Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 20:28:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <ac199@hwcn.org> To: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> Cc: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980504193930.306H-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <19980504181752.37647@techunix.technion.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Good grief. Do you realize you just sent a 16kB message complaining about ads wasting your bandwidth? On Mon, 4 May 1998, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > 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". > Your claim is inaccurate in any case. Reverse-engineering is illegal in some > places not because it's filtering (again, as I tried to explain above, Shhh... Don't tell anyone, but the reverse-engineering argument is a red-herring. (Sorry Eivind :). Reverse-engineering applies to something you have already paid for (further arguments about such ownership ever being possible or not proceed to enter The Stallman Zone and become almost totally irrelevant). This discussion is about whether or not to pay at all. > 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. > 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? > 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! > 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. _Someone_using_Lynx_has_not_installed_a_device_to_ remove_ads! > > What is your model for paying for content? That's what we're talking about > > here. Talking about 'nature of the medium' is IMO a strawman argument - how > > do you think the production of content should be paid for? I'm not talking > > about 'making it profitable' - I'm talking of paying actual costs. > > Strawman argument is when you attack not your opponent's ideas, but a weaker > version of them built by yourself for that purpose. Where is it here? > 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. 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? > 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? > 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. > 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. > As I said, I wasn't offended. Your calling me a pirate and a cracker > is laughable, not offensive, because it's so ridiculous; it speaks > volumes about your confusion in the matter. Heh. > 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. -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund. 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?Pine.BSF.3.96.980504193930.306H-100000>