The Windows 10 April 2018 update has arrived! Get the new Dell XPS 15, starting at $999.99
07-01-2014 01:13 PM
177 ... 5678
tools
  1. fatclue_98's Avatar
    ​That's like someone saying they pay for XBOX LIVE, so they should be able to pirate the games.
    Not at all. You pay for the access, not the games. When you go to the ball park, do you expect the beer & hot dogs to be free?
    06-24-2014 10:14 AM
  2. anony_mouse's Avatar
    I don't enjoy anything ad-free. Until this thread, I had no idea what AdBlock was, but I quickly educated myself. Ads may be irritating, but I won't pay to not have to see them. After 45 years in this country, I don't know anything but commercials. They bother me no more than a late afternoon thunderstorm in Miami. In other words, I'm used to it and immune from it.
    Then I apologise! I am truly and deeply sorry for any offence caused. I am sure you will now join me in asking those who do use ad blockers when viewing this site to dig deep into their pockets and give something back to the community (i.e. you and me) and those who rely on this site for their living. Scroll up the thread to see their names!
    Reflexx likes this.
    06-24-2014 10:17 AM
  3. Reflexx's Avatar
    What cracks me up here is that people who choose to pirate software,knowingly use pirated software,think it's perfectly fine to do so,then they take umbrage when folks like myself point out that it is theft when they do this.

    Others here apparently don't know the difference between stealing and exercising their rights in blocking adds in their phones and continue to try to cloud the subject of hand.

    Tell you what....let's ask the management here what their take on this issue is,and see what they say about it..
    You make the mistake of thinking that people who disagree with you support piracy.

    I certainly don't.

    However, it's a reality that companies like MS have to deal with. And it is in MS's best interest to look the other way if a person in a 3rd world country pirates a product that they never would have been able to afford otherwise. It's not even a matter of saving up. They would not be able to buy it unless they were recklessly stupid with how they care for their family.

    Why is it in their best interest? Because that creates demand for their product in the workplace. It creates trained users, which encourages businesses to use MS products.

    I'm sure Mobile Nations also takes into account people who use ad blockers and such in order to circumvent their revenue model. But in the case of ad blocking, those "customers" really don't have an excuse of not being able to afford to look at ads.

    Why do you think that advertisements have to be integrated into the news feed?
    anony_mouse and a5cent like this.
    06-24-2014 10:18 AM
  4. fatclue_98's Avatar
    I assume you are referring to this statement? "As for my undies, I just developed that habit very young in life when many ladies saw what brand I wore. Didn't make any money from it but the fringe benefits were awesome." (if not, please let me know which I should look at)

    For me, that doesn't fully answer the question. It appears that you removed to tag to prevent any ladies from finding out what brand of underwear you wore. The curious reader will immediately wish to know why you felt the need to do this - hence my follow up questions.
    No, I was referring to the AdBlock question.

    You have a disturbing obsession with my underwear. Although I was quite the promiscuous type in the late 70s and early 80s, I am quite happily married and monogamous now. Put on some Fruit of the Loom from that period and you'll know why the labels had to go quickly.
    06-24-2014 10:18 AM
  5. Citizen X's Avatar
    I don't agree here. At least to my knowledge, in many countries the penalties for downloading music is much higher than for stealing a magazine.
    To be honest with you in all the western countries I've lived in they don't even enforce laws against downloading for practical reasons. What people get in trouble for is facilitating the sharing. When you use something like bitorrent downloading the song or movie may not be illegal. What is illegal is you uploading pieces of that song or movie to hundreds or possibly thousands of people.

    The reason for this is because if a record label came after you all you would have to do is go to a record store and buy the CD in question and say I already own the CD and just wanted an MP3 of it. Nothing illegal with that. How are they to prove when you bought the CD or DVD?

    Go back and look at all the cases you are thinking about. I guarantee the person got busted because they were using some kind of peer to peer software that was uploading to other people... or they had a server that facilitated such activity. And most of the time small fries get in CIVIL trouble for their file sharing activities where as with shoplifting that is always handled in the CRIMINAL courts.
    Chregu likes this.
    06-24-2014 10:18 AM
  6. Reflexx's Avatar
    When your intellectual property is stolen you won't be delving into such semantics. You will want a cash payment... the same as anyone who's property has been stolen.

    ...and that's called copyright infringement.

    You act as if Chergu has stated that it's somehow ethical to pirate. He never made such a claim at all. In fact, he's stated the opposite.
    Chregu and a5cent like this.
    06-24-2014 10:21 AM
  7. Reflexx's Avatar
    I don't want to make a big deal out of it. It was just mentioned initially, and since then some users are claiming it's a way to downplay the issue. That's just not what it is.
    It's very similar in my eyes.

