3 ms·
> I as the operator of my web browser is the person who gives authorisation for code (including ad code) to run on my browser on my machine There are actually
by MarkMc 14y ago
> I as the operator of my web browser is the person who gives authorisation for code (including ad code) to run on my browser on my machine
There are actually two people who give authorisation for code to run on your browser: You and the code's copyright holder. Most web sites will say, "we authorise you to run our main content as long as you also run the ads". Running AdBlock means that you are running code in a way which is not authorised by the web page copyright holder.
- TheCoelacanth 14y agoI have never seen a web site require me to explicitly agree to something like that. There is certainly no implicit agreement that I must view any content they happen to send me.
- MarkMc 14y agoThere is no implicit agreement that you must view any content, but there is usually an implicit agreement that you must not modify the content. For example, the New York Times Terms of Service [1] says "You may not modify...any of the Content". [1] http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/terms/terms-of-service.html http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/terms/terms-of-se...
- TheCoelacanth 14y agoFirst of all, that's the terms of service that you agree to when signing up for an account. If you don't sign up for an account, you haven't agreed to that. Additionally, you left out this from your quote "(except as provided in Section 2.3 of these Terms of Service)". Section 2.3 says "You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Services for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein". All an adblocker does is download some of the content and decline to download some of the downloadable items. That's permissible under Section 2.3.
- anoncow 14y agoI hope you don't start saying that people who use adblock are guilty of copyright infringement. Or did you already say that? Sadly, what you say is true and websites can add the no adblock requirement to their TOS. Then they can sue users who use adblock for unauthorised access (hacking!) or copyright infringement(running code that modifies their content). The next step will be to make a Blogging Industry Association. BIA can then approach ISPs for a "3 strikes followed by re-education" business deal. The positives apart from the windfall in revenue - as governments/atittudes change BIA can push for imprisonment and bonded labour in lieu of the quantum of infringenent(based on number of pageviews with adblock on or based on bytes). Some countries will be even ready for stricter punishment. BIA then (with the help of sister organisations) can get into the lucrative prison industry.
- jellicle 14y agoYou need to read up on what "copyright" actually is, and why it is not called authorisationright.
- MarkMc 14y agoI thought copyright included the right to authorise someone to make a copy? Are you saying that you don't need the permission of the copyright holder to view a web page?
- chii 14y agothey implicitly gave you permission by accepting you http request. what you do with the result of the request in private IVs is not anyone's business.
- flyinRyan 14y agolol. You can also put "if you even accidentally see this page you owe me a quadrillion dollars" but that doesn't mean it's binding in any way.
- flyinRyan 14y agolol. You can also put "if you even accidentally see this page you owe me a quadrillion dollars" but that doesn't mean it's binding in any way.