4 ms·

Yeah stealing was a strong word. As for downloading copyrighted material, at least that doesn't necessarily have a direct cost to the content creators/providers

Yeah stealing was a strong word. As for downloading copyrighted material, at least that doesn't necessarily have a direct cost to the content creators/providers, where as for example streaming a video from YouTube while ignoring all of the ads is bad for both Google as well as the people who rely on ad revenue to make YouTube videos full time as it actually costs Google money in addition to not generating them any revenue. In fact I would say the example of reading the magazine in the store is more applicable to copyright violation, and that using AdBlock is more like going into a Starbucks to use the WiFi without buying anything, except worse, as with AdBlock one generally wouldn't turn it off, so every time someone with AdBlock visits the site they're basically just sucking up resources.

XorNot 13y ago
Mechanically, my browser is asking for index.html. At that point, your server can decide what it's going to send, but I'm not obligated to ask for any other data from you - nor am I obligated to execute arbitrary client-side code. Web site operates make a calculated risk when they offer service the way they do, in the same way that Starbucks does in offering free wi-fi. And a lot of people don't do it that way - for instance a lot of coffee shops give you the wi-fi password with a purchase and I suspect in the future we may see a move to using enterprise WPA2 and "purchase enables x hours of access" policies. Saying things should work differently gets absurd quickly: you don't earn money just for showing ads, you need click-throughs. If no one clicks through, are they still stealing? What if my browser renders the ads and I just tape up my screen so I can't see them etc. etc.