    I do neither because they are both ethically wrong.

    Chregu and a5cent like this.
    06-24-2014 10:23 AM
  8. Reflexx's Avatar
    We don't have to contribute to this site's costs because the site administrator doesn't require it. There's nothing to justify. If they needed help there would be a "donate" button somewhere for us to contribute.
    The site was based on a revenue model that displays ads. It's part of the package of the site.

    The fact that they still let you use it without spending time and energy trying to detect ad blockers doesn't change the fact. It's just part of business. They understand some users will circumvent the model by using ad blockers just like MS understands that people in 3rd world countries may pirate their products. It's not worth the time and energy to pursue.
    Chregu likes this.
    06-24-2014 10:27 AM
  9. Reflexx's Avatar
    Could we stop the underwear talk. You're all freaking me out. lol
    a5cent likes this.
    06-24-2014 10:29 AM
  10. Reflexx's Avatar
    Not at all. You pay for the access, not the games. When you go to the ball park, do you expect the beer & hot dogs to be free?
    And with websites, with the access, come ads.

    The act of blocking the payment method for access is like finding a way to get those hot dogs for free. Walk into the back door and grab some.
    Chregu likes this.
    06-24-2014 10:32 AM
  11. Chregu's Avatar
    To be honest with you in all the western countries I've lived in they don't even enforce laws against downloading for practical reasons. What people get in trouble for is facilitating the sharing. When you use something like bitorrent downloading the song or movie may not be illegal. What is illegal is you uploading pieces of that song or movie to hundreds or possibly thousands of people.

    The reason for this is because if a record label came after you all you would have to do is go to a record store and buy the CD in question and say I already own the CD and just wanted an MP3 of it. Nothing illegal with that. How are they to prove when you bought the CD or DVD?

    Go back and look at all the cases you are thinking about. I guarantee the person got busted because they were using some kind of peer to peer software that was uploading to other people... or they had a server that facilitated such activity. And most of the time small fries get in CIVIL trouble for their file sharing activities where as with shoplifting that is always handled in the CRIMINAL courts.
    Okay, I do agree. Somehow my brain skipped that we were talking exclusively about downloading songs, somehow I thought about sharing and uploading (not limited to music). In Switzerland downloading of music and movies is entirely legal.
    06-24-2014 10:33 AM
  12. anony_mouse's Avatar
    No, I was referring to the AdBlock question.
    To be honest, I didn't find your answers really satisfied my curiousty. Let me phrase the question in another way. If someone (not you obviously!) uses an ad blocker while accessing this site, should they make a financial (or equivalent) contribution to:
    a) the people who rely on this site to earn a living?
    b) other users, such as you and me, who don't use an ad blocker?

    You have a disturbing obsession with my underwear. Although I was quite the promiscuous type in the late 70s and early 80s, I am quite happily married and monogamous now. Put on some Fruit of the Loom from that period and you'll know why the labels had to go quickly.
    Once you had raised the subject, you must have expected such interest! Unfortunately I don't have any 'fruit of the loom' underpants to hand so I'm still in the dark about why the labels had to be removed. Were these labels unusually abrasive, or long and liable to get painfully tangled up with various objects? Was the brand the subject of derision amongst the ladies of the era? Did they feature distracting image?
    Chregu and anon(8150199) like this.
    06-24-2014 10:33 AM
  13. Chregu's Avatar
    Could we stop the underwear talk. You're all freaking me out. lol
    Please let them go on, it's the most hilarious thing I have ever read!
    Citizen X and anon(8150199) like this.
    06-24-2014 10:35 AM
  14. Citizen X's Avatar
    ...and that's called copyright infringement.

    You act as if Chergu has stated that it's somehow ethical to pirate. He never made such a claim at all. In fact, he's stated the opposite.
    Chergu, clearly isn't doing that. But you can't deny that often on the internet that semantic difference is pointed out by others in an attempt to make piracy seem less bad than it actually is. Anyway Chergu and I have moved on and are discussing other matters.
    Chregu likes this.
    06-24-2014 10:43 AM
  15. Citizen X's Avatar
    Okay, I do agree. Somehow my brain skipped that we were talking exclusively about downloading songs, somehow I thought about sharing and uploading (not limited to music). In Switzerland downloading of music and movies is entirely legal.
    Lol. I think we jumped around a bit and once these discussions get technical you have to start separating out different activities and geographic locations. There are a lot of technicalities.

