81–90 of 98 posts
After all, they knew it could be used to circumvent connections required by bits of software.
Another legal grey area with potential unintended consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By browsing the website, the argument is that you implicitly accepted the ToS. It's legally shaky, and generally the ToS or a link to them must have been provably shown to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap
How far can you take that? Can a spammer put up a TOS claiming that by accessing their site you are agreeing to host their botnet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website Except for the fact that it is being purposefully made available to the general public.
Not sure what you're trying to say, as all copyrighted works are made available to the general public, that being the whole purpose of copyright law.
On the other hand, when i view a billboard, i have entered into no such agreement. I just moved my eyes and there it was - i consented to nothing, i purchased nothing, i am under no obligation to take any action or to behave within certain defined parameters.
Since a website is made publicly viewable, it is not at all like a movie, it is instead like a billboard.
I enter no contract when i move my gaze onto a public resource (be it digitally or physically).
Or should I start putting up billboards with cameras tracking license plates and MPH, with fine print saying you agree to be physically tracked using my billboards and allowing me to send all collected information to the police and advertisers?
And then when you block my camera, i will sue you for breaking the TOS of my billboard, that you consented to by seeing the billboard.
Can we make a "User TOS" standard wherein a link to a user's personal Terms of Service is embedded in, say, a "User-TOS" GET header, which could include terms implying that by continuing to serve content to the user the web site accepts the user's terms? Preferably the TOS would include verbiage to continue blocking ads, to forbid the use of tracking cookies, and other such pro-consumer terms.
Can we make a "User TOS" standard wherein a link to a user's personal Terms of Service is embedded in, say, a "User-TOS" GET header, which could include terms implying that by continuing to serve content to the user the web site accepts the user's terms? Preferably the TOS would include verbiage to continue blocking ads, to forbid the use of tracking cookies, and other such pro-consumer terms.
There's always Platform for Privacy Preferences[0], which is kind of what you suggest, but specifically in the context of where the TOS/site policy talks about user identity/information. It ultimately ended up being more of a thorn in the side of server operators because, IMO, of the way Microsoft implemented the UI in IE's preferences (and that few other browsers actually honored it). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
If we're expected to read and agree to every single web site's TOS or face the consequences, it's only fair if the reverse is also true.
So, it's very funny to look at some of the reactions here. For a group of people who seem to also think they would be great at self-study law ;P, most of them are mostly knee-jerk and come out to "i don't think i should be bound by this, so clearly the law says what i think" or "i think this is a bad idea, so clearly, the article is wrong", instead of making arguments based on actual law and precedent, or even someth…
Easy, one argument response: The user should be in control of the code executed on his computer.
That's an emotional response IMHO. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the outcome of this is predictable. For applications and games it is illegal to circumvent DRM protections meant to prevent or eliminate unauthorised acts of reproduction, communication, public offer or distribution in the EU. In the USA it's also illegal, although jail-breaking general-purpose computing devices is legal since 2015. In general usage of…
- In the first case you're gaining access to a content you don't have the right to. Thus braking the law.
- In the second case, you're merely discarding some content that doesn't interest you.
I'm afraid that the kind of argument above will lead us to a dystopia like the one pictured in Black Mirror - Fifteen Million Merits[0].
Easy, one argument response: The user should be in control of the code executed on his computer.
The user is under no obligation to use either the website nor the ad block software. As a result, your argument is irrelevant.
The websites are accepting this model because any other will just push users away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the remedy is the same in both cases: if the provider really doesn't want people using clients that do certain things, the provider needs to control access so that only clients that don't do those things can access their server. In the case of Blizzard, this would mean forcing gamers to run clients that were known by Blizzard to not contain bots; for example, Blizzard could force users to use signed client binari…
I'm of the mindset that most people actually like advertising when the advertisements are highly relevant and not in-your-face. My first job was at a movie theater and we lined the wall with movie posters of the movies coming out. People just walked over to them and checked them out to see if there was anything of interest coming out in the next few months. One of the activities in the city I live in now is a movies…
I may be an outlier, but I have never gotten any useful information from ads, so I have never had an ad be "highly relevant" for me. Also, to me, any ad in my field of view is "in your face", because it takes mental effort even to filter it out.
> I wouldn't ever pay to go watch the movie
Do you buy any of the products of the company that sponsors the movies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm of the mindset that most people actually like advertising when the advertisements are highly relevant and not in-your-face. My first job was at a movie theater and we lined the wall with movie posters of the movies coming out. People just walked over to them and checked them out to see if there was anything of interest coming out in the next few months. One of the activities in the city I live in now is a movies…
> I'm of the mindset that most people actually like advertising when the advertisements are highly relevant and not in-your-face. I may be an outlier, but I have never gotten any useful information from ads, so I have never had an ad be "highly relevant" for me. Also, to me, any ad in my field of view is "in your face", because it takes mental effort even to filter it out. > I wouldn't ever pay to go watch the movie…
One interesting case was a recent ad for a new phone booth product for offices which is generally relevant to my readers, but also specifically relevant because of the current huge desire for private and quiet space in modern open office environments. That ad has performed much, much higher than average.
Regarding the movies thing, no I haven't purchased any products from the sponsoring companies, but I am glad that they paid for me to attend the event in the same way I would be glad if my friend paid for me to attend an event.