Downloading software, downloading videos, AdBlock, and everything...



  • So I noticed people were saying that 

    1) Downloading TV shows is immoral because you are taking away advertising revenue from the maker of the show.

    2) Downloading software free is immoral because you are stealing the effort of developers who made it.Even if they gave tons of free copies to your school, had you hooked on it, then want to charge 1000 bucks for it from you who obviously does not have it.

     

    Well here is my argument:

    By the same logic, blocking ANY website adds is immoral. By blocking website adds (most of which are annoying, flashy, can give people siesures (for those vulnerable)) you are taking away from potential revenue that the website makers could make (same way as TV shows). The same goes for removing spyware, they clearly put those in as ways to make money for the site which sends you spyware. If you are unhappy you should get the spyware, leave the site, block that site because you do not agree with their methods, then remove the spyware (but not block it during use of the website). Also you should never block adds since the makers of the site spent all that time making the site for you and now you are blocking them

    The adds on TDWTF should never be blocked, and if you are unhappy with that you should stop comming to TDWTF because otherwise you are stealing the maker's revenue, and hard work.

     

    Hows that for counter argument. Its not the strongest but its something that popped into my head when AdBlock was finally updated for Firefox 3b5... ugh this site has annoying banner adds.



  • @dlikhten said:

    blocking ANY website adds is immoral.
     

    Agreed, although I must be somewhat pedantic... it is 'ads', as in advertising.

     



  • My personal ruling is: I will buy DVDs (I only watch anime now) if I can acquire them, normally I can't so I'll download them. As for music I do not buy many CD's (I do own about 30 though), even though I do have about 20GB of mp3s, most of the music in my collection is a real PITA to find. In other words, if it is feasible to acquire at the time I will pay money.


    As for ads: If it doesn't need JavaScript, Java or Flash to display I'll see it (exception: Google ads are white listed).



  • @Lingerance said:

    As for ads: If it doesn't need JavaScript, Java or Flash to display I'll see it (exception: Google ads are white listed).
     

    And you ALWAYS click on as many of the google ads on http://www.thestupidestmanonearth.com as you can right!?

    hehe...



  • I agree with the ads argument, but I don't agree with your spyware statement. I think that people should be free to browse the internet without extracting spyware. Its hard to tell exactly how malicious spyware will turn out to be. The ads are fine, they are on the site, and they remain there when I leave. As opposed to being on my computer.

    Am I the only one that feels this way?  I know this world is nowhere near ideal, but it would be great to have a relatively clean surfing experience without suffering from the affects of spyware, etc.



  • @pitchingchris said:

    I agree with the ads argument, but I don't agree with your spyware statement. I think that people should be free to browse the internet without extracting spyware. Its hard to tell exactly how malicious spyware will turn out to be. The ads are fine, they are on the site, and they remain there when I leave. As opposed to being on my computer.

    Am I the only one that feels this way?  I know this world is nowhere near ideal, but it would be great to have a relatively clean surfing experience without suffering from the affects of spyware, etc.

     

    I think as long as the software is clear about it's use of spyware and allows the user to agree to install, or cancel to not install anything then it is fine.

    Also, it should obviously be the least obtrusive as possible.

    I wouldn't use the software if it had spyware, but at least their honesty would be appreciated.



  • @pitchingchris said:

    I know this world is nowhere near ideal, but it would be great to have a relatively clean surfing experience without suffering from the affects of spyware, etc.
    I missed that when I read the OP, as far as I know in certain places there are actually very strict privacy laws, IANAL but it wouldn't be that hard for spyware to actually be illegal in certain places. I know Alberta's laws for that reason are a bit strict, I'll double check that. Edit: Alberta's Privacy act, interesting bit about when you can collect private information.



  • @dlikhten said:

    By the same logic, blocking ANY website adds is immoral.
     

     Somebody made the point that you're not required to stay in the room when a commercial comes on TV. There is no standard that says you must watch advertising. 



  • @chebrock said:

    There is no standard that says you must watch advertising. 
     

    No, but it is the moral thing to do to allow it be served.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @chebrock said:

    There is no standard that says you must watch advertising. 
     

    No, but it is the moral thing to do to allow it be served.

    Yes, yes. Sounds fine to me.



    But if it moves, it dies! Ads fine, moving/blinking ads, die.