    I am not a lawyer but I think if you own a DVD or CD you can download it off the internet in the US. The problem is you must make sure whatever you use to download it isn't uploading at the same time. To be honest with you I have downloaded things on several occasions. I have downloaded copies of damaged CDs. I've downloaded copies of CDs I forgot at home. If I misplace a CD in my house I will download a copy of it. The thing is I own a copy of the CD already so there is no harm.

    The RIAA is going after the low hanging fruit. If you use a good VPN or you only download the chances of them ever bothering you are pretty much zero. But if you set up a computer in your study and are perpetually sharing even 24 songs you could be in for a big six figure civil penalty in the US.
    Chregu likes this.
    06-24-2014 11:00 AM
  16. Reflexx's Avatar
    Chergu, clearly isn't doing that. But you can't deny that often on the internet that semantic difference is pointed out by others in an attempt to make piracy seem less bad than it actually is. Anyway Chergu and I have moved on and are discussing other matters.
    Okay. But to be fair to everyone in this thread, we should try to not judge each other based on what some random people on the internet say or do.
    Chregu and a5cent like this.
    06-24-2014 11:02 AM
  17. Reflexx's Avatar
    Lol. I think we jumped around a bit and once these discussions get technical you have to start separating out different activities and geographic locations. There are a lot of technicalities.

    I am not a lawyer but I think if you own a DVD or CD you can download it off the internet in the US. The problem is you must make sure whatever you use to download it isn't uploading at the same time. To be honest with you I have downloaded things on several occasions. I have downloaded copies of damaged CDs. I've downloaded copies of CDs I forgot at home. If I misplace a CD in my house I will download a copy of it. The thing is I own a copy of the CD already so there is no harm.

    The RIAA is going after the low hanging fruit. If you use a good VPN or you only download the chances of them ever bothering you are pretty much zero. But if you set up a computer in your study and are perpetually sharing even 24 songs you could be in for a big six figure civil penalty in the US.

    I admit that I have downloaded music for old cassette tapes that I owned. I can't even find the tapes anymore... and even if I couldn't I don't have anything to play them with!

    Some of then aren't sold anymore. Some I eventually bought on CD again. Some I've bought multiple times and still have lost all my copies through the years.
    Last edited by Reflexx; 06-24-2014 at 11:36 AM.
    06-24-2014 11:05 AM
  18. fatclue_98's Avatar
    To be honest, I didn't find your answers really satisfied my curiousty. Let me phrase the question in another way. If someone (not you obviously!) uses an ad blocker while accessing this site, should they make a financial (or equivalent) contribution to:
    a) the people who rely on this site to earn a living?
    b) other users, such as you and me, who don't use an ad blocker?



    Once you had raised the subject, you must have expected such interest! Unfortunately I don't have any 'fruit of the loom' underpants to hand so I'm still in the dark about why the labels had to be removed. Were these labels unusually abrasive, or long and liable to get painfully tangled up with various objects? Was the brand the subject of derision amongst the ladies of the era? Did they feature distracting image?
    Yes they were quite abrasive. The ad campaign of the era was ridiculous. So much so that they put colored bands on the elastic because so many were ripping off the tags.


    Sent from my iPhone using WPCentral Forums
    06-24-2014 11:55 AM
  19. MrWhiteman's Avatar
    To be honest, I didn't find your answers really satisfied my curiousty. Let me phrase the question in another way. If someone (not you obviously!) uses an ad blocker while accessing this site, should they make a financial (or equivalent) contribution to:
    a) the people who rely on this site to earn a living?
    b) other users, such as you and me, who don't use an ad blocker?
    ?
    Its no different from switching off the TV while the adverts are on or picking another radio station while the adverts are playing. The money is made for the advertising itself, not for each person watching the advert. Should people who don't visit these websites pay as well? The adverts are there whether people are on the site or not.
    07-01-2014 02:59 AM
  20. Chregu's Avatar
    Its no different from switching off the TV while the adverts are on or picking another radio station while the adverts are playing. The money is made for the advertising itself, not for each person watching the advert. Should people who don't visit these websites pay as well? The adverts are there whether people are on the site or not.
    I don't think that's true.

    There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue.
    Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love | Ars Technica

    For me it's amazing how people here are so much against piracy, while they try to justify by all means the consumption of content that is financed by ads while blocking these ads. I guess it's a good example how people can be influenced by campaigns. There's no common sense anymore to decide what's good and bad, bad is what people are being told is bad.

