When did a website give me ten dollars to do anything?
If IGN had a splash page when I go to it that said "Hey, disable adblock or give us money or you're not getting in" then I'd have to make a choice. As it is all I get are a bunch of middlingly written stories about video games and television.
Do you see where your argument is falling apart?
My argument has never fallen apart. You keep ignoring the fact that there are terms of use of the site.
I've put my terms of use on my front door. I've said that you cannot enter my home if you block my ads. It isn't my responsibility to invest in expensive locks to keep you off my my property which you know you do not have permission to enter. What you've just said proves my point -- if I'm unable to stop you, then it must be permitted.
From the post you literally quoted:
If IGN had a splash page when I go to it that said "Hey, disable adblock or give us money or you're not getting in" then I'd have to make a choice. As it is all I get are a bunch of middlingly written stories about video games and television.
Also there's a reason all these copy protections are broken pretty much same day. They never work and only penalize the people who are legitimately using the site as intended.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
lawyer, you have no idea how web technology works. The content stream was editible because that's how HTML works. It's plain text, ascii, streamed to the browsing software. If I changed my software to output "poopydick" everytime it saw <a then the website would break, but as a software writer I can interepret that stream however the shit I watn to.
I know exactly how technology works. I can give you a lecture on HTML, CSS, Javascript and scripting languages too. I can rip a CD that doesn't belong to me on my computer. I can copy the text off of this website and publish it on my own. Just because I could do it, doesn't mean I have legal rights to do so.
There is no way to make web content "read only" with the user having no access to the source. HTML documents are by definition plain text, readable by anything from a text editor to a browser.
The standards that govern how the world wide web works are set by the W3C, not by any government, and there is no way to "outlaw" browsers that give the user control over the rendering of an HTML document. How would that even work?
The laws currently being passed with regard to tracking users are to ensure that those that wish to track users adequately notify those they wish to track that they're doing so. What are you referring to?
Well... as I said, you might want to read about what legislators are doing in the US and especially in Europe. There are now laws being made covering tracking users. They are being built into the browsers themselves. Technology may work in design in one way but the law can tell technologists where they cannot roam.
I am a member of the Swedish Pirate Party. One of the thousand first members, as it were. I've been boozing with the party leader.
I follow the blogs of the Pirate Party MEPs with great interest, because I really want to know how the sausage is made. I know more than I wish I knew about FRA, DLD, SOPA, ACTA and assorted other TLAs. Personal freedom and right to privacy is one of my core interests.
That said: citation goddamn needed, because I sure as hell have not heard of this "browser legislation" until this very second.
He's a goose, IGN does not have a terms of service, and one does not agree to them when they go there.
You cannot implicitly impose rules on people unless you inform them or else I could tell my bank "hey unless I get a call from midnight on the 25th then you forfit your lein on my property." But, except, I never told them and put it on a piece of paper and buried it under ground in a lock box.
I'm less convinced you're a lawyer each time you post, and more convinced you're a publisher of content of some variety, maybe from IGN.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
lawyer, you have no idea how web technology works. The content stream was editible because that's how HTML works. It's plain text, ascii, streamed to the browsing software. If I changed my software to output "poopydick" everytime it saw <a then the website would break, but as a software writer I can interepret that stream however the shit I watn to.
I know exactly how technology works. I can give you a lecture on HTML, CSS, Javascript and scripting languages too. I can rip a CD that doesn't belong to me on my computer. I can copy the text off of this website and publish it on my own. Just because I could do it, doesn't mean I have legal rights to do so.
Riiight. So you know C++ too then eh? You know how sockets and buffers work? You know the difference between datagram and stream? Can you name me common buffers and network topologies?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Also there's a reason all these copy protections are broken pretty much same day. They never work and only penalize the people who are legitimately using the site as intended.
So because people can break copy protection somehow means that now it's permissible to do what you weren't allowed to do before?
If the party using copy protection suffers from lack of sales, that's the owner's choice and not yours. Fact is that copy protection is broken because there is a high demand to steal something - not because Shawn Fanning was trying to prove a point that all music created by bands should be free.
And you've yet to still define these terms of service and how one implicitly agrees to it just by landing on a website. I certainly don't give implicit use of my screen to display ads. It's a two way street brother. So unless we came to a mutual understanding, then it's just as illegal for them to display them as it is for me to not display them.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
And you've yet to still define these terms of service and how one implicitly agrees to it just by landing on a website. I certainly don't give implicit use of my screen to display ads. It's a two way street brother. So unless we came to a mutual understanding, then it's just as illegal for them to display them as it is for me to not display them.
