> What a huge sense of self-entitlement. Your rights as a publisher do not extend to my computer
But the content itself isn't yours. You are not entitled to view that content. The creator put it up with the expectation that people would/will be viewing the ads right along side the content. It's that expectation and assumption that supersedes everything else.
It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities". The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement. I say it's load of rubbish. The content creators (publishers) are the ones who get to dictate terms, end of story. You're not paying anything to consume that content and you didn't create it, so your "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all). You're entitled to absolutely nothing.
Let me ask you a question: If instead, a website says "I have this content you want to see. In order to view it, you must view this ad first. Click "Yes" to accept and view the ad. Click "No" to go back to Google.com." is that any different to you? It shouldn't be. Also, that's where the internet is headed if more people adopt your entitled mentality. If I'm a publisher, I'd be doing something similar. No, if I were a publisher, I'd be trying to get all the big name publishers/advertisers to do that too. They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works. :P
Correct. I never said it was mine. That still doesn't give you rights over what software I run on my computer.
> You are not entitled to view that content
Correct. You can choose not to send it to me.
The difficulty you seem to be having is that the you don't seem to understand what your rights are. You can choose not to do business with me. You can also prevent me from distributing extra copies of your work (copyright).
You do not have the right to control how someone uses your work after you hand it over. This is known as the doctrine of first sale[1]. In spite of a lot of people trying to pretend they have rights over how content is used, wishful thinking doesn't create rights contrary to past court decisions.
> expectation
For the 100th time, an expectation is not a contract.
> It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities".
What you call "semantics and 'technicalities'" are the law.
> The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement.
Advertisers and their apologists are trying to cover up years of legal missunderstanding and business models that depend on an incorrect understanding of the alw. It's easier to accuse others of "entitlement" than admiting your business model is going to fail.
Oh, and that "entitlement"? We are entitled to something - the law.
> Let me ask you a question: [click-through model]
Yes, that would be fine, assuminng the click-through makes a proper offer (which shouldn't be hard).
> It shouldn't be.
But one of those makes a contract, and the other is wishful thinking and in some casses a deliberate attempt to mislead.
If you think that creating a proper contract is too much of a burden and will drive away traffic, then you might want to realize that the market is trying to inform you what the actual value of your "content" is.
> They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works.
Do you really think people simply don't understand this? I've never met anyone who didn't understand that some things currently depend on advertisements for income.
Now when are you going to start understanding how contract law works?
> Correct. I never said it was mine. That still doesn't give you rights over what software I run on my computer.
When running any piece of software, you can't modify that software unless either its license permits (open source) or otherwise we are talking about copyright infringement. This is usually a take it or leave it thing, as unless the EULA is in conflict with copyright or contract law, then you have to respect it, otherwise you can't use that software. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention
So you know, I don't really understand your argument because nobody is forcing you to load those websites in the first place. It's still a gray area because users don't get proper warning before having those cookies set or before being shown those ads. But then again, we are discussing FuckFuckAdBlock, a circumvention mechanism for websites that block ad-block users with proper warnings.
> Yes, that would be fine, assuminng the click-through makes a proper offer (which shouldn't be hard).
On one hand the anti-adblock functionality is precisely this, because we are talking about websites that say "Hey Bob, we are ad-supported, so if you want to consume our content, then you have to agree to viewing ads". And you know, for me that seems reasonable. And here we are discussing FuckFuckAdBlock.
But then the far bigger problem is that you want a "proper offer". So basically if you don't receive a proper offer, you're fine with infringing on the publisher's rights. Now given that you've received proper warning of what you're going to receive, how is that in any way justifiable?
That's offtopic. Some random website does not have the right to force me to run any particular software simply because I requested a page.
> EULA
...is not a contract! (in most cases)
> forcing you to load those websites
Nobody is, and I never claimed anything like that.
> proper offer
I'm saying that publishers don't get to simply invent new law. Contracts have hundreds of years of history, and they require certain elements to be present.
> Infringing on the publisher's rights
No rights are being infringed. You are simply refusing to understand that their rights end after they hand over the content... unless they have a contract that says otherwise. Sorry, but just because you don't like the doctrine of first sale and wish it didn't exist doesn't mean you get to make up "rights".
If I write a creative work, I have the right to not give or sell you a copy, and I have a temporary monopoly granted by the government that gives me the right to decide who can reproduce my work. I absolutely do not have the right to decide what you do with that work (besides making copies) once I hand it to you.
The self-entitlement is on the part of the publishers who want to invent a new right that covers use.
Note that publishers can try to detect adblocking all they want, and use any results of that detection (or lack of results) when they decide if they want to send me anything. The catch is that there is no guarantee that their request that I run a particular script, or that I even have a Javascript environment to run that script in the manner they are expecting. I suggest that it may be a bad idea to base your business model on an unreliable source.
As for "justifiable" - the advertising industry and the publishers that involve themselves with the ad industry are not exactly standing on moral high ground. If they don't like the hard line some of us are taking regarding ads, they should consider why we are doing so. Tracking is a malicious attack. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The EULA is a contract and as long as it exists then nothing else gives you the right to use that software. Not sure how you can argue otherwise.