    Google ads are great, they are usualy related to what you are looking at (not always, as the software that picks them is never perfect). Which makes them a good target of interrest. Blocking those is a loss for myself.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    No, but it is the moral thing to do to allow it be served.
    I honestly don't see how leaving the TV on during commercials or not can be considered moral or immoral. Sure, a company paid to place an ad on TV. I don't see how changing to another channel or muting the TV or turning it off for two minutes during commercials is immoral just because someone paid for them to be there.

    /doesn't block ads on websites and doesn't have a TV



  • @Welbog said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    No, but it is the moral thing to do to allow it be served.
    I honestly don't see how leaving the TV on during commercials or not can be considered moral or immoral. Sure, a company paid to place an ad on TV. I don't see how changing to another channel or muting the TV or turning it off for two minutes during commercials is immoral just because someone paid for them to be there.

    /doesn't block ads on websites and doesn't have a TV

     

    I think it would really be more akin to installing a device that automatically blocked all commercials. Manually looking away from the TV is a whole different thing IMO.

    The device would be immoral.



  • cries I don't have enough time! My draft blog entry is already 10 paragraphs long, but it has so much more to go. Dammit!



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I think it would really be more akin to installing a device that automatically blocked all commercials. Manually looking away from the TV is a whole different thing IMO.

    I'm actually quite tempted to do that, and have been for ages - at least to cut the sound. The adverts are always significantly louder than the programmes in between which causes problems when trying to watch TV quietly because someone is trying to sleep in the other room. All it'd take is a compressor with a big ratio and the threshold set to just the right level before feeding the output into a hi fi and then using the hifi remote to control the volume you hear. Though there'd still be pictures but they're less annoying.

    Not that you can tell what many of the ads are about these days, everything's turned into a french car advert.

    And I still have a special punch in the face reserved for anybody who's ever made one of those adverts where you hear two voices having a conversation and select words from that dialogue appear on screen in a variety of fonts and/or sizes. Especially the one about offset mortgages because I still have no idea what one of those is, except it's like stealing someones chips - you don't count it but you still get fat anyway and wonder why. It's probably an accurate analogy and the whole thing is a gyp.

    Oh, and does anyone know what I have to do to get adverts to show up on tdwtf? Do they not show up for registered users or something?



  • @ComputerForumUser said:

    I'm actually quite tempted to do that, and have been for ages - at least to cut the sound. The adverts are always significantly louder than the programmes in between which causes problems when trying to watch TV quietly because someone is trying to sleep in the other room.
     

    Most decent TV's have this built in I believe. At least mine does.



  • Oops, I meant automatically without having to hit the mute button. There's something satisfying to me about something too loud being automatically cut out.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Most decent TV's have this built in I believe. At least mine does.
    I wish mine did, it appears Telus sends us channels with the volume base being inversely proportional to the channel number. Although commercials louder than the program would be irritating to no end (I muted everything anyways, when I used to watch TV)



  • @ComputerForumUser said:

    Oops, I meant automatically without having to hit the mute button. There's something satisfying to me about something too loud being automatically cut out.

     

    No, I am talking about sound levelling or whatever it is called. A lot of TV's  have this built in, so when they are outputting sound at a certain level, and all of a sudden a loud sound comes on, it will level it out.

    Devices to do it:

    http://blogs.oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2007/01/bless-you-dolby-technology-lim.html

    http://www.smarthome.com/77964.html

    TV that does it: 

    http://www.amazon.com/Philips-26PF5321D-26-Widescreen-LCD/dp/B000FBK2NY

    @TFA said:

     This set also can produce Dolby Digital virtual surround sound and it
    has a sound-leveling feature that automatically prevents the jumps in
    volume between programs and commercials.




  • @chebrock said:

    @dlikhten said:

    By the same logic, blocking ANY website adds is immoral.
     

     Somebody made the point that you're not required to stay in the room when a commercial comes on TV. There is no standard that says you must watch advertising. 

     

    Yes but, when a highly flashing ad appears on the site, say on Yahoo Mail, I think about my epileptic friend who would certainly get a siesure from that. Also if you look at sites like Gamespot sometimes when you make a HTML request you get redirected to a commercial, then you can continue your request. Its nice since it works like a TV commercial and you can click to avoid it, the rest of the site does not bog you down with massive commercials like most sites do. It is the least annoying one I know. But I still don't watch any of em (sometmes [rare] i feel like I am missing out on something, but I have a thing, never make up your mind regarding a product/service based on a commercial, EVER, so me not watching them is not a loss for the advertisers.)

