3y ago
        Rights aren't necessarily added to the constitution because they're currently being violated. They're added to secure the rights into the future. There are many developments that are moving in the direction of this being violated, the most recent of which is Web Environment Integrity[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity
        freedomben 3y ago
        I'm not sure if you're arguing a positive right to general purpose computing (where somebody has to provide you with) or a negative one (where somebody can't stop you from having). Could you please clarify?
        _Algernon_ 3y ago
        I'm arguing a negative right: "This would be more about putting a limit on the degree to which this right can be impeded in the legal system and by regular laws which happens to be the main point of a constitution."
- bluescrn 3y ago
  The battle for general purpose computing (as opposed to locked-down content-consumption devices) is already lost.
izacus 3y ago
I wonder if you'll keep your free rights opinion the first time some bot abuses your service, causes a few 100.000$ in AWS costs and then goes away without paying for it.
- 0x445442 3y ago
  What part about Google accounts and tokens did you not understand? Bots can’t freeload if your services are protected by service credentials and fees. A significant part of the fees Ticketmaster charges goes to mitigating bots reserving seats and then reselling them on the secondary market. This problem can be easily addressed by requiring reserves and purchases to be made only from registered accounts. They choose not to do this because they’ve determined the cost of combating fraud is offset by allowing non-account holders to make purchases for events.
  - acdha 3y ago
    The person they are replying to confabulated a “Right of computer owner to access public network resources and display it in the way he wants”. If such a right to private property existed, it would lead to exactly the problem the person you’re replying to asked about, which is why it doesn’t exist.
acdha 3y ago
> Right of computer owner to access public network resources This misunderstanding is the basis of your entire argument: YouTube is not a public resource. It’s a private company providing access to mostly private content in exchange for payment under certain terms. Currently they have the right to deny access as desired and even to pursue legal charges against people who don’t follow their terms. The only way to change the situation is to change the law, such as what some countries have done to limit the amount of tracking they’re allowed to perform. Client portability would be an interesting but challenging argument to make since they would have raise not only the past estimates of revenue lost due to unauthorized redistribution but now would almost certainly make the argument that creators need to be protected against unauthorized AI usage, too. I’d like to be proven pessimistic but it seems unlikely that we’re going to see much political will for IP reform with relatively little public demand.
- primordz 3y ago
  > in exchange for payment under certain terms. What terms? I can go to youtube.com right now without an account, without accepting any agreement or contract, click on a video and it will send data to my computer. How I process that data on my computer is entirely up to me and not anyone else.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Your use of YouTube is contingent on the terms of service offered: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms https://www.youtube.com/t/terms It’s true that you aren’t required to create an account but also true that you have no standing to complain if they start blocking access when they detect that you aren’t following their terms. It’s private property so it’s their rules.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      By reading this comment, you agree to my Terms of Service. My Terms of Service are that you must send me $100.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Ad-impressions as payment is one of the most accessible means of service monetization in the world. You only need eyes or ears to be granted access. Cutting that off, or somehow ruling it illegitimate to require, will raise the bar and cut off less affluent and less educated communities.
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  This is true. Maybe the deal just needs to be negotiated in a more formalized way. I kind of like how Brave handles the problem, where the browser itself shows you ads (in a much less obtrusive and more privacy-preserving way than how sites do it) and then distributes the resulting funds to the sites you visit. If advertising were structured that way, instead of how it is now where sites will serve up ads and get aggressive if your client chooses not to display them, then you could retain advertising as an option for those who want it while also allowing alternative payment methods for those who would prefer that, and preserving end user control over the software running on their machine.

