Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 15:11:50 +0300 From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources Message-ID: <19980505151801.58541@techunix.technion.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980504193930.306H-100000@localhost>; from Tim Vanderhoek on Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:28:24PM -0400
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You, Tim Vanderhoek, were spotted writing this on Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:28:24PM -0400: > > Good grief. Do you realize you just sent a 16kB message > complaining about ads wasting your bandwidth? Another prejediced opinion. I never even used the word 'bandwidth' in this thread before, what made you think that was my primary concern with ads? It isn't. Ads are ugly, I'm annoyed and fatigued by them. They presume viewer's intelligence to be on the level of a toddler, and they are invariably crappy as art. In general, advertisements are one of the most ugly and despisable features of our modern world (and yes, I know they're necessary in our world, please spare me yet another silly 'meet the world' slogan). As a minor example, ads on TV (along with most of the TV programs themselves) are one of the major causes of shortening attention span of kids and teenagers, and, as a consequence, reduced intelligence. It may be that in your opinion, all of these are laughable reasons to dislike ads and avoid seeing them, but they aren't for me. > > lengthy message. As latter, it doesn't look good at all. First, there's > > an obvious internal contradiction in terms. If the stuff is _free_, you > > _do not_ pay for it - either with dollars or your attention and fatigue at > > seeing ads. If you MUST PAY for it, it's no longer free, that's all. > > And this is why it's a 16kB message. I think we all understand > what the message you are replying to meant by "free". Yes, we do. I wasn't teaching English language; I was pointing out important difference between "free content" and "free content, as in content for which you pay with something other than money". While everyone understands the difference, it's rarely spelled out and stressed; more's the pity. As a FreeBSD supporter, you certainly should know the difference between "free to use as you wish with proper acknowledgement" and "free to use as you wish, but you must pay by adhering to the viral license". > > ijb doesn't, technically, do filtering. Firewalls do filtering. ijb > > helps avoid initiating needless HTTP connections) and may change the end > > user's perception of the product (be it a Web page or a commercial > > software program). The law doesn't care about that one little bit. > > Actually, it looks like the law probably will care. Consider for > example that clicking on an "Ok" button in a webpage is expected > to be legally binding, should such a decision be forced at a > high-level court. If we were to use such an approach, even > signatures wouldn't be legally binding since they are, after all, > merely chemical processes. I'm not saying that digital matters aren't legally binding, but only that the law kicks in only when you consider modification AND redistribution. As you said yourself, reverse-engineering doesn't apply, so even modification (and I must remind you again that ijb doesn't modify HTML) should be OK as long as you don't redistribute your copy publicly. > > No good. Wrong medium. If they put HTML files on their server in > > (for example) public_html directory with right permissions, _they_ > > are implicitly agreeing that everyone in the world can make an HTTP > > request and get that file and do with it anything he wants on his > > own computer. That's the freedom the medium defines for everybody. > > Not. Meet the real world. If you leave your car unguarded by an > armed security guard, it is free for me to take. That is the > freedom of the medium. Is that the kind of freedom you believe > in? Where every car must be guarded 24/7? I can't believe you don't see how silly this analogy is. When you leave a car unguarded, you do NOT intend for it to be stolen. When you put a file on a Web server, you explicitly intend for it to be fetched with HTTP. Sigh. Here's yet another analogy for you, maybe this one will get through. Suppose you watch public television channel (or even cable TV for which you already paid) and suddenly there's something on it, sitcom, soap opera or whatever, which starts with big message on the screen: "If you want to see this programme, please send $25 in cash to this address immediately. Otherwise you're ripping off poor starving content producers". Will you feel morally or legally obliged to avoid watching this program unless you send away your cash immediately? Do you think that, in fact, all citizen of the country watching this at the instant ought to send in their money at once? The medium of TV doesn't allow to require you (morally or legally) to pay in this way, while on the other hand it does allow, for example, to require you to pay by watching an ordinary ad, which of course you may elect not to watch. > > the simplest way: click on a link, see a file. And yet, at the same time, > > force you to pay in your time, for example, by watching their ad. They > > want a free ride. > > This is inane. If you don't want to pay, don't read their > information. You sound as if you actually believe it is your > God-given right to have others write information for you! No way. Noone has to write any information for me, AND I don't have to pay anyone for anything automatically. If I elect not to pay for some information, its owner is free to not let me have this information. If the owner chooses a medium which lets as many people as posible to watch his information freely, he loses the moral justification to demand payment from me. There's a subtle difference here which perhaps you don't feel. If there's a link to an informative file on some page and next to a link it's written: "Please don't click here unless you already paid me for the subscription to this info [subcr details]. I don't have technical means to implement proper protection of this valuable info, so I ask you personally not to use it unless you pay for it", I will probably not click on the link and won't go there. However, the person who wrote that does NOT want as many people as possible coming to that link. He's NOT taking a free ride on the medium, he explicitly asks you not to go unless you paid. A different manner is an ordinary site, http://www.something.com, which DOES want as many people as possible to come freely to its homepage, which indexes itself in all search engines and perhaps even advertises itself, and takes advantage of this free-for-all medium if it wants to morally/legally require me to pay in money, time or whatever else for reading it. It may always ask, of course, but not require. It usually doesn't even