3 ms·
Legally you are correct of course but you are not engaging with the moral aspects of free-rider problems at all, just side stepping them with a tangentially rel
by wilsonnb3 3y ago
Legally you are correct of course but you are not engaging with the moral aspects of free-rider problems at all, just side stepping them with a tangentially related technical argument.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoImagine if someone said that with a straight face about ones own property.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoMany property owners compromise in non-monetary ways for the benefit of access. Consider sidewalks crossing private property, we tend them yet don't always use them ourselves. They make us all richer for a bit of inconvenience and intrusion into our space. Likewise ad supported distribution makes us richer by broadening what is available and to whom for a portion of our attention. We can disagree about how much is too much, or how careful or careless any given system is. Yet I'm thankful the model exists and has democratized video, despite it's downsides.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoThat's a complete mischaracterization of the law, at least in the US. If a trail has been setup and maintained for the public good, new owners cannot remove the public access. They are _legally required_ to maintain them. Just as they are legally required to maintain the sidewalks in front of their property.