[jmillikin]

The difference is consent, not the medium of exchange. A fish can't consent to be part of the dinner-diner relationship.

A doctor and an armed mugger are different because even though in both cases they are given money in exchange for life, the doctor's patient[1] consented to do so.

Also, restricting customers to people who pay with money excludes transactions based on bartering or favors. If I design a nice website for someone and they give me a bottle of wine, that's still a customer relationship even though no money has changed hands.

[1] Or their guardian, legal representative, etc.

[lisper]

Exchange of money is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have a customer relationship.

As for voluntariness, it is arguable that the fish enters into the transaction voluntarily, if perhaps not fully informed. But here's a better example: my cat provides certain intangible benefits to me in exchange for food. I can assure you that my cat is entering into this exchange voluntarily. Who is the customer?

Still not satisfied? Fine. Two kids collect baseball cards. They agree to trade a Hank Aaron for a Babe Ruth. Who is the customer?

Unlike a barter relationship, a customer-provider relationship is necessarily asymmetric. The only way to reliably identify which way the asymmetry runs is to follow the money.

[jmillikin]

  > As for voluntariness, it is arguable that the fish
  > enters into the transaction voluntarily, if perhaps not
  > fully informed.
  > [...]
  > my cat provides certain intangible benefits to me in
  > exchange for food. I can assure you that my cat is
  > entering into this exchange voluntarily. Who is the
  > customer?

A fish or cat or any animal, cannot consent to anything due to lack of intelligence. Consent is only meaningful when all parties have roughly equal information about what's involved in the relationship, the consequences, and the alternatives.

  > Fine. Two kids collect baseball cards. They agree to
  > trade a Hank Aaron for a Babe Ruth. Who is the customer?

If only one kid knows that one card is much more valuable than the other, then it's not a customer relationship, it's a scam.

If both (or neither) know the value of the cards, and there's no coercion, then the customer is whoever initiated the trade. They understood what was involved just as well as the other kid, and made the informed decision that they wanted to exchange the cards.

  > Unlike a barter relationship, a customer-provider
  > relationship is necessarily asymmetric. The only way
  > to reliably identify which way the asymmetry runs is
  > to follow the money.

I don't buy into this idea that a customer relationship is inherently imbalanced. In fact, the ideal of such a relationship assumes perfect balance -- two people with things worthless to themselves, but valuable to the other.

[powermeat]

>For most customers, the product is search results, and their payment is to let part of their screen be occupied by ads.

Would you say adblockers are theft?

Is every consenting value exchange a customer-provider relationship?

>the ideal of such a relationship assumes perfect balance -- two people with things worthless to themselves, but valuable to the other.

Not worthless, just worth less. If I buy a product/service, I felt my money had less worth than what I was buying and the provider held the opposite stance.

[lisper]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

[klibertp]

"A fish or cat or any animal, cannot consent to anything due to lack of intelligence."

Now come over to my house and try to pet my cat without her consent...

Not really on-topic in any way but I just dislike people who disrespect animals.

[pessimizer]

>If I design a nice website for someone and they give me a bottle of wine, that's still a customer relationship even though no money has changed hands.

But who is the customer?