    My point with this rant is not that downloading music illegally should be legal, its that the current business model does not make complete sense, and is too reliant on user stupidity (does not know about adblocks)/morality(chooses not to use adblocks) vs being practical...



  • @dlikhten said:

    My point with this rant is not that downloading music illegally should be legal, its that the current business model does not make complete sense, and is too reliant on user stupidity (does not know about adblocks)/morality(chooses not to use adblocks) vs being practical...

    Agreed.

    I bought a Tshirt of a band I went to, after the performance. It was €8. I believe that the profit margins on the T are slightly higher than the CD -- but of course I could be wrong.

    The band fucking rawked, by the way. 



  • @dlikhten said:

    So I noticed people were saying that 

    1) Downloading TV shows is immoral because you are taking away advertising revenue from the maker of the show.

    I recently read a local newspaper. In it there was an article in which the local nation-wide tv station actually confessed that they have gotten increased revenue because of tv-show piracy. Apperently, the fact that people, atleast here watch tv shows before they are bought in from abroad helps them asses what shows are most relevant to invest in, and that the current online viewers will come back to the tv station as they air the show in better quality. I personally see this as an perfect example where adaption rather than reinforcing the old ways will benefit both sides. I might be rambling here and i honestly don't know what im talking about half the time. But its actually very hard to say what is immoral in these cases, is it not?

     I would also like to say, Hello everyone, im new here and i think i come in peace. But that's for you to decide.



  • It is immoral to
    browse without flash.<o:p></o:p>

    It is immoral to browse with lynx.<o:p></o:p>



  •  Ooh, a thread where we argue about... morals?

    From a practical standpoint, if too many people block out ads on things which are provided free and supported by ad revenue, they will eventually either not exist or not be free. 



  • @Eternal Density said:

     Ooh, a thread where we argue about... morals?
     

    Nope, now we can argue about people who suddenly become bored over the weekend and go around resurrecting every thread they can find.

     

    Seriously, WTF?



  • My personal philosophy is, if an ad moves, quivers, flashes, changes colors, or winks at me slyly I block it immediately. Then I block the domain. Then I nix the domain in my hosts file, block it at my router, call my ISP to complain, and set my computer on fire.

    But if it doesn't do that, I let it be, and consider clicking on it if it's interesting and relevant. Take note, advertisers, that's the only way I'll look at your garbage.



  • @Nether said:

    and set my computer on fire.
    You must have millions for disposable income then, that would get expensive fast.



  •  Given that both of these could be considered immoral which is more immoral:

    1. Blocking ads that you don't care about and won't deliberately click on anyway thus depriving the site of potential ad revenue or ..

    2. Displaying ads on a site you like and randomly clicking away on them to drive up that site's revenue without any intent to purchase products or services being advertised thus falsely providing the site with ad revenue at the expense of the advertising client who has paid for the ad/clickthrough 

    Ponder that for a second now lets take it to paper. Specifically, newspaper. I'm one of the few people that still buys these things I think ...

    1. I pay a quarter for the Chronicle (BART discount) the first thing I do is throw away the Mervyn's ads. I paid for the damned paper so this is ok, right? I have no intention of ever shopping at mervyn's despite the irresistable discount on women's knit tops ...

    2. The Examiner is free. So if I read the Examiner am I obliged to read all the ads and patronize these establishments?

    [url=http://adbusters.org/home/]Finally ...[/url]

     

     



  • @medialint said:

     Given that both of these could be considered immoral which is more immoral:

    I'm not going to comment on the morality aspect, but you just linked adbusters which takes away all credibility.  Next time try Pravda.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Next time try Pravda.
     

    Good thinking ... 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    become bored over the weekend
    Actually it was late Monday morning.  I do admit to being bored and failing to notice that the thread had been silent for a week.  Seems to be alive enough now, but I shall take more care in the future.



  • @Eternal Density said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    become bored over the weekend
    Actually it was late Monday morning.  I do admit to being bored and failing to notice that the thread had been silent for a week.  Seems to be alive enough now, but I shall take more care in the future.

    I wouldn't worry about what MPS said much. I was glad to see some of the other opinions, which didn't come out until the thread came back alive. MPS always acts like the thread policeman anyway, complaining every time somebody posts on a thread more than a few days old.



  • I've actually started to write a response to this thread, but it's grown so big that I've posted it on my blog instead. My blog contains no ads though, so I won't be making anything from it anyway!