    Piracy is bad, we all agree on that. Destroying a website's revenue by blocking their ads is not bad, because nobody is screaming loud enough that it is bad?

    That's what I call double standards.
    a5cent likes this.
    07-01-2014 06:25 AM
  21. MDMcAtee's Avatar
    It's not double standards. While ars may try to keep those pop up ads,flash ads,and all of the other offensive ads to a minimum,there are plenty of sites that di not. If a site that you visit doesn't ascribe to ars's model,and causes a individual issues with their browsers,then they don't get white listed. What many sites fail to take into account is how many mobile users are visiting and the viewing experience is crappy because of these intrusive adds.

    If a site doesn't offer a reasonable premium plan that is add free..then that is their failing,not the individuals visiting the site.
    07-01-2014 06:54 AM
  22. Chregu's Avatar
    It's not double standards. While ars may try to keep those pop up ads,flash ads,and all of the other offensive ads to a minimum,there are plenty of sites that di not. If a site that you visit doesn't ascribe to ars's model,and causes a individual issues with their browsers,then they don't get white listed. What many sites fail to take into account is how many mobile users are visiting and the viewing experience is crappy because of these intrusive adds.

    If a site doesn't offer a reasonable premium plan that is add free..then that is their failing,not the individuals visiting the site.
    Great, I think it's more than fair to decide for yourself if the advertisements on a site is appropriate or not. But instead of just avoiding the homepage if you think it's too much, you still consume its content, you even use technical measures to avoid the ads and get the stuff for free.

    It's like saying: Well, if a game is good I buy it, but if it's not I just pirate it, they could have decided to make a better game or sell it for less!
    07-01-2014 07:36 AM
  23. fatclue_98's Avatar
    If something is listed as free and there is nothing in the T&C that specifies otherwise, the piracy argument is invalid. However, if it's plainly stated that to receive the free goods or services you must register with the site or something similar, then I'll buy it.

    As someone else mentioned, it's like muting the commercials or taking a dump to avoid them. TV stations don't require viewers to watch commercials to see their programming.


    Sent from my iPhone using WPCentral Forums
    07-01-2014 11:42 AM
  24. Chregu's Avatar
    If something is listed as free and there is nothing in the T&C that specifies otherwise, the piracy argument is invalid. However, if it's plainly stated that to receive the free goods or services you must register with the site or something similar, then I'll buy it.

    As someone else mentioned, it's like muting the commercials or taking a dump to avoid them. TV stations don't require viewers to watch commercials to see their programming.
    I'm glad to have you back, I almost thought you were serious with your announcement to ignore me.

    Well, as long as nobody takes this to court we don't know whether it is really legal or not. However when adblockers are becoming more and more common, this could be a real scenario soon.

    At least Google already started to fight against them: Google Play Bans Ad Blocking - InformationWeek

    Also, as long as the TV commercials run on TV the station gets paid. It doesn't matter whether you, as you describe so figuratively, thanks for that by the way, do something else. However if you block ads on websites, the website won't get paid.

    And there are actually quite a few sites, mostly news papers, that started to charge for full access, mostly because of adblockers.

    I'm not asking you to look at ads on homepages, you can mute them, you can ignore them. I'm not asking to stop using adblockers, as I said, it's not illegal, nobody will stop you. I'm just asking the question why it's okay for you personally to cut a business' winning in this case, but it is wrong in another case.

    I don't understand your reasoning and you didn't provide me with a single good argument why you think this is okay.

    Or let me ask this question: Is the only reason you think pirating is bad the License Terms pop-up?
    07-01-2014 12:14 PM
  25. fatclue_98's Avatar
    I've never said it's ok one way or the other. Pirating copyrighted material is wrong here or in Mars. As I mentioned previously, if there's nothing in the T&Cs stating mandatory ad viewing, there's nothing wrong with blocking them. You can't compare the two because one carries a copyright and the other doesn't. There are international laws that govern copyrights. I'm not aware of any governing body for ads.


    Sent from my iPhone using WPCentral Forums
    07-01-2014 12:22 PM
177 ... 5678

Similar Threads

  1. problem in installing asphalt8
    By d_vinay in forum Windows Phone 8.1
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-17-2014, 09:52 AM
  2. What WIndows phones are the WPCentral.com team using?
    By thatuxguy in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-23-2014, 09:49 AM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-22-2014, 01:50 PM
  4. Microsoft Bing now focusing internationally in 75 markets
    By 12Danny123 in forum Microsoft News & Rumors
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-22-2014, 10:39 AM
  5. Windows Phone Maps Crashed
    By WPCentral Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2014, 05:51 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD