(Nice article and all, but the implicit question posed by the headline is a no-brainer.)
(Nice article and all, but the implicit question posed by the headline is a no-brainer.)
Once in a while an inadequately wary tourist accepts the freebie, and then they’re accosted angrily for payment/gratuity.
I understand it’s not a perfect analogy, but the bottom line is largely the same: if you give your content away for free, you want payment, you aren’t owed payment. Giving stuff away for free and then crying about the payment you’re owed is a bait and switch.
2) They put content up for free on their sites. I put a regulator on the instructions my CPU runs. They're free to detect the ad blocker and block access.
3) copyright is BS.
If websites don't like that users have the ability to block ads, then a new ad delivery mechanism is needed, or possibly a different revenue model. For example many youtubers now have sponsored sections directly in their video. The only way to avoid it is to fast forward through it.
People have every right to control their computer, their network, and what happens to data once it has arrived. Depending on something as squishy as ethics for your revenue is pretty risky.
If you want people to pay for something, ask them upfront to pay or don't expose it to the public.
No, of course I don't. If you demand a particular behavior from a reader, then enforce it. Otherwise, don't complain if it's ignored.
[1]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbe...
When a website comes to your computer, and you choose to digest it in the manner you see fit, our using YOUR resources the way YOU see fit.
The content creator wants you to use your resources the way THEY see fit. They ... can’t really demand that.
As opposed to charging a subscription fee, in which you are aligned in wanting to use your resources in a way you both find satisfying.
Huh. Turns out you do have control over your property, after all.