[shakna]

I understand your issues... But I'm downloading your code, how it is displayed, and whether I run it your way is up to me - I already requested it, and your server fulfilled the request. If you wanted contractual obligations, they need to happen before you hand over the content.

[kalcode]

That isn't a very good argument. Just cause you downloaded something doesn't give you the rights to it.

If that was the case piracy would be legal, software trails wouldn't be legal. Windows license or photoshop trial up? Well I downloaded, your server fulfilled the request. I have legal rights to it now.

Oh, this art? I am selling it. Well I saw it on the internet, my computer downloaded, their servers fulfilled it. If they didn't want to hand over the rights they should've blocked me from viewing it.

That kind of argument is an argument I expect in a non-tech site with people making excuses. You know that isn't a solid argument you made at all.

The way the internet works doesn't create a vector that allows that. If they did implement that you'd need a multiple round trip check, the site would be slammed for being slow to respond cause it have to download a script, check if your blocking, report back then start the downloading process for the site. Just not feasible.

Those smaller sites would lose to bigger sites that can get away with slower response times or ignore pre-checking anyways.

[shakna]

> If that was the case piracy would be legal, software trails wouldn't be legal. Windows license or photoshop trial up? Well I downloaded, your server fulfilled the request. I have legal rights to it now.

Piracy is someone intentionally breaking a known license contract. Software trials require contracts first. Either upon download or installation. You agree to a license before you use Windows. Those agreements are binding. The web also has systems in place for similar contract negotiation. If you don't use that, it's kinda on you. Some users will choose to use your content in the way you intended, others won't, and you have no recourse.

> You know that isn't a solid argument you made at all.

Unfortunately for you, it's already held up under law. There's a reason the big players are trying for new solutions than attempting to ban users from blocking them.

> If they did implement that you'd need a multiple round trip check, the site would be slammed for being slow to respond cause it have to download a script, check if your blocking, report back then start the downloading process for the site. Just not feasible.

We already have that. Quite seriously. HTTP has the structure for authorisation, and the process for handling it if you're not. Not using that structure, is a choice that leaves you vulnerable.

[user812]

And that is why the argument is always based on morality: "You should not do it, because it is bad" - which proves your point.

When someone publishes something on the web it is free by definition, and by law.

Publishers can chose to not make the content available, but it seems up to now relying on ads and moral shaming is a more profitable way.