You also keep mentioning the doctrine of first sale, but it doesn't apply in the way you think it does. You absolutely do not have the right to do whatever you want after something has been distributed to you and this is because the copyright owner can impose usage limitations on distribution. For example this is why non-commercial agreements in EULAs are legal.
On having an environment that can run the script, the law can distinguish between doing it on purpose versus having technical limitations. You don't have a defense when you cherry pick what Javascript to run on the same webpage.
And as a final note, the moral high ground of publishers is completely irrelevant to the issue of you infringing on their rights. If you don't like the law, then push for changes. Or otherwise vote with your wallet (or eyeballs). Otherwise this is a fallacy used to justify your own immoral actions.
I don't know if you're being facetious, but it's not an argument, it's a simple fact. If I create a painting, a movie or a song, and I don't want anyone to see those things, that's my choice. If I instead want to charge $20 to see my movie or view my painting, that's also my choice. It's my content, not yours. Therefor, everything with regards to that content is done on my terms.
I mean, I even legally own the content and it's automatically protected by copyright laws. So... I'm not sure what else to say.
> Well, they're not paying me to view their ads, so their "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all).
Huh? Why should you get paid at all? Did you create the content? Did the website come knocking on your door? No, you went to its door, and you want to view its content.
Do you think you should get paid for watching regular TV because there are commercials between breaks of your favorite show? Of course not. Because those ads pay for the show. That's right. That toothpaste commercial that aired during the 3 minute break of The Big Bang Theory paid for the show. That's where the phrase "The big bang theory was brought to you by...." you hear at the end of TV shows comes from.
Much the same, the ads on websites pay for the content in a similar way. It's absolutely shocking how people don't understand this concept. They actually believe all this stuff is and should be free to them. Wow, just wow.
> I even legally own the content and it's automatically protected by copyright laws.
You seem to have a poor understand of how this works. This is understandable, because a lot of people use incorrect terms like "intellectual property". Creative works are not "property", because they are not a scarce resource. The entire concept of "property" rights is an attempt to solve the problem that two people cannot use the same scarce good.
Freaking out when other people reuse your ideas - which are infinitely copyable without depriving anyone of their copy - is a childish reaction. However, to "promote the sciences and useful arts", we invented a government-granted temporary monopoly on certain types of creative works (which we call "copyright" and "patent"). These monopolies do not create "property"; they merely grant you the exclusive right to sell or distribute a given idea for a period of time.
> I even legally own the content
No, you don't. You have a copyright on some creative works. This copyright creates a few rights related to distribution/etc. It does not create "property". These temporary monopolies follow an entirely different set of laws than property rights. For specific information on those laws, I suggest talking to an actual lawyer.
> the ads on websites pay for the content
You've repeated this a lot in this thread. I guarantee you that nobody here misunderstands this point, or is confused where the funding for some websites (or TV shows, etc) currently comes form.
> They actually believe all this stuff is and should be free to them.
Making up straw-man opponents is an easy way to argue, and helps you avoid cognitive dissonance. It might help if you stop ascribing the intentions you think some of us have, and start listening to the facts we're trying to tell you.
I have suggested alternative ways of funding (ads are only one way to fund creative works). I have also tried to explain that there is a difference between your distribution rights, and what someone can do with your creative works once you hand them over.
You must get really annoyed at the very-large number of people that use Tivos to skip commercials on the TV they watch. That is their right. Technology has simply advanced far enough that the average person can start exercising their rights to consume the creative content however they want.
Unfortunately, quite a few people have been ignoring our warnings over the last 20+ years that these advances in technology are probably going to change certain business models that relied on people not skipping commercials. These changes in technology also enable new business models, including some that nobody has even thought of yet because the internet is still "new".
Some people (Netflix is a canonical example) have explored new business models and have adapted well to the new market landscape. Others... have not. I suggest exploring new business ideas in your endeavors - I'm sure there are ways you can adapt.
On the other hand, if you insist on following this incorrect model of the world where you make up contract law and legal obligations, and pretend ideas are property, you are going to have a harder and harder time. This is a fact of the market, not a cry for "free stuff".
But the content itself isn't yours. You are not entitled to view that content. The creator put it up with the expectation that people would/will be viewing the ads right along side the content. It's that expectation and assumption that supersedes everything else.
It seems like this whole debate has been boiling down to semantics and "technicalities". The anti-ad people are looking for anything to justify their entitlement. I say it's load of rubbish. The content creators (publishers) are the ones who get to dictate terms, end of story. You're not paying anything to consume that content and you didn't create it, so your "rights" are minimal (if they exist at all). You're entitled to absolutely nothing.
Let me ask you a question: If instead, a website says "I have this content you want to see. In order to view it, you must view this ad first. Click "Yes" to accept and view the ad. Click "No" to go back to Google.com." is that any different to you? It shouldn't be. Also, that's where the internet is headed if more people adopt your entitled mentality. If I'm a publisher, I'd be doing something similar. No, if I were a publisher, I'd be trying to get all the big name publishers/advertisers to do that too. They need to remind our entitled generation just how content subsidization works. :P