He's implying we're going to see web browsers turn into streaming media players that stream text data, encrypted in some fashion, to a client. As if people will fire up separate tools to browse wikipedia and go to cnn.com or ign.com.
Because that'll happen. Then he's saying that the government will impose us to do so, and require all websites to do it... websites in other countries for instance, and has a gross misunderstanding of the technology in play at large.
I find it funny he's claiming to know the technology then immediately jumps to ripping a CD... because knowing how a TCP stream works is the same as popping in a CD and hitting "rip" in WMP.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
For internet based sites, I block ads because of the reasons stated by others. Since most sites use advertising companies to serve up the ads, it's likely that the proprietor of the site isn't fully aware at all times about what ads show up. This causes problems, inappropriate ads, ads with malware, etc that show up for a limited period of time before the site owner corrects it. For places that I want to see grow, I gladly support their other revenue streams when I have the ability.
If that was the case, then most people wouldn't be installing ad blocking software to block ALL ads, safe or not. And your own comment says "for places I want to see grow..." And if you don't care for a site or are indifferent about it, you're rationalizing that you should be able to block their ads, even if safe, just because you want the content for free and don't care to pay for it. Someone has given you a way to do that and that doesn't make it acceptable.
Adblocking is a condom, in that it should only be removed when you have a trusted relationship with a site or service, and are confident that they are disease-free.
Using your analogy, it seems you're also assuming the sex should be free and on your own terms. The site owner says "ad-support content or please do not visit my site." If you don't trust the site, you shouldn't be extending your visit to engage in acts that involve trust.
Ad blockers don't just block unsafe ads, they block all ads. And people are getting used to the fact that because they can do it that it is acceptable. It isn't.
So it seems that you're just not respecting that person's wishes. You've just decided you're going to have sex and use your condom to be safe, whether or not the website owner consents to your wishes. The respect needs to go both ways. Site owners need to make a living too.
I really like the rape analogy you set out here. I'm really interested to see if anyone has a response that isn't based on bodily autonomy being more important than property rights, which is a cop out.
You're right. Ad filtering is rape.
Which essentially makes DVRs and VCRs rape machines.
I've never agreed to a terms of service when I landed on their webpage from a google search. Must just be for users that create accounts then, @japan ?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
When did a website give me ten dollars to do anything?
If IGN had a splash page when I go to it that said "Hey, disable adblock or give us money or you're not getting in" then I'd have to make a choice. As it is all I get are a bunch of middlingly written stories about video games and television.
Do you see where your argument is falling apart?
My argument has never fallen apart. You keep ignoring the fact that there are terms of use of the site.
I've put my terms of use on my front door. I've said that you cannot enter my home if you block my ads. It isn't my responsibility to invest in expensive locks to keep you off my my property which you know you do not have permission to enter. What you've just said proves my point -- if I'm unable to stop you, then it must be permitted.
The problem with your analogy is that those terms of use do not exist at IGN in any meaningful way. There is no ToS at IGN.com that I have to click before browsing. I'm against adblock, but your argument holds no water at all.
I've never agreed to a terms of service when I landed on their webpage from a google search. Must just be for users that create accounts then, @japan ?
It's one of the tiny links at the bottom of the page with the privacy policy and such. It's there, but as far as I know it's pretty much an open question whether you're bound by it or not. Even then, it probably wouldn't be a simple answer, in much the same way as sticking a sign on your door that said "you agree by entering that you do so at your own risk" would probably not protect you from liability if there was a disguised trapdoor over a pit of snakes on the other side.
Dubious legality and you'd have to track people in a way that violates some guaranteed rights by the constitution (in the US anyways) in order to be able to press it in a court. You'd get thrown out for civil rights violations before you could get back lost revenue... in terms of pennies on the dollar.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Dubious legality and you'd have to track people in a way that violates some guaranteed rights by the constitution (in the US anyways) in order to be able to press it in a court. You'd get thrown out for civil rights violations before you could get back lost revenue... in terms of pennies on the dollar.
The EU did just start a thing where websites have to ask you if you want to let them use cookies, but I'm not aware of anything coming down the pipes that will attempt to force users to accept them.
Such a law would be a nonstarter because it's 100% unconstitutional in the United States.
The EU did just start a thing where websites have to ask you if you want to let them use cookies, but I'm not aware of anything coming down the pipes that will attempt to force users to accept them.
Sweden has one too; I think it was implemented before it got to EU level. Sweden may have driven it into EU.
It was funny how not a single one of the parties backing that law actually obeyed it once it went into effect. I think someone tried to get them charged for breaking that law just for the hell of it. :P
And basically nobody gives a shit about that law anyway.
I would absolutely love to see the court case where an advertiser and website owner took a user to court for lost revenue from ads they blocked over the course of a year. Let's say they visit the site three times a day, for 10 minutes, and the adds rotate every 2 minutes. Let's say the maximum revenue from the ads being displayed is 5 cents per ad per user. So. 25 cents each visit, 3 times a day, 75 cents a day (I AM BEING OVERLY GENEROUS).
Over the course of a year, a single user has cost the website $273.75 (I AM, AGAIN, BEING OVERLY GENEROUS).
Yeah.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The cookie law (as implemented in the UK) basically means you get this sort of thing:
That's about the size of it. If you close it, it stores that you did and doesn't reappear (unless you're like me and don't allow persistent cookies except for whitelisted sites).
There is no way to make web content "read only" with the user having no access to the source. HTML documents are by definition plain text, readable by anything from a text editor to a browser.
Sure there is. Pass a law that requires every single browser distributed in the US to be "read only."
The standards that govern how the world wide web works are set by the W3C, not by any government, and there is no way to "outlaw" browsers that give the user control over the rendering of an HTML document. How would that even work?
Incorrect. The W3C is nothing but a voluntary standards board. They have zero power to make law. In fact, they have created other requirements that have simply been ignored. They are a group that attempts to get the big players on the web to agree together on standards. That's all.
The laws currently being passed with regard to tracking users are to ensure that those that wish to track users adequately notify those they wish to track that they're doing so. What are you referring to?
Yes - but evidently you didn't quite understand the law being proposed and you didn't read about the EU cookie law. They are talking about building into web browsers the requirement that information be passed IN THE BROWSER as to what the user wants - tracking or no tracking. Government is talking about passing law if the big players don't agree to abide by agreeing to be regulated by the industry. The moment any of this happens, browser creators can be required by law to limit the use of technology.
It's so funny reading the drivel here by people who pretend they know anything because they can use big words like "telnet." Yet they don't even realize that limits on technology are placed on them every day, such as macrovision and other copy protection requirements in manufactured electronic components. The Internet may not be so simple to control but all technology can have artificial limits placed.
But who really ares about this argument? The moment IGN can't make enough money to pay its hosting costs and employees is the day the web stops being "free" for these freeloaders, who will then complain why IGN might charge $2 a month for their content or whatever they demand. Same goes for your newspapers, etc. You can talk about your right "not to tip" but if you're not paying anything for your meal, your restaurant isn't serving your food for free.
The cookie law (as implemented in the UK) basically means you get this sort of thing:
That's about the size of it. If you close it, it stores that you did and doesn't reappear (unless you're like me and don't allow persistent cookies except for whitelisted sites).
You're basically a worse John Gotti.
I mean, the internet is a strange place, and it simply isn't as black and white as lawyer is trying to make it seem.
Sure there is. Pass a law that requires every single browser distributed in the US to be "read only."
Breaking off from the world-wide standards of... well, the rest of the world seems to be a surefire way to wreck your technological progress and throw serious spanners in international trade and economy.
I would absolutely love to see the court case where an advertiser and website owner took a user to court for lost revenue from ads they blocked over the course of a year. Let's say they visit the site three times a day, for 10 minutes, and the adds rotate every 2 minutes. Let's say the maximum revenue from the ads being displayed is 5 cents per ad per user. So. 25 cents each visit, 3 times a day, 75 cents a day (I AM BEING OVERLY GENEROUS).
Over the course of a year, a single user has cost the website $273.75 (I AM, AGAIN, BEING OVERLY GENEROUS).
Provide us with your name and address and the sites you've visited. Perhaps you can volunteer to be the first.
You talk big but fail to understand even the small simple and obvious things. The cost of prosecuting someone for $273 makes it not worthwhile to sue. That doesn't mean that your petty theft wasn't theft.
I can tell you what websites I visit, facebook, penny-arcade, and wikipedia. Guess which one I don't let track me.
