On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote: > Mark Watson wrote: > > > > Modifying the content of others is not a good technical approach for > > that business proposition. When you modify computer software created > > by someone else - without coordination or permission - you create a > > new piece of software that the original creator has had no > > opportunity to test. > > > > I'm not disagreeing. I merely stated that one person's malware is > another person's opted-into preference. Legislating against malware is > one thing, legislating against legitimate businesses and the customers > who choose them (and have been doing so for two decades) is another. > I'm suggesting that a technical solution based on modification of others pages / code without consent is not legitimate. The business arrangement between ISP and customer (exchange free access for ads, say) is completely legitimate, but the technical implementation should not impact innocent, non-consenting bystanders by modifying - and often breaking - their services. Just yesterday I agreed to watch a video ad in return for free internet access at an airport. It worked fine. They didn't modify anybody's code or otherwise interfere with my internet access, they just asked that I watch the ad before enabling internet access. Inserting ads into someone else's page is no different in principle from modifying the ads that page is itself serving (since user attention per ad is diluted). Many would consider that to be theft of ad revenue. …Mark > > -Eric >
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 15:22:32 UTC