Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 05:28:46 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources Message-ID: <19980504052846.04376@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980503224218.20104J-100000@sasami.jurai.net>; from Matthew N. Dodd on Sun, May 03, 1998 at 10:48:19PM -0400 References: <19980504042132.04003@follo.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980503224218.20104J-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 10:48:19PM -0400, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > > Automated and complete - and in a medium where you've got an absolute > > pay-per-view, not a pay-per-percieved-viewer. Switching channels is > > included in the overhead for television advertising - automatically > > removing all banners should not be. > > We're right now determining the course of future Internet commerce. If > stripping annoying crap out of webpages becomes the norm then one might > expect less annoying crap overall once content sites realized the error of > their ways. Or you can expect less content sites, and _much_ less free content sites. I don't expect you to want to pay for the content - I know I'd rather not. > Finding a way to make money off the net isn't my problem. It appears to > be yours. What I suggest you do is put your employers time to good use > and find a solution that makes your customers happy and stop bickering > about this. I have cow-orkers to do this ;-) However, making sure that I personally get a load of free services is in my personal interest. The fact that _you_ grab the stuff without paying the price (seeing ads) make it less likely that *I* get it for free :-( > > My friends upstairs are spending 60% of their waking time making > > content, and are asking for only one thing in return: That you view the > > ads that are sold in on the pages. Do you feel that taking all revenues > > away from them is the right thing to do, just because your download of > > the content might be slower if you don't steal? > > I'm not stealing. I'm simply opting not to view ad spam (I just realized > something. I'm not using Junk Buster right now so this whole arguement is > academic.) > > You've not answered the Lynx question yet. How is it stealing when I have > a web proxy that doesn't pass web-spam to Netscape but not when I use Lynx > which doesn't load the images anyway. lynx is a known problem, and one that is resolved in one of two ways: (1) Show text ads (at least some do this), and (2) accept it as an overhead cost. For the latter case, lynx is content that the content-providers elect to give out for free, because it's so marginal, and because it doesn't incur them much costs (almost no bandwidth use, for one thing). Not getting income isn't because somebody decided that they just didn't want to do the allow-you-to-earn-money part - it is due to limitations in technology making it harder to deliver ads. There is a difference between a side-effect and a primary effect. > (Hint: You've got no leg to stand on.) I still consider that explictly removing just the banners is akin to copying commercial software, or using public transport without paying, or using the telephone system in ways that give you free calls. More or less all of us have done one or all of these things at some point in time; that doesn't make them right. 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?19980504052846.04376>