Oh and occasionally stack overflow. I don't make a habit to visit these websites, adblock stays on because it's a vector for attacks. Stealing my personal information is far more important than IGN making a few dollars off me. Sorry. Feel free to sue me.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Either make the site not visitable with adblockers enabled (not too hard to do), or shut the fuck up is my motto.
It's actually very hard. You can't tell if I'm blocking your website without some sort of registration/delay process. Even then I could probably "pretend" I loaded your ads.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There is no way to make web content "read only" with the user having no access to the source. HTML documents are by definition plain text, readable by anything from a text editor to a browser.
Sure there is. Pass a law that requires every single browser distributed in the US to be "read only."
The standards that govern how the world wide web works are set by the W3C, not by any government, and there is no way to "outlaw" browsers that give the user control over the rendering of an HTML document. How would that even work?
Incorrect. The W3C is nothing but a voluntary standards board. They have zero power to make law. In fact, they have created other requirements that have simply been ignored. They are a group that attempts to get the big players on the web to agree together on standards. That's all.
The laws currently being passed with regard to tracking users are to ensure that those that wish to track users adequately notify those they wish to track that they're doing so. What are you referring to?
Yes - but evidently you didn't quite understand the law being proposed and you didn't read about the EU cookie law. They are talking about building into web browsers the requirement that information be passed IN THE BROWSER as to what the user wants - tracking or no tracking. Government is talking about passing law if the big players don't agree to abide by agreeing to be regulated by the industry. The moment any of this happens, browser creators can be required by law to limit the use of technology.
It's so funny reading the drivel here by people who pretend they know anything because they can use big words like "telnet." Yet they don't even realize that limits on technology are placed on them every day, such as macrovision and other copy protection requirements in manufactured electronic components. The Internet may not be so simple to control but all technology can have artificial limits placed.
But who really ares about this argument? The moment IGN can't make enough money to pay its hosting costs and employees is the day the web stops being "free" for these freeloaders, who will then complain why IGN might charge $2 a month for their content or whatever they demand. Same goes for your newspapers, etc. You can talk about your right "not to tip" but if you're not paying anything for your meal, your restaurant isn't serving your food for free.
So what happens when I open a terminal and type "wget http://www.penny-arcade.com/index.html"? Oh noes I have teh haxxored the system. If I wanted to get really fancy I could pipe it through a python script that would strip all tags loading content from a list of known advertising CDNs and open the result in a browser, Presto!
Notwithstanding the fact that it would be trivial for a person to obtain a normal browser from outside the US.
You're missing the point about the W3C, they can't pass laws, but they do define what is and is not web content. If we're not talking about something that at least vaguely resembles the W3C standards then we've moved beyond talking about the world wide web and are talking about some other kind of custom content delivery channel.
I'm going to join those asking for you to cite whatever it is you're talking about with browser tracking. Best guess is that you're misinterpreting Do Not Track, or misunderstanding the proposed powers on the part of some national governments to impose a tracking requirement on ISPs.
The moment IGN can't make enough money to pay its hosting costs and employees is the day the web stops being "free" for these freeloaders, who will then complain why IGN might charge $2 a month for their content or whatever they demand. Same goes for your newspapers, etc. You can talk about your right "not to tip" but if you're not paying anything for your meal, your restaurant isn't serving your food for free.
Oh, I forgot about this point. This has already happened with News Corp. They decided that the free web content model wasn't for them, and paywalled the websites of their newspapers.
Last set of figures I saw indicated that their online readership declined by about 85%, and that most of those were people who already had print subscriptions and were given online access for free as part of that.
So, yeah, sites can stop offering content for free, and people are perfectly at liberty to stop using those sites.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The moment IGN can't make enough money to pay its hosting costs and employees is the day the web stops being "free" for these freeloaders, who will then complain why IGN might charge $2 a month for their content or whatever they demand. Same goes for your newspapers, etc. You can talk about your right "not to tip" but if you're not paying anything for your meal, your restaurant isn't serving your food for free.
Oh, I forgot about this point. This has already happened with News Corp. They decided that the free web content model wasn't for them, and paywalled the websites of their newspapers.
Last set of figures I saw indicated that their online readership declined by about 85%, and that most of those were people who already had print subscriptions and were given online access for free as part of that.
So, yeah, sites can stop offering content for free, and people are perfectly at liberty to stop using those sites.
Either this guy doesn't get the metaphor or he doesn't get the internet.
