41–50 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was once a security engineer at Google. So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. Got into an argument about that with my manager once lol.
> So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. If copyright infringement is considered theft, then AdBlock would've to be considered akin to theft too. They're inherently the same thing. You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. From my perspective, neither can be considered theft. Which is why I use AdBlock, too. But if either is theft, then the other woul…
Just nitpicking here, but that does not make adblocking and copyright infringement similar. Copyright is not inherently about revenue. It's about who has legal control over the distribution of the work.
If the site I visit takes ownership and responsibility for the ads it shows, then I'm ok with that. But that's not what happens. If there is any issue whatsoever the site palms off the responsibility - "not my fault".
Either own it or foff.
edit - grammar
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. If copyright infringement is considered theft, then AdBlock would've to be considered akin to theft too. They're inherently the same thing. You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. From my perspective, neither can be considered theft. Which is why I use AdBlock, too. But if either is theft, then the other woul…
> You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. Just nitpicking here, but that does not make adblocking and copyright infringement similar. Copyright is not inherently about revenue. It's about who has legal control over the distribution of the work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that how surveys work?
2000 is 0.0007% of 260M adults living in the USA. “Majority of Americans” is a bit off the rails, imo.
You are probably making the common mistake of thinking that the larger the population the bigger a sample needs to be to accurately poll. That is true for lower populations but the "sample needed vs. population size" curve is asymptotic.
For example, suppose we want to determine what percent of people believe X, with a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level. Here's a table of the random sample size needed for various populations:
Sample Population
80 100
278 1 000
370 10 000
383 100 000
385 1 000 000
385 10 000 000
... ...
385 ∞Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was once a security engineer at Google. So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. Got into an argument about that with my manager once lol.
> So many people really believed ad blocking is like, actual theft. If copyright infringement is considered theft, then AdBlock would've to be considered akin to theft too. They're inherently the same thing. You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. From my perspective, neither can be considered theft. Which is why I use AdBlock, too. But if either is theft, then the other woul…
Copyright is violated when a work is distributed or reproduced (or performed or... there's a few categories).
If I take a website, duplicate it, then publish it myself, I am engaging in copyright infringement.
If another person comes along and views my website, they are not engaging in an illegal act. It's the act of distribution that is infringing, not the act of receiving.
In your example, if a publisher creates a website and distributes their content, that publisher is exercising their rights to distribute that work. But there's no strings attached, there. Unless I sign some sort of binding contract that stipulates that I must view ads in order to receive the content, there is nothing in copyright law that says I'm in any way stealing or breaking the law by blocking those ads.
And if such a contract was in place (say, a click-through ToS... though whether those are enforceable is a question), my blocking those ads would be a contractual violation but it would not be "theft" in any meaningful sense, nor would it violate copyright law (it would be a violation of that specific contract).
So no, they are not "inherently the same thing". A publisher publishes their content. As a receiver of that content, I can do whatever I wish with it, including censoring/redacting the portions I don't want to view. Similarly, if I bought a newspaper and cut out all the ads before I read it, no reasonable person would consider that "theft".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. Just nitpicking here, but that does not make adblocking and copyright infringement similar. Copyright is not inherently about revenue. It's about who has legal control over the distribution of the work.
Isn't that a difference without a distinction? All copyright infringement lawsuits are centered around the loss of revenue the infringement caused.
It's also true that (outside of criminal copyright infringement) the only remedy that a court can offer is monetary. But that fact doesn't mean that money was the real issue at hand.
"Personalized" advertising is just plain dumb --- and it is only a matter of time before advertisers are forced to reach the same obvious conclusion as consumers.
Could you elaborate? Imo it is the most efficient way of advertising..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're consuming the content without providing the expected revenue to the owner. Just nitpicking here, but that does not make adblocking and copyright infringement similar. Copyright is not inherently about revenue. It's about who has legal control over the distribution of the work.
Isn't that a difference without a distinction? All copyright infringement lawsuits are centered around the loss of revenue the infringement caused.