So if websites sent you a license agreement before serving content, which required you to load the ads for that content as the condition of viewing it, would blocking ads at that point be illegal?

If this became a standard, automatic component of the web and of browsers, known at install time, wouldn't that move ad blocking into poor legal territory?

IANAL so I can't answer your question. But I think we can posit a world in which advertisers have garnered enough political clout to enact anti-ad blocking laws and that would shift the conversation.

At that point it still wouldn't be equivalent to pirating, IMO, but rather more like using DeCSS to circumvent DVD scrambling.

>At that point it still wouldn't be equivalent to pirating, IMO, but rather more like using DeCSS to circumvent DVD scrambling.

You're not paying. This seems more like borrowing a DVD from a library or friend, then ripping it using such software and watching it after you return it.

It's not, the creators (the website) directly gave it to me. I'm not borrowing it from someone that paid. My browser sent them a GET and they replied with 200 OK and some content. Whether I paid or not is irrelevant; they voluntarily gave it to me.

Do you read every sites' TOS first to make sure they don't outlaw ad-blocking? If they do, it may be illegal under the CFAA, although there seems to to be conflicting precedents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Drew says TOS aren't CFAA, but the law that tried to make it explicit failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#A... In any event, it would be breach of contract.)

See also http://www.cnet.com/news/web-ad-blocking-may-not-be-entirely...

IANAL so I don't know whether I am required to read or obey a site's TOS, or which parts of a TOS are legally binding or not. My intuition is that they cannot restrict me from blocking ads with their TOS, but again IANAL so it's possible I'm wrong here.

See http://harknesslabs.com/post/133804756984/are-adblock-compan... and HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10615889

BS.

There is no contract if I have not signed anything. Viewing a website does not constitute a contract.

Websites can take their TOS and shove them up their asses.

If they don't want me seeing content without blocking ads, they are free to refuse to send me that content without me proving I've viewed the ads.

It depends. See https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-t...

That's talking about "click-wrap" agreements. That's where they show you a bunch of legalese, and then you have to click on a button that says "I agree" after it. Clicking "I agree" assumes the user has read that and agrees to the terms.

Just browsing to a website is not like that. There's no place where you have to read any TOS and click "I agree" when you go to abcnews.com or whatever.

It discusses both. "Nevertheless, some courts have been willing to make browsewraps enforceable under certain circumstances. " The link is broken and should be https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/decision-23jan04...

Contracts are formed by offer and acceptance, a signature can be a method of documenting acceptance, but, except for certain kinds of contracts specially designated in law, are not required for a contract to be formed.

A TOS on a different page that you didn't present before sending any "content" such that there is an opportunity to either accept or reject the offer is not a contract. Contracts are not a "gotcha" that you can surprise people with nor are they established without an understanding by both parties of the obligations that would be created by a contract (the "meeting of the minds").

If you present reasonable[1] terms first, then receive some type of notification that the terms were accepted (as you say, signature is not the only option), only then will a contract formed that could obligate someone to not run an ad blocker.

[1] unconscionable or misleading terms are unacceptable and can get the contract - whole or in part - thrown out.