Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 04:13:42 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: Matthew Hunt <mph@FreeBSD.ORG>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources Message-ID: <19980504041342.42915@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980503213401.20104G-100000@sasami.jurai.net>; from Matthew N. Dodd on Sun, May 03, 1998 at 09:41:54PM -0400 References: <19980504032939.07389@follo.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980503213401.20104G-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 09:41:54PM -0400, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > > Explain to me how junk-buster is different from changing channels when > commercials come up... > > On Mon, 4 May 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > This describe why you're inconvenienced. Sure, I agree that banners are > > inconvenient - I'm none too happy about having to download banners myself. > > > > But let me do a slight re-phrasing of you: > > > > "I'm on a thight budget, with 3 other people that use software too. The > > last thing I need is to have to pay for the commercial software we use." > > No, I stated that I was -bandwidth- constrained. Since I'm paying for my > bandwidth I should be able to invoke the 'theft' clause as well shouldn't > I? No. I'm fully aware that you stated that you are bandwidth constrained. The point is: It doesn't matter. You're electing to view pages that contain banners. Implictly in this, you're agreeing to pay for those pages - which you normally do by viewing the banners. The implict part here is sometimes explict, and will probably become more so as time passes. And as to "I should be able to invoke the 'theft' clause as well" - I hope you're not in any way close to serious when you write this. YOU are taking a service which include certain badnwidth-costs, which is all you're directly paying for the service. The bandwidth cost include banners, and you _should_ consider them an intrinsic part of the the content on that page - and incidentally, what pays for keeping the service up. > > Web pages with banners generally come with a license, too. This license as > > often as not explictly forbid modifying the HTML and pictures before > > displaying the pages. So, what you're doing is pirating web-pages. I don't > > think we should have cracker tools in the ports collection, and I > > _especially_ don't think we should have power-tools in the ports collection > > labelled as cracker tools. > > JunkBuster doesn't modify the HTML. 'or pictures'. It modifies the pictures on the page by replacing them with others; if it isn't against the text of the license, it is definately against the intent, which will matter in some jurisdictions. > You should really check it out before you bash it. Why? I'm not bashing it as a particular implementation - I'm saying that the underlying concept of blocking advertisements is flawed, and that we shouldn't especially attempt to make that easier - as it undermines one of the few good sides of commerce on the net. > > Besides which I believe that filtering those banners is harmful in the long > > run - the $.01 to $.08 you rip the web page owner off each time you view a > > page without an ad _do_ add up. > > Consider it my dollar vote to protest in favor of commercial entities > finding a less annoying means of capitalization. The same as doing piracy is a 'dollar vote' against too expensive software? That's not a good enough argument, IMO. If you want to avoid downloading banners, contact the websites you use and try to convince them to have a 'members section' where you can pay them to avoid seeing banners, or get working on micropayment systems so you can pay $.08 to view Dilbert instead of letting an advertiser pay $80 for every thousand that view The Dilbert Zone, or just drop visiting those websites you feel have obnoxious advertising - and tell them about it. Blocking software a la ijb only end up repeating the endless war between crackers/pirates (that's you), and those writing copy/content protection. > > Oh, and a new point I just thought of: FreeBSD is likely to be considered > > associates-before-the-fact if we distribute something labelled so that it > > can be considered a tool for crime. I can look up the relevant statutes if > > necessary - but I believe this can map onto the telecom laws they used > > against Craig Neindorff (sp?). Any relevant californians feeling like going > > to jail over a package description? :-( (No, I did not really want this last > > argument.) > > That would be 'Neidorf'. > > You should really get better information before trying to draw parallels > between this issue the E911 case. I don't even remember if that was the correct case. I remember that there is a California statute against 'instruments for crime' or information which makes things work as an instrument for crime; I'm not certain if it came up in the Neidorf case. I remember having seen it in use about 5 years ago, and I think I remember it being in CUD. I'd have to dig through old CUDs to find it - I haven't saved them (I haven't read CUD for 5 years or so, so it is some time ago). Eivind. 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?19980504041342.42915>