require, actually; it's you and Eivind who are doing holier-than-thou act and accuse ijb users of stealing revenue of the site. Hell, I use way too much time and energy here to justify my actions. The simple fact remains that a lot of people who are browsing with images turned off are pirates and thieves according to yours and Eivind's ethical model, which makes you, and not me, extremists. Excuses such as "they don't explictly filter ads" are irrelevant, because the simple fact, that they take content and don't pay for it, remains. > > Same here. In your ethical model, someone who watches the site and not > > the ads is a thief, just like someone who stole an apple. It may be > > Heh. And I suppose you still think that those disagreeing with > you believe it is stealing to get a sandwich during TV > commercials. No. I don't think so. Which makes it even more funny! You happen to think that not watching an ad during a TV commercial is OK. It goes against your own principles - the person is taking content but not paying for it - but it's socially acceptable everywhere so you perhaps don't feel like attacking it? What if someone watches the same sitcom everyday and _always_ doesn't watch the commercial because he dislikes them severely? How is that different from someone who goes to the same Web site everyday and _always_ doesn't watch the ads on this particular site? The net effect for "content producers" is absolutely the same! You will deny it saying that in TV case, there's no difference for the content producer in whether this particular person saw the ad or not as it's not being recorded in any way. But that's a poor excuse, because in case of _one single person_ not watching the ads the effect is absolutely negligible in any case. What worries you is that _many_ people will elect not to see ads on a Web site; but if many people elect not to see ads during that TV show, it'll turn up in polls, etc. and the content producers will also lose. Here's an even better example for you: suppose I modify ijb so that it'll always _load_ the ad, but will never pass it to my browser (ijb functions as a proxy). In this case, it's absolutely identical to the TV case outlined above. Will you say I'm behaving absolutely fairly? > _Someone_using_Lynx_has_not_installed_a_device_to_ > remove_ads! Neither have I, I have installed device which helps me avoid downloading what I don't want to see. Which happens to be ads, yes. How is intent relevant in this case _if_the_content_producer_is_being_ ripped_off? Since then is ignorance of the law [moral or legal] a justification to break it? > > I'm attacking specifically what you say, by arguing that I'm morally > > and legally free to look at what I want, from the variety of files available > > for HTTP download off the Web. > > You're trying to build part of you argument on a somewhat > anarchistic religious idea. _That_ is really interesting. I don't want to specifically pull of the Web site files that annoy me and don't interest me. THAT is a 'anarchistic religious idea'? > In the real world of the living, who > need to eat, how would you have information written or services > (such as Yahoo) funded without ads? In the real world of the living, how do you think television continues to exist in spite of the fact (explained to you previously) that there exist devices which automatically switch off ads on your TV? Because the majority of people doesn't bother, of course. That's their right, as it is _my_ right to be bothered. Do you honestly think that the millions of people browsing the Web _right_now_ see ads because they feel they ought to help poor content producers of the site they're visiting? > > I'm attacking specifically what you say, by arguing that I'm morally > > Yes, it's easy to attack. Can you suggest a real practical > alternative for our world? I don't see a need for one. Although there are already inexpensive commercial products which filter ads, and there have been several free products for quite some time, the great majority of people remains in blissful ignorance of such products and probably wouldn't bother if they did know. Even if such a facility becomes a part of a major browser, the fact remains that most of the people using Web don't ever get to the 'Preferences' dialog of their browser, let alone 'Advanced Preferences'. So I don't see any great hazard to advertisement model of the Web, however much I dislike it. You asked for a real world assessment - here it is then. > > The production of content may be paid for in many different ways. They > > usually involve restricted access to the resource and/or different > > medium than simple Web browsing. No, I'm not happy if a resource stops > > being free for download and starts charging money per access. But it > > doesn't mean I should give up my freedom to see what I want. > > Oh, so you would rather see what you don't want? Uh. Ok. Sure. > :) I suspect you don't even realize how much you don't want it, > long-term. Can you say "information underprivileged class". > With all the problems that current underclasses bring. I'd much > rather see what I want, thanks. Oh my. As if you don't pay for information right now, in many ways all the time. Or maybe it's time for _you_ to bring up the slogan "information wants to be free"? ;) > > Wrong analogy. Payment-removal system forces you to pay before you use > > [or use all features]. There's nothing similar in a file being offered > > for HTTP download on a public server. If ijb was a tool to > > circumvent passwords in .htaccess protected directories, your analogy > > would hold water. As it isn't, it doesn't. > > Oh? Why? After all, if the passwords can be circumvented, > that's the nature of the medium. No it isn't, and you know that very well. If you want to play games of deliberate misunderstanding, I'm not excited. > > What you fail to understand is that when your friend puts an HTML file > > in a free-for-taking medium - the Web - he loses the ability > > and justification, legal or moral, to demand payment for DLing this > > Anatoly, meet the real world. World, Anatoly. The Web is not > the domain of a small commune of hackers. Hardly ever was, > actually. That was a fine piece of rhetorics, although I must admit I failed to understand its relevance. Did I ever say or simply that the Web is a domain of a small commune of hackers? Boy, what a dummy I must have been when I implied that! Can you explain to me how you reached that conclusion? Although perhaps now it's time for you to finish the logical chain. I mean, I'm already a 'cracker' and a 'pirate', and now I'm a closed-mind hacker who thinks Web consists only of people like me. Perhaps all hackers are crackers and pirates, did you consider that exciting posssibility? Sincerely, Anatoly. -- Anatoly Vorobey, mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/ "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980505151801.58541>