It isn't because ad revenue is like tipping. It's not theft unless you're bypassing blocks to access pay content for free.
There is absolutely no requirement - zero, none, nada, zilch - that says that I have to block you from wrongdoing.
There is nothing physically preventing you from copying the text and content of websites, including the pictures. Here's an idea. Go collect graphics from all over the web and sell your clip art collection. When Getty Images sends letters to you, tell them that they are wrong and they should have blocked downloads of their images. Let them know how successful you've been and what suckers they are.
Don't have time to continue this discussion because those who want to steal will make up silly reasons like this and ignore the same point repeated over and over. There is a terms of use on most websites. Nobody is forcing you to read or use the content. If you do, the terms clearly state what you must "pay" and agree to in order to use the content.
Posts
From the post you literally quoted:
If IGN had a splash page when I go to it that said "Hey, disable adblock or give us money or you're not getting in" then I'd have to make a choice. As it is all I get are a bunch of middlingly written stories about video games and television.
The standards that govern how the world wide web works are set by the W3C, not by any government, and there is no way to "outlaw" browsers that give the user control over the rendering of an HTML document. How would that even work?
The laws currently being passed with regard to tracking users are to ensure that those that wish to track users adequately notify those they wish to track that they're doing so. What are you referring to?
I am a member of the Swedish Pirate Party. One of the thousand first members, as it were. I've been boozing with the party leader.
I follow the blogs of the Pirate Party MEPs with great interest, because I really want to know how the sausage is made. I know more than I wish I knew about FRA, DLD, SOPA, ACTA and assorted other TLAs. Personal freedom and right to privacy is one of my core interests.
That said: citation goddamn needed, because I sure as hell have not heard of this "browser legislation" until this very second.
You cannot implicitly impose rules on people unless you inform them or else I could tell my bank "hey unless I get a call from midnight on the 25th then you forfit your lein on my property." But, except, I never told them and put it on a piece of paper and buried it under ground in a lock box.
I'm less convinced you're a lawyer each time you post, and more convinced you're a publisher of content of some variety, maybe from IGN.
Riiight. So you know C++ too then eh? You know how sockets and buffers work? You know the difference between datagram and stream? Can you name me common buffers and network topologies?
If the party using copy protection suffers from lack of sales, that's the owner's choice and not yours. Fact is that copy protection is broken because there is a high demand to steal something - not because Shawn Fanning was trying to prove a point that all music created by bands should be free.
Header: X-User-EULA-URL:
brilliant
Because that'll happen. Then he's saying that the government will impose us to do so, and require all websites to do it... websites in other countries for instance, and has a gross misunderstanding of the technology in play at large.
I find it funny he's claiming to know the technology then immediately jumps to ripping a CD... because knowing how a TCP stream works is the same as popping in a CD and hitting "rip" in WMP.
Which essentially makes DVRs and VCRs rape machines.
Nothing in there about ad-blocking though, unless you wanted to reeeaaaaallly stretch the interpretation of some of the copyright boilerplate.
And then you'd have to demonstrate that the terms of service were enforceable in general, and that the specific term was actionable.
The problem with your analogy is that those terms of use do not exist at IGN in any meaningful way. There is no ToS at IGN.com that I have to click before browsing. I'm against adblock, but your argument holds no water at all.
It's one of the tiny links at the bottom of the page with the privacy policy and such. It's there, but as far as I know it's pretty much an open question whether you're bound by it or not. Even then, it probably wouldn't be a simple answer, in much the same way as sticking a sign on your door that said "you agree by entering that you do so at your own risk" would probably not protect you from liability if there was a disguised trapdoor over a pit of snakes on the other side.
The EU did just start a thing where websites have to ask you if you want to let them use cookies, but I'm not aware of anything coming down the pipes that will attempt to force users to accept them.
Such a law would be a nonstarter because it's 100% unconstitutional in the United States.
Sweden has one too; I think it was implemented before it got to EU level. Sweden may have driven it into EU.
It was funny how not a single one of the parties backing that law actually obeyed it once it went into effect. I think someone tried to get them charged for breaking that law just for the hell of it. :P
And basically nobody gives a shit about that law anyway.
Over the course of a year, a single user has cost the website $273.75 (I AM, AGAIN, BEING OVERLY GENEROUS).
Yeah.
That's about the size of it. If you close it, it stores that you did and doesn't reappear (unless you're like me and don't allow persistent cookies except for whitelisted sites).
