The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Posts
It's different in that the argument presented was that by blocking the ads the web site owners were denied income which by using the site the end user is obligated to provide (aka not loading ads is theft). If the site owner still gets the impressions they still get the money, so that part of the principle is resolved.
The question is how far the responsibility of the user extends - are we also required to support the business model of the adservers? If so, this quickly leads to no end of bullets to bite, on the other hand if not then we quickly descend into weirdness and absurdity and arbitrariness and ad hoc justification (or the admission that webmasters are morally obligated not utilise ad support, but if they do we are required to view it).
Of course another way of approaching the question is if a webmaster can support his site with advertisements loaded with (non-destructive) adware and is paid upon each instance of the adware which is installed are we required to allow this? On the other hand, if the adware tracks each time it displays an advertisement are we required to let it remain on our computer?
Firstly, I don't think you understand how the Internet works on a technical level - @Daedalus and @Echo both have given very quick primers on what is in fact involved - good places to start.
Secondly, your objection to people asking about modified hypotheticals is incoherent. By asking "what about this..." we are trying to isolate the underlying principle by which you draw your conclusions, examine what we believe to the principle(s) you are employing in other circumstances or confirm that the principles you state as informing your objection are in fact the princiiples involved. If you have a problem with that then perhaps reasoned discussions of ethics are not for you as this is the very nature of such a discussion.
What if the click through agreement specifies that you will purchase one of their products within a month?
We have (most of us) agreed that once the data is downloaded from a server that has consented to provide such a download, the end user has free reign to interpret that data as he sees fit. If he downloads a web page with ads and chooses not to display those ads by whatever means, that's his prerogative. Makes sense to me.
However, most of us would also agree that piracy is bad. So say I download a trial version of some piece of software, which usually is going to consist of the full retail version locked behind some sort of DRM. Could it be said that once, say, Adobe has consented to let me download Photoshop as a trial version, the data is on my machine and I can do with it what I please, including hacking the code to disable the DRM, whether they like it or not?
The answer would seem to be "no, asshole, that's piracy," but then what's the distinguishing quality? Is it the fact that you click a little box beside a EULA before you install the demo version? And if so, what if a website stuck a little clause at the front end of their website? "By proceeding to this site, you're agreeing to not disable any of the ads" sort of thing? Aside from the fact that it would be extremely difficult to enforce, would there be a marked ethical difference, then, between disabling ads and committing piracy?
In the grand scheme of things, I totally agree. I have often found this concept true for many circumstances. Personally I find this would not be a problem if people did not read into things so literal, which is hard to do given the limitations of communication via text. (Which I mentioned) Seeing as how we do, do these things however - I find it a rough balance to both be scrutinizing in detail, but also try and step back and understand scope of the conversation.
@julius I make no claims I did not call anything/anyone a thief. I am simply saying that in a thread with a question "Is this theft" I will answer the question honestly. Should this follow under the umbrella of something that may be taken offensively, I can't be held responsible and nor do I care to be.
@Pig - You are not wrong. But you'll find your information is an echo of the sentiments that I had made earlier in this thread. Again a downfall of the way communication is handled around here via majority, missing pieces and gaps and what not. I try to remain as on point as possible while allowing for outside context to be applied in comparison. It's a tough balance, but I find that I have to adhere to it, if ever anything successful comes from these types of 'conversations.'
In the end as I have explained, AdBlock is designed to remove advertisement on a page. Where it goes from there is on your own accord, but don't fancy yourself free of guilt because you call technicality. You are doing wrong by harm to the site owner who calls it thievery.
You may now remove your smoking pipe and bellow PREPOSTEROUS! as loud as you should see fit.
Please return to your smoking pipe.
Quite.
I have no problem with that. But I am probably an outlier.
Edit: the code hacking and drm disabling, I mean. The second part I have nothing but problems with.
Depends on how crazy is the exec who you're asking.
HallowedFaith says "no" the business model is different, the broadcaster still gets money as the slots are prepaid. Which is a pretty ad hoc and limited justification.
Hence the question about not rendering ad images instead of blocking them.
Considering that formula IS the standard contractual conversation between various parties involved in that type of advertising, I would say it is more than justified as a reason for suggesting that turning down volume/turning away is not even in the same category as using a THIRD-PARTY TOOL. I can not stress this enough. I don't wish to swim in the fantastical river of diverting into comparisons that have no basis in the same argument.
