[rwjwjuwjudf]

I think there's two things here.

The first is the implicit or explicit contract to view ads in exchange for getting to view content. Entering into a contract in bad faith or breaching a contract is both a legal and moral issue. When the terms of a contract are repulsive to me, I have no moral problem breaking them or lying about my intentions. I would let you pay me any amount of money to eat shit without proof and not follow through. You could always try and sue if that ended up being a problem. Generally though I won't enter into such contracts if there's a viable alternative.

The second thing is ownership of the property that's used to view the content. The argument here is that since it's my computer, I can control what my computer displays to me. I know that you have the copyright on the content and the ads, but copyright doesn't stop me from doing what I want with my own private copy so long as I don't distribute it.

So in the end, if you distribute content to me without verifying that I've viewed the ads first, you're putting yourself at risk for breach of contract on my part, and since I find ads repulsive it's a really high risk because it's my computer and I'm going to program it the way I want.

I'll readily agree that the content/ads thing is a problem, and that people deserve to make money for making things. But any fix to this problem is going to be systemic, not based on convincing people to play by the rules when they can easily get away with breaking them.

[kbenson]

> Entering into a contract in bad faith or breaching a contract is both a legal and moral issue.

I believe it is a moral issue, but depending on whether it's a legal contract, or observed legally, I'm not sure it's a legal issue (not sure as in don't know the specifics of contract law and what is considered a contract).

> When the terms of a contract are repulsive to me, I have no moral problem breaking them or lying about my intentions.

I have no problem breaking a contract where it's been misrepresented to me. But when the terms are up-front and clear, but I don't believe they are fair, I don't believe I have a right to enter into that contract with the intention of breaking it. What's worse, trying to get someone to sign a contract with (up-front but) unfair terms, or lying about your intention to fulfill your side? Does it matter which is worse, if they are both bad?

> The second thing is ownership of the property that's used to view the content. The argument here is that since it's my computer, I can control what my computer displays to me. I know that you have the copyright on the content and the ads, but copyright doesn't stop me from doing what I want with my own private copy so long as I don't distribute it.

I'm not trying to make a case about having to display content, I'm trying to make a case about obligation to display content when you want to display other content. The medium is irrelevant. I would make the same case with paper. Having an assistant cut out the ads from a magazine (or removing and reprinting without them) before presenting it to you is equivalent in my eyes, and the same problem. The magazine is clearly offered with the advertisements as part of the package, to offset what would be the true consumer cost. That you are capable of having someone take scissors to it is not the issue; whether that breaks an implicit or explicit agreement based on the purchase of the magazine would be (and in this specific case the magazine would have a foreword saying it should not be altered from the form it was presented in, as that was part of the purchase price).

> So in the end, if you distribute content to me without verifying that I've viewed the ads first, you're putting yourself at risk for breach of contract on my part, and since I find ads repulsive it's a really high risk because it's my computer and I'm going to program it the way I want.

Every contract entered requiring something from both parties puts at least one party at risk the other will breach, and sometimes both are at risk. The other party putting themself at risk is not a justification for breaching the contract in itself, otherwise libraries would have a very hard time functioning.

Again, this line of reasoning only even makes sense if you believe there is a contract. If you do, then you either accept it or you don't, and you either fulfill your side or you don't. I know what I believe are the right choices of those available (where "right" means society perpetuating, not society breaking, when extended to all people).

[ultramancool]

> up-front and clear

I don't think you can argue the terms of ads on the web are upfront and clear. It takes serious reading to learn about all the different methods they use to track you now. They often give people malware. Is that part of this inherent "contract"?

> I'm not trying to make a case about having to display content, I'm trying to make a case about obligation to display content when you want to display other content. The medium is irrelevant. I would make the same case with paper. Having an assistant cut out the ads from a magazine (or removing and reprinting without them) before presenting it to you is equivalent in my eyes, and the same problem.

So you're saying that even though I paid for the magazine, I own the magazine and can do what I want with it, I don't have a right to use the paper it's made of as I please? Sorry, but that's utterly ridiculous. And I think most people would find it so too.

It'd be different if I borrowed the magazine, but since I own it I'd say it's fully within my right to cut out ads, chop it in half, fold it into planes, use it as toilet paper, what have you. That's my right as an owner of the magazine.

[kbenson]

> I don't think you can argue the terms of ads on the web are upfront and clear.

When the site has a banner that says they want their ads displayed, then that's clear. I've made it obvious that I think it can be ambiguous otherwise, but it is not in that case.

> So you're saying that even though I paid for the magazine, I own the magazine and can do what I want with it, I don't have a right to use the paper it's made of as I please?

No, that's not what I said. Very specifically, we are talking about whether you own the magazine yet when you haven't fulfilled the transaction that would give you ownership, and if that is actually a transaction. I've written extensively in this thread about exactly this. Either you didn't bother to read the back-and-forth rwjwjuwjudf and I were having, or ignored my point.

> It'd be different if I borrowed the magazine, but since I own it I'd say it's fully within my right to cut out ads, chop it in half, fold it into planes, use it as toilet paper, what have you. That's my right as an owner of the magazine.

Sure, if you own it. Very simple, if a magazine that costs $9.99 starts selling for $1.99 but has some conditions (you need to view all the ads at least once), do you fully own it before you've fulfilled that condition?

Specifically, what you identify as different in the following scenarios will probably illuminate the actual difference in your point of view to mine:

- You pay full price for a magazine without ads, which is $9.99.

- You pay a subsidized price for a magazine with ads, which is $1.99.

- You pay nothing (fully subsidized) for a magazine with ads, and an explicit signed written contract that you will not alter the ads.

- You pay nothing (fully subsidized) for a magazine with ads, and there is a notice that this price is only for people that agree to no alter the ads.

- You pay nothing (fully subsidized) for a magazine with ads, and there is no notice about ads whatsoever.

In which cases would you feel fine altering (of having someone alter for you) the ads?

[rwjwjuwjudf]

Do you sit through television commercials without talking, getting up, turning down the volume, muting them, or looking away?