Computers act against the intentions of most people because they're not aware of their choices. So I help show them what is available and to use them.
The anti-adblocker crowd is just plain stupid. And from being a system engineer for many years, you can't fix stupid.
By the same logic if I don't feel like having my own computer send someone else's computer some metadata about my viewing experience then there is nothing they can do about it. My computer, my rules.
See: https://www.iflscience.com/eyetracking-moviepass-app-will-pa...
There’s certainly a not unreasonable argument that it is if you agreed to watch ads in exchange for getting something. If you do a project for me and I agree to pay you after I receive your invoice and then stop accepting mail, refuse all emails, ignore all phone calls, run away from you when I see you in person and otherwise do everything possible to prevent myself from receiving your invoice, wouldn’t you consider that theft of services?
That isn’t to say I think all ad blocking is theft of services, nor to say that something like broadcasting with ads constitutes an agreement or even that abuse of ads in such an agreement wouldn’t justify blocking ads. Just that the argument is not unreasonable
It is unfortunate for some that this does not apply to online content. Because though vendors of online content might like to pretend that such an agreement is in place, that agreement is at best implicit. No one asked me, and I agreed to no such thing, no matter the fantasies of of the ad suppliers.
So, no; the argument is entirely unreasonable, and falls down at its core premise.
How many ads did I agree to? How long? Did I agree for them to harvest and sell my info to 3rd parties? And which ones? Did I agree to Equifax selling out my private info (including salary history) via The Work Number?
These corporations have been stealing from me forever using their lawyer thugs and endless microscopic print while having no option but to say "yes" to everything. Are you going to live without a cellular phone plan in 2023? Or internet? Or a car that is now a SaaS that tracks you via GPS and sells it to god-knows-who. Farmers can't even own their tractors today if John Deere gets their way. The rent-seeking is all a bit too much.
the farmers won the John Deere argument! .. i didn't read the article but half my family is farmers and they were excited about it.
Classic "felony contempt of business model" play
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
> First and most importantly, ads were still being served via the stream; it was just happening via whatever third-party client the user was using. The main difference here is the app being used, and honestly, is that really such a bad thing?
From their perspective, they likely thought so. The amount of user tracking and spying data they can hoover up via an app., which is not available to them from someone using VLC (or another player) is huge, and it is very likely that a huge part of their monetization of Pluto TV streams comes from the tracking data they can hoover up via their app.
No app., no tracking data, no tracking data means lost profits from selling the same. So of course they try to abuse the DMCA as best they can to claw back those lost profits.