  • @Sunstorm said:

    I've actually started to write a response to this thread, but it's grown so big that I've posted it on my blog instead. My blog contains no ads though, so I won't be making anything from it anyway!

    Sorry, I only consume content I can steal.  Since you don't have any ads to block I won't be reading your opinion. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Sorry, I only consume content I can steal.  Since you don't have any ads to block I won't be reading your opinion. 
     

    What if I put up some ads?



  • @Sunstorm said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Sorry, I only consume content I can steal.  Since you don't have any ads to block I won't be reading your opinion. 
     

    What if I put up some ads?

    Then you would be a Imperialist-Capitalist pig and I'd be more than happy to steal from you in the name of the people.



  • @pitchingchris said:

    I wouldn't worry about what MPS said much. I was glad to see some of the other opinions, which didn't come out until the thread came back alive. MPS always acts like the thread policeman anyway, complaining every time somebody posts on a thread more than a few days old.

    Maybe this wasn't the best thread for MPS to express the sentiment in, but he was not merely referring to this post.  I hardly think ED's comment was insightful enough to resurrect a week-old thread, but GD moves slower than the the Sidebar and it's not like ED was trolling or being an idiot, so fair enough.  What MPS was referring to is the fact that ED posted 15 comments or so in a 30 minute period to the Sidebar and most of them were completely pointless.  I love having people contribute if they having something useful to say other than "me too!" or lame meme-spewing.  I think MPS was quite reasonable in his complaint and ED seems to have calmed down.  This isn't a personal conflict, it's just about reducing the noise.



  • @dlikhten said:

    By the same logic, blocking ANY website adds is immoral. By blocking website adds (most of which are annoying, flashy, can give people siesures (for those vulnerable)) you are taking away from potential revenue that the website makers could make (same way as TV shows).
     

    So you're saying saying that you just love IntelliText then?

    And also like to see new windows popup with "WARNING, your computer might be at risk!" 

    And don't forget the TV ad that says "BUY DIAPERS!" or "You are in need a loan"

     

    Personally? I don't need a loan and nor does my GNU/Linux is at risk and i certainly doesn't need diapers (been past that age for many years)

    So why read all the crap anyway?

     

    A happy firewall and content blocker user.



  • If an ad is not in the same file as the data I want from a website - I do not need to download the files with the ads - It even saves bandwidth to not fetch them

    In order to block an ad, you must read it - Those who generate ads use computers to generate them - I use computers to read them - If I do not read them a second time, by putting them on the screen, that is my choice

    An ad expects to use the resources of my computer - I am free to deny those resources at will

    Anyone who puts their IP on the web, wants me to make a copy - If I display it as an image on a screen, that is a copy of the original material.

    All computers connected to the net decrypt data - The data is sent to me as a 2 state signal, at a speed and level of radiation that I can not understand without using a decoding tool - in this case my computer

    If you irradiate inside my house, or my car, without my consent, you are trespassing and no longer have exclusive claim to that radiation - If this appears to you, to be 'stealing' your data - stop irradiating me and my house

    If I took a legally obtained cable signal and scrambled it, is that illegal? - What if my scrambling pattern happens to provide what you see as 'a good picture' is that any different ?



  • @justnotright said:

    If an ad is not in the same file as the data I want from a website - I do not need to download the files with the ads - It even saves bandwidth to not fetch them

    In order to block an ad, you must read it - Those who generate ads use computers to generate them - I use computers to read them - If I do not read them a second time, by putting them on the screen, that is my choice

    An ad expects to use the resources of my computer - I am free to deny those resources at will

    Anyone who puts their IP on the web, wants me to make a copy - If I display it as an image on a screen, that is a copy of the original material.

    All computers connected to the net decrypt data - The data is sent to me as a 2 state signal, at a speed and level of radiation that I can not understand without using a decoding tool - in this case my computer

    If you irradiate inside my house, or my car, without my consent, you are trespassing and no longer have exclusive claim to that radiation - If this appears to you, to be 'stealing' your data - stop irradiating me and my house

    If I took a legally obtained cable signal and scrambled it, is that illegal? - What if my scrambling pattern happens to provide what you see as 'a good picture' is that any different ?

    While you make some good points, they are 4 months late.  The last post is from April...  BTW, your whole post could be boiled down to this:  "Blocking ads on websites is the equivalent of going to the bathroom during commercial breaks."

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.