Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are if the author makes it a term of the sale.
First sale doctrine disagrees with this assertion.
First sale doctrine has nothing to do with this. First sale doctrine applies to resales, not the initial sale.
The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
141–150 of 299 posts
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#142> Only a few years ago, even people who hated ads saw ad-blocking software as akin to stealing. I've been using ad blockers and NoScript plugins for longer than I can remember. Before that I was using /etc/hosts file based blocking. I've never felt like I was stealing nor do I know anyone that feels that way. On the contrary, I've always felt that content to display, and in particular code to execute, on my device is…
Even worse, associating blocking ads as something akin to stealing is morally bankrupt. It's an incredibly slippery slope that leads to complete loss of autonomy for individuals. If I refuse to read roadside billboards, am I now stealing? If I tear up newspaper ads and throw them away, am I now stealing? If I turn off my tv during ads on a cable show, am I now stealing? I think any sane person would definitively say…
>If I turn off my tv during ads on a cable show, am I now stealing?
The former CEO of Turner Broadcasting, Jamie Kellner, thinks that you are:
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think you have the right to the content The fact that my web browser received a 200 from the server. Server seemed to think it's okay to give it to me. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site. I will once again remind those that pull out this argument that the "implicit agreement" is that my web browser sends a request, and if the server thinks I am worthy of viewi…
You seem to think technical implementations matter for some reason. I find that rather odd. Do you think that someone leaving their front door open entitles you to the contents of their home?
Whether if it's the contents of a home or the contents of a text file sitting on a web server, if I ask, "can I have the contents of that, please?" and they answer in the affirmative then the answer to your question is, umm, yes? And should I decide to leave items that I don't want, I don't see where the homeowner has reason to complain.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What makes you think you have the right to the content, without abiding its terms? To state the same points others already did in a different way - you put out data on the Internet, over HTTP protocol. You agreed to abide by the terms of the involved protocols, which say that if I send a proper HTTP request to your public server, and your server responds with data, then you gave me that data and it's now mine to vi…
> you have no right or way to dictate to me what program should I use to render the data Why not? Why am I not allowed to say "If you want to consume my content, you need to view it in Firefox", if you don't want to agree to my terms, don't view my content. This is how all contracts work. This is how all business works. Why is the internet different?
> Why is the internet different?
The Internet isn't really different, it's just people are bending over backwards to have their cake (send free content) and eat it too (tell people how they're supposed to view that content).
When you're serving stuff over HTTP, you're giving me data in response to a valid HTTP request. That data is a binary/text blob. The HTTP protocol does not include any technical or legal provision that allows you to control how I interpret that binary/text blob. You can say "only for Firefox" all you want, but the only way to make it meaningful is to not send the data unless you're sure I'll be using Firefox to view it.
I'm focusing on the protocol here for a reason. That protocol comes with the set of expectations; probably the most important is that you get to decide how you respond, but not what I do with that response. Understanding of that is necessary to draw correct analogies to other real-world practices.
So a real-world analogy would go like this: you've set up a stand on the street, with a big sign saying "FREE BOOK ABOUT CATS". I come to you, and ask if I can have that book (GET request). You give me a book (content) and a hat with a company logo (an ad). I leave you, and on my way discover that the first page of the book says, "you can only read this book if you're wearing the hat that was given to you".
It would be ridiculous of you to expect me to honor the request in that book. Hell, it would be ridiculous of you to require that I actually read the book. Maybe I only needed it as paperweight, or as starter fuel for a wood-burning stove. Oh, and I threw the cap you gave me away, without even looking at it.
The only implicit contract we had in this example was that I might get a free book if I ask nicely. That's also the only implicit contract that you get when you host a publicly routable HTTP server.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think you have the right to the content The fact that my web browser received a 200 from the server. Server seemed to think it's okay to give it to me. You're violating the contract you implicitly agree to when you visit the site. I will once again remind those that pull out this argument that the "implicit agreement" is that my web browser sends a request, and if the server thinks I am worthy of viewi…
You seem to think technical implementations matter for some reason. I find that rather odd. Do you think that someone leaving their front door open entitles you to the contents of their home?