Incorrect. The W3C is nothing but a voluntary standards board. They have zero power to make law. In fact, they have created other requirements that have simply been ignored. They are a group that attempts to get the big players on the web to agree together on standards. That's all.
Yes - but evidently you didn't quite understand the law being proposed and you didn't read about the EU cookie law. They are talking about building into web browsers the requirement that information be passed IN THE BROWSER as to what the user wants - tracking or no tracking. Government is talking about passing law if the big players don't agree to abide by agreeing to be regulated by the industry. The moment any of this happens, browser creators can be required by law to limit the use of technology.
It's so funny reading the drivel here by people who pretend they know anything because they can use big words like "telnet." Yet they don't even realize that limits on technology are placed on them every day, such as macrovision and other copy protection requirements in manufactured electronic components. The Internet may not be so simple to control but all technology can have artificial limits placed.
But who really ares about this argument? The moment IGN can't make enough money to pay its hosting costs and employees is the day the web stops being "free" for these freeloaders, who will then complain why IGN might charge $2 a month for their content or whatever they demand. Same goes for your newspapers, etc. You can talk about your right "not to tip" but if you're not paying anything for your meal, your restaurant isn't serving your food for free.
You're basically a worse John Gotti.
I mean, the internet is a strange place, and it simply isn't as black and white as lawyer is trying to make it seem.
Breaking off from the world-wide standards of... well, the rest of the world seems to be a surefire way to wreck your technological progress and throw serious spanners in international trade and economy.
You talk big but fail to understand even the small simple and obvious things. The cost of prosecuting someone for $273 makes it not worthwhile to sue. That doesn't mean that your petty theft wasn't theft.
You can't really advertise on a screen reader.
You must be a pretty terribad lawyer.
Oh and occasionally stack overflow. I don't make a habit to visit these websites, adblock stays on because it's a vector for attacks. Stealing my personal information is far more important than IGN making a few dollars off me. Sorry. Feel free to sue me.
To disable cookies you can either do it on your browser like a normal person or go into the settings part of the website.
It's a minor inconvenience that lets users have more control over how they browse.
But this will not happen. Unless you want to create a new internet that looks like this:
It's actually very hard. You can't tell if I'm blocking your website without some sort of registration/delay process. Even then I could probably "pretend" I loaded your ads.
Assuming lawyer is a lawyer I'm sure the people he's working for would love to see that.
Lucky for us he seems pretty bad at this law thing, so I wouldn't worry.
So what happens when I open a terminal and type "wget http://www.penny-arcade.com/index.html"? Oh noes I have teh haxxored the system. If I wanted to get really fancy I could pipe it through a python script that would strip all tags loading content from a list of known advertising CDNs and open the result in a browser, Presto!
Notwithstanding the fact that it would be trivial for a person to obtain a normal browser from outside the US.
You're missing the point about the W3C, they can't pass laws, but they do define what is and is not web content. If we're not talking about something that at least vaguely resembles the W3C standards then we've moved beyond talking about the world wide web and are talking about some other kind of custom content delivery channel.
I'm going to join those asking for you to cite whatever it is you're talking about with browser tracking. Best guess is that you're misinterpreting Do Not Track, or misunderstanding the proposed powers on the part of some national governments to impose a tracking requirement on ISPs.
(as an aside, wow, macrovision, nostalgia-tastic)
Here's the guy who reported the government for breaking the law, as fucked by Google Language Fucker.
Oh, I forgot about this point. This has already happened with News Corp. They decided that the free web content model wasn't for them, and paywalled the websites of their newspapers.
Last set of figures I saw indicated that their online readership declined by about 85%, and that most of those were people who already had print subscriptions and were given online access for free as part of that.
So, yeah, sites can stop offering content for free, and people are perfectly at liberty to stop using those sites.
Either this guy doesn't get the metaphor or he doesn't get the internet.
There is nothing physically preventing you from copying the text and content of websites, including the pictures. Here's an idea. Go collect graphics from all over the web and sell your clip art collection. When Getty Images sends letters to you, tell them that they are wrong and they should have blocked downloads of their images. Let them know how successful you've been and what suckers they are.
Don't have time to continue this discussion because those who want to steal will make up silly reasons like this and ignore the same point repeated over and over. There is a terms of use on most websites. Nobody is forcing you to read or use the content. If you do, the terms clearly state what you must "pay" and agree to in order to use the content.