Is a television volume button not a third party tool?
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Who is the first party here? Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple and Google create browsers, they aren't the owners of the sites. Likewise the site owners don't create browsers so...
You'll have to do a lot more work to establish that a browser add in is categorically problematic than scream "THIRD PARTY TOOL" as 1) that makes no sense and 2) it isn't clear why its relevant.
You guys are great to read though, the chains of thought you generate are new to me a lot of ways. Refreshing.
Please keep going.
We're hardly demanding unreasonable amounts of detail. You're the one Using x-party status of things as the basis for an argument.
I don't see why you continued to harp on "staying on topic" or limiting detail as no one has strayed from the topic and limited detail is not a virtue.
I think the big difference is permanence here. If you break a trial version, then you have a full version, forever, no matter what Adobe does. If a website decides it doesn't like adblockers, then it can use various tricks to force them to load and, while people could, in the past, access without the ads, they can't forever. Or it could just take said content down. I suppose if you religiously archive the site you could still access the old content, but that's different I think
Regardless, I support being able to modify, monitor and/or interfere with any programs present on my machine, for any reason. Besides, if your trial version is really a full version with a few weak locks, you suck at software development. Actually strip stuff out.
I think that there is a substantial difference between running adblock and piracy. Unless you were able to adblock your way past the block on NYTimes articles or a similar pay site because photoshop is a product that is expected to be purchased, going to cracked isn't. Unless Cracked starts charging a premium to enter their site, any money they make off of ads is technically just a bonus.
Breaking into a photoshop trial and making it the free version is a direct violation of terms of service and copyright law, etc. Running ad block is not because running ad block will not allow you to get into pay sites for free. This is a bit like saying piracy and downloading the weekly free song from Starbucks is the same thing.
And, frankly, any argument that piracy is "just ones and zeroes" is a bit daft I think, but that's really another topic I suppose.
In that case then you have a comparison, but not in users who just block ads on sites.
If you're access content that is supposed to be paid for by the user for access, that's theft. Simply blocking ads is more akin to not tossing change in the jar at Starbucks.
The other thing is, it isn't really a paywall, it's more like a sign in front of a gate that says "Please use gate" but the gate isn't connected to a fence or anything. They purposefully left a whole bunch of loopholes because preventing access in a secure way would be business suicide. Instead they left provisions for a set number of articles per month and provide access via referral/external link and a bunch of other things.
There are about 6 methods to get access in under 5 seconds by doing things like clearing cookies or renewing your DHCP lease or enabling noscript (though I am pretty sure you can block a script with an adblocker to accomplish he same effect).
The point is that even if I grant arguendo that gaining access without paying is a bad thing, the circumvention required is so minor that you really can't accuse anyone of wrongdoing.
Piracy has a lot of added culpability because it is not just whoever is downloading who is acting. Almost to the point of exclusion, people are not punished for downloading and using someone else's software, music or movie. They are punished(criminally or as part of a law suite) for the act of sending the copyrighted material to someone else or for making the material available.
Piracy is not just about the action of the downloader. Piracy is about enabling someone else to commit a crime. With p2p these roles get a little murky, but even if you are downloading a single torrent you are assisting scores of other people in an immoral endeavor, where as that does generally does not become an issue with ad-blocking.
Even if the direct damage was the same, I would argue that piracy is significantly more immoral for this reason.
Yeah. Am I "stealing" ad views if I'm visually impaired and use a screen reader?
Heck, what if I'm just using Lynx/Links, text-based browsers? Should I be forced to use a browser of a certain capability? Who should enforce this?
Well put.
I dunno if I would call that piracy. Certainly not theft, but probably not piracy either. I don't think there is anything much wrong with it either. I think any argument that says I am not allowed to do whatever I want with something I possess in my own home/computer is a really hard one to ever make.
Well it's the logic that makes people think piracy is okay so I understand where it comes from, but you have made a very good metaphor here about the idea.
It's called copyright infringement. Whether or not ad blocking is ok depends on how much control creators get over the copy they sent to you. I am of the philosophy that I get to do what I want with a copy of bits as long as I don't distribute them in an unauthorized fashion that falls outside fair use. This covers unauthorized copies too, since the person who sent it to you wasn't authorized to do so.