| How many car manufacturers do you know that give away cars for free - which are build pre-packaged with advertising - without fist getting you to sign a contract that stipulates the terms of that arrangement? Only with that contract can they prevent you from modifying the product they gave you. That is the entire point of the "first-sale doctrine"[1]. You can only control your product up until the point you hand it over to the first customer, and what they do with it after that point - provided[2] they stay within the law - is up to them. The big problem with "blocking ads is unethical" is that it presumes that the relationship between the website and client is covered by some sort of contract. It absolutely is not. Far too many people think they can unilaterally generate a contract of adhesion[3] and then proceed as if it was agreed to simply because they wish it was so or they listed some fine print in the ToS/etc. Bonus: I don't think the people who push this kind of "pseudo-contract by ultimatum" have really thought about the full mutually-assured-destruction consequences of this kind of scam becoming acceptable to society. Imagine this HTTP header, which has the advantage of being presented before the transaction has been completed, which leaves the server free to decline the offer: X-CLIENT-ADVIEW-PRICES: each_image=0.05@USD each_video=5.00@USD:max_time=2m30s
X-CLIENT-ADVIEW-PAYMENTS: some_type_of_payment_routing_number
Would the "content producers" like it if that was enforcable? How about the reverse: mandating zero-cost for a subscription site? If you think this is ridiculous: good - it is ridiculous. Just like when the advertisers do it.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [2] Other laws like copyright are, of course, still apply. [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_contract_o... |