Hacker News Reader

Comment by PostOnce | Hacker News Reader

I would think it's more likely they legislate against us, i.e. making it a crime to circumvent advertising (see: circumventing DRM).

View on HN

DMCA was hard to get people upset about. It was all new stuff that most people didn't understand or care about. This was before Napster, even.

People clearly care about net neutrality, and they would/do also care about browser ad blocking. At this point it's clear to people what the issue is and how it affects them. Taking something away from people is much more painful than preventing them from getting it in the first place.

Even if there could be enough lobbying pressure to seriously propose such a law, it would be deeply unpopular and have difficulty passing.

You wouldn't download a car, you wouldn't block an ad! :)

As always: I would download a car if I could :).

Fun fact: the line of the ad was twisted by internet people for meming purposes. The actual line is "You wouldn't steal a car".

I always thought a good answer to this was "well I'd think about copying a car if I could..."

How sweet would that be? Friend gets a car, I make a copy of it at zero cost!

I guess the standard answer to that would be "but you're depriving the manufacturer of money to cover the costs of providing the car in the first place"

Which is reasonable, but I'd have to question their business model if their manufacturing costs are so high and yet I can copy it for free ...

Nah, the standard answer isn't reasonable. They're depriving themselves of that money by choosing a business model that matches neither the customer needs nor physical reality.

In hopes it'll one day turn into a catchphrase: no one is entitled to have a particular business model working for them forever.

In fairness I'd give them that much. There is a quid pro quo between me having a need, and a business providing that need. If it's not commercially viable for a business to then perhaps my need may go unfulfilled.

What irks me is that such a gracious outlook leaves me open to being gouged by profiteers.

So copying it is!

I believe they tried, but it basically never made it out of committee as it's basically the same as banning people from using a highlighter on a book. It became very very clear that not only was it not enforceable but trying to go after the people supplying the adblocker would run into serious human rights issues.

Yep, this is what greedy corporations are willing to do to protect their profit margins.

It's already copyright infringement. In USA Fair Use probably does the necessary; but in UK I'm pretty sure it's infringing (you've modified the work without permission).

I wish them good luck with that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com