| > 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? |