The analogy is closer to having a butler permit entry to a visitor. The website operator has delegated authority to the webserver to issue their content to visitors.
If the operator doesn't like what their webserver butler is doing with the operator's content, that's on the operator.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#146Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you consider it stealing if you read the before-the-fold content of a newspaper through the glass of the dispenser and then didn't buy the newspaper? Would it be different if you did it at a newsstand? At a coffee shop? Reading through the glass may be a bit different, because the glass is transparent on purpose to entice you to buy the paper, so they intend for you to do that. That is, it's part of the deal…
> I believe fundamentally that any content creator has the right to specify the terms by which their content is consumed. If one of those terms is 'watch the ads', then you are morally obligated to watch the ads. In addition to the counterarguments you've already received, I'd also like to note that the quote above is simply your personal opinion. Content creators often have specific, limited legal rights to specify…
> Content creators often have specific, limited legal rights to specify how their content is consumed, none of which are absolute and most of which vary wildly between different jurisdictions.
Not really. What's limited is not content creators ability to specify consumption, but rather the assumption of the ability of the counter-party to understand and agree to the terms. There are some genuine content restrictions, like first sale doctrine, but those are fairly narrow in scope. EULAs are limited not by the fundamentals of the medium, but by the assumed ability of the customer to meaningfully agree to the terms.
If you want to argue against my position, you should be taking the position that your average web surfer does not have the ability to meaningfully agree to the terms of the contracts with all of the websites they visit, and that thereby those contracts are unenforceable. That is the correct and only correct objection to the moral obligation to view ads.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe - _maybe_ - you could force people to register and explicitly agree to your terms which specify that you may not view the page without also loading the ads, though I think such a clause would be immoral. What moral rule exactly does that contravene? You can simply not load their content. What gives you the right to load their content on terms other than theirs?
> What gives you the right to load their content on terms other than theirs? robots.txt for one thing.
robots.txt is a gentlemen's agreement between a site and search engine running automated crawlers. It has no meaning for regular visitors.
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising. Sound ridiculous? That's because a web request and response is a collaborative effort of the two computers. The World Wide Web wasn't built for this kind of shitty, vaguely-adversarial,…
> Pushing an ad to my browser is stealing - namely CPU cycles and network bandwidth. My terms and conditions (which they implicitly agree to by answering an HTTP request from me), forbid them from supporting themselves with advertising. Great, and if those are your terms and conditions, guess what, nobody forces you to visit their websites.
Obviously. Just like nobody forces them to answer HTTP requests.
Your comment is mighty thin gruel, intellectually speaking. Couldn't handle reading the second whole paragraph where it's revealed that this is a thought experiment?
Re: The Brotherhood of the Ad Blockers
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you have no right or way to dictate to me what program should I use to render the data Why not? Why am I not allowed to say "If you want to consume my content, you need to view it in Firefox", if you don't want to agree to my terms, don't view my content. This is how all contracts work. This is how all business works. Why is the internet different?
> Why is the internet different? The Internet isn't really different, it's just people are bending over backwards to have their cake (send free content) and eat it too (tell people how they're supposed to view that content). When you're serving stuff over HTTP, you're giving me data in response to a valid HTTP request. That data is a binary/text blob. The HTTP protocol does not include any technical or legal provisio…
> So a real-world analogy would go like this: you've set up a stand on the street, with a big sign saying "FREE BOOK ABOUT CATS". I come to you, and ask if I can have that book (GET request).
I think the substance of our disagreement comes down to this. You think that a website is a sign that says "FREE CONTENT", whereas I don't believe the HTTP protocol represents any particular specification regarding the terms of access. The HTTP protocol allows you to access the data. However, a storefront allows you to access the goods inside, but that doesn't entitle you to take them without payment.