_Algernon_ 3y ago

The right to general purpose computing should be part of the constitution in any country that claims to value free speech.

bcjordan 3y ago
Freedom of expressions
nonethewiser 3y ago
And who is obligated to provide these resources? There is a big difference between the government not being able to restrict you in some way, and some party providing you with something (general purpose computing in this case). Presumably someone should have provided printing presses as well.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  You pay for drinking water, it's still a human right. You have the right to free speech, but aren't entitled to somebody else providing you with a platform. These things aren't incompatible. This would be more about putting a limit on the degree to which this right can be impeded in the legal system and by regular laws which happens to be the main point of a constitution.
  - acdha 3y ago
    What right do you think is being violated, though? It’s not like anyone is arguing that you must use YouTube so I don’t see freedom of association or your control of what you do on your computer being impacted. I would support claims if, say, a public school required students to watch videos but that would be against the school for having picked an unsuitable vendor rather than YouTube.
    - _Algernon_ 3y ago
      Rights aren't necessarily added to the constitution because they're currently being violated. They're added to secure the rights into the future. There are many developments that are moving in the direction of this being violated, the most recent of which is Web Environment Integrity[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity
      - freedomben 3y ago
        I'm not sure if you're arguing a positive right to general purpose computing (where somebody has to provide you with) or a negative one (where somebody can't stop you from having). Could you please clarify?
        _Algernon_ 3y ago
        I'm arguing a negative right: "This would be more about putting a limit on the degree to which this right can be impeded in the legal system and by regular laws which happens to be the main point of a constitution."
bluescrn 3y ago
The battle for general purpose computing (as opposed to locked-down content-consumption devices) is already lost.

izacus 3y ago

I wonder if you'll keep your free rights opinion the first time some bot abuses your service, causes a few 100.000$ in AWS costs and then goes away without paying for it.

0x445442 3y ago
What part about Google accounts and tokens did you not understand? Bots can’t freeload if your services are protected by service credentials and fees. A significant part of the fees Ticketmaster charges goes to mitigating bots reserving seats and then reselling them on the secondary market. This problem can be easily addressed by requiring reserves and purchases to be made only from registered accounts. They choose not to do this because they’ve determined the cost of combating fraud is offset by allowing non-account holders to make purchases for events.
- acdha 3y ago
  The person they are replying to confabulated a “Right of computer owner to access public network resources and display it in the way he wants”. If such a right to private property existed, it would lead to exactly the problem the person you’re replying to asked about, which is why it doesn’t exist.

acdha 3y ago

> Right of computer owner to access public network resources This misunderstanding is the basis of your entire argument: YouTube is not a public resource. It’s a private company providing access to mostly private content in exchange for payment under certain terms. Currently they have the right to deny access as desired and even to pursue legal charges against people who don’t follow their terms. The only way to change the situation is to change the law, such as what some countries have done to limit the amount of tracking they’re allowed to perform. Client portability would be an interesting but challenging argument to make since they would have raise not only the past estimates of revenue lost due to unauthorized redistribution but now would almost certainly make the argument that creators need to be protected against unauthorized AI usage, too. I’d like to be proven pessimistic but it seems unlikely that we’re going to see much political will for IP reform with relatively little public demand.

primordz 3y ago
> in exchange for payment under certain terms. What terms? I can go to youtube.com right now without an account, without accepting any agreement or contract, click on a video and it will send data to my computer. How I process that data on my computer is entirely up to me and not anyone else.
- acdha 3y ago
  Your use of YouTube is contingent on the terms of service offered: https://www.youtube.com/t/terms https://www.youtube.com/t/terms It’s true that you aren’t required to create an account but also true that you have no standing to complain if they start blocking access when they detect that you aren’t following their terms. It’s private property so it’s their rules.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    By reading this comment, you agree to my Terms of Service. My Terms of Service are that you must send me $100.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

Ad-impressions as payment is one of the most accessible means of service monetization in the world. You only need eyes or ears to be granted access. Cutting that off, or somehow ruling it illegitimate to require, will raise the bar and cut off less affluent and less educated communities.

Ajedi32 3y ago
This is true. Maybe the deal just needs to be negotiated in a more formalized way. I kind of like how Brave handles the problem, where the browser itself shows you ads (in a much less obtrusive and more privacy-preserving way than how sites do it) and then distributes the resulting funds to the sites you visit. If advertising were structured that way, instead of how it is now where sites will serve up ads and get aggressive if your client chooses not to display them, then you could retain advertising as an option for those who want it while also allowing alternative payment methods for those who would prefer that, and preserving end user control over the software running on their machine.