Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:56:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <ac199@hwcn.org> To: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980506170532.248B-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <19980505151801.58541@techunix.technion.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 5 May 1998, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> 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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes! You have succinctly summed my whole argument!
> '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.
Objection, but that's a different argument. There is _some_
truth to what I quoted, anyways.
> 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,
Ya, like just the same way I'm allowed to be in possession of
whatever images I want, provided I don't distribute them.
(Although it's typically the distributors who get in trouble, but
that's cause they're more visible :).
[rehash of you `medium doesn't force users to pay' argument
deleted --- this gets addressed a little below, and I'd simply be
rehashing the same reply because nothing really new has been
said. Besides that, it's not 100% consistent with the below
paragraph.]
> 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
Consider Eivend the little link saying "Please don't click here
unless you are going to pay me for the info." Can you suggest
"technical" means to ensure payment? Changing the type of
payment is not an answer (once again, can you say "information
underclass" (there is, incidentally a danger here in that future
advertisers will target their audience so carefully that people
without financial means don't get to see the ads, but this future
danger is preferable to a definite current danger)).
> it's you and Eivind who are doing holier-than-thou act and accuse
> ijb users of stealing revenue of the site.
What's wrong with ijb?
> 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.
And what's wrong with turning off images?
Look, from here on, I would simply be repeating myself.
Filtering ads is different from reading information in a format
of your choice. If you can't reasonably view the ads, you can't
reasonably view them. That's the advertisers' fault (even though
it may hurt you eventually, there's not too much you can do about
it).
> it? What if someone watches the same sitcom everyday and
> _always_ doesn't watch the commercial because he dislikes them
I typically change the radio station when ads are playing. It's
all in the statistics. Every so often, I don't.
> this particular site? The net effect for "content producers"
> is absolutely the same! You will deny it saying that in TV
"Every person in the world tosses 5000 coins every day. When all
of them land heads, that particular tosser commits suicide. I
never die. The net effect is absolutely the same as not tossing
coins!"
> 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?
No, you would not be behaving fairly. I don't understand why you
think I should believe you would be behaving fairly. I don't
think you're taking the time to understand my argument.
> 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.
Are you installing a device to remove ads are not? I avoid
downloads I don't want, too. I don't remove ads.
> _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'?
I refer to your argument that if you can get away with stealing
property, then it is the fault of the (previous) owner if you
steal it (because s/he didn't use a medium that prevented you
from stealing it), not your fault.
> 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?
Those devices aren't software, which has a zero marginal cost.
The usability of these devices is questionable to me (what am I
supposed to watch on TV while the commercials are being shown?).
If those devices were common, they'd probably be made illegal.
[re: ad-removal facility]
> 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.
First of all, you're not just hurting information providers,
you're hurting yourself.
Besides that, I don't want the world you envision, where most
people never even see the `Preferences'.
> 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"? ;)
There are some ways of paying for information which are more
affordable than others. At an individual level, obviously, but
at the social level, too. If the only way of paying for
information was to cut-off your right hand, this would obviously
be socially harmful. I consider the development of an
information underclass to be socially harmful.
> > > 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
If said information provider (and it is Eivend who knows such
people, I know none personally) loses his ability to receive
payment, that is bad. Justify it to hell on legal or moral
grounds, if you want, but it's just bad. Any justification on
moral grounds must be first prove that it's "good", not "bad". I
decline to get into a complicated legal argument, on the basis
that neither of us (to the best of my knowledge) are qualified
for that.
--
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.3.96.980506170532.248B-100000>