[baddox]

> I think there's an implicit contract.

And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract?

> Would you feel any different about it if it was explicit?

Yes. If there were an explicit contract requiring the viewer to view ads in order to view the content, then using an adblocker would be a violation of that contract and would be liable for whatever damages the contract stipulates.

> If there was a preamble to every page that said you were licensed to view the content only if certain conditions were met, such as all included ads were displayed, does that change what you feel comfortable doing or not?

It depends on what this "preamble" is. If it's just text at the top of the page saying "the reader hereby agrees to also view the ads on this page," then no, I don't consider that an explicit contract.

> It's about intent. Is someone using a text browser specifically to bypass ads? Then the text browser is in essence an ad-blocker (to the degree it works).

I don't think intent is relevant in this case, because I do not believe there is anything resembling a contract.

[kbenson]

> And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract?

Depending on the site, yes.

> It depends on what this "preamble" is. If it's just text at the top of the page saying "the reader hereby agrees to also view the ads on this page," then no, I don't consider that an explicit contract.

How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand? Is it any different if it's a sign that says it instead of a person? In both cases, I view taking the book while not reading the pamphlet stealing. You were only granted a copy of the book if you performed an action, and in both cases you failed to carry out the action, so a book was not granted. Thus the taking of the book was stealing.

> I don't think intent is relevant in this case, because I do not believe there is anything resembling a contract.

And that is the fundamental difference in our points of view. I believe there is an expectation on the part of the content providers for what they are providing, and as long as the consumer understands this expectation and purposefully ignores it, they are acting dishonestly.

[baddox]

> How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand?

Because order is important. On the web, you ask a server for something and it gives it to you. If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. And, of course, physical books are scarce, but that's another issue.

> I believe there is an expectation on the part of the content providers for what they are providing

I don't dispute that there is an expectation on the part of the content providers. I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an actual agreement between parties. If only one party is aware of and consenting to the terms, it is not a contract.

[kbenson]

> If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract.

I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book.

> I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an actual agreement between parties. If only one party is aware of and consenting to the terms, it is not a contract.

I think this is relevant[1]. I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting. Why is this content being provided? To assume it's freely available without any cost is a very self-serving view.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

[baddox]

> I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book.

Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre.

> I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting.

Well, I'm explicitly telling you that I don't consent, so unless I'm lying, it's pretty clear that I do not consent.

[kbenson]

> Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre.

I believe we should. I think we rarely do (including myself). The terms were clear. I'm not arguing my point in the hope that we all stop using ad-blockers, I'm arguing my point in the hope that we we can realize that there's a bit of bad behavior on our part as consumers as well (that there's bad behavior from purveyors of ads or that it started with them I believe and accept as fact, but I don't think that entirely alleviates our culpability).

> Well, I'm explicitly telling you that I don't consent, so unless I'm lying, it's pretty clear that I do not consent.

I have no problem with you withholding your consent. I have a problem with that consent being part of a deal and you withholding it while still accepting what it was being traded for.

I'm still not understanding your argument that you feel justified in taking something when you know you aren't supposed to have/use it. I can lay it out in myriad different ways, with different goods, difference services, but in the end, I think they are all the same thing. There's a trade going on, and if you aren't fulfilling your side, you have no right to the goods of the other side. That you've received the goods makes no difference to me. I may have fruit in my hands at the store while approaching the counter, but they aren't mine until I've paid. If I choose not to pay, it's my responsibility to return ownership to the store (or in the case of a non-tangible good, to not utilize it). Your consent matters only as to whether you want to complete the trade. You consent has no bearing on whether you have right to goods after you've chosen not to trade, at least not legally, or I would submit, morally.

[baddox]

> The terms were clear.

But that's just it. The terms weren't clear when the transaction occurred. To me, temporal order is important. It's basically the concept of "informed consent."

> I have a problem with that consent being part of a deal and you withholding it while still accepting what it was being traded for.

Again, the order of events matters.

> I'm still not understanding your argument that you feel justified in taking something when you know you aren't supposed to have/use it.

I disagree about whether I'm "supposed" to have it. I don't have a problem with acquiring something in a transaction (and agreeing to all terms at the moment of the transaction) and then using it in a way the other party did not intend.

> I may have fruit in my hands at the store while approaching the counter, but they aren't mine until I've paid. If I choose not to pay, it's my responsibility to return ownership to the store (or in the case of a non-tangible good, to not utilize it).

But in your analogy, I bought the fruit at the time. The store teller told me the price, I paid it, and the teller sent me on my way. Then I got home, opened the bag of fruit, and found a note that says "the purchaser of this fruit hereby agrees to not bake this fruit into a pie." My position is that I simply do not care about this note. I acquired the fruit in a transaction which clearly did not involve that term. I will not return the fruit and I'll bake it into a pie if I please.