But that's just it. The terms weren't clear when the transaction occurred. To me, temporal order is important. It's basically the concept of "informed consent."
> I have a problem with that consent being part of a deal and you withholding it while still accepting what it was being traded for.
Again, the order of events matters.
> I'm still not understanding your argument that you feel justified in taking something when you know you aren't supposed to have/use it.
I disagree about whether I'm "supposed" to have it. I don't have a problem with acquiring something in a transaction (and agreeing to all terms at the moment of the transaction) and then using it in a way the other party did not intend.
> I may have fruit in my hands at the store while approaching the counter, but they aren't mine until I've paid. If I choose not to pay, it's my responsibility to return ownership to the store (or in the case of a non-tangible good, to not utilize it).
But in your analogy, I bought the fruit at the time. The store teller told me the price, I paid it, and the teller sent me on my way. Then I got home, opened the bag of fruit, and found a note that says "the purchaser of this fruit hereby agrees to not bake this fruit into a pie." My position is that I simply do not care about this note. I acquired the fruit in a transaction which clearly did not involve that term. I will not return the fruit and I'll bake it into a pie if I please.
Only inasmuch as when you decide to continue or bail on the deal.
> But in your analogy, I bought the fruit at the time. The store teller told me the price, I paid it, and the teller sent me on my way. Then I got home, opened the bag of fruit, and found a note that says "the purchaser of this fruit hereby agrees to not bake this fruit into a pie."
That's not my analogy at all. I think my description fits rather well. When in the store holding the fruit prior to paying, is equivalent to the point you've retrieved content but have not yet viewed it. At the register is when you are presented with the choice, view with ads, or go somewhere else. By running an ad blocker, you skip the register entirely. You pick up fruit, and walk out the door.
> My position is that I simply do not care about this note. I acquired the fruit in a transaction which clearly did not involve that term.
In my example, the payment is at the register is the only transaction. If that's not money, then maybe it's the clerk saying "you can have that fruit free as long as you promise not to cook a pie with it." You've apparently convinced yourself it's okay to agree to this and then ignore the stipulation later.
> I will not return the fruit and I'll bake it into a pie if I please.
If you paid for it, yes. But somehow you've paid for it AND gotten a rider on it's usage, which has never entered our discussion until this point, and is not something I've been arguing.
> When in the store holding the fruit prior to paying, is equivalent to the point you've retrieved content but have not yet viewed it.
That's not correct. Retrieving content over the Internet consists of explicitly requesting a resource and the server explicitly returning the resource. This isn't some technicality. It's how computer networks are deliberately designed. There are plenty of ways to control access to a resource if the content owner so desires.
If you go into a store, ask the store owner if you can take the fruit without paying, and the store owner obliges, then I think it's acceptable to do so.
But the store owner is telling you how you are supposed to take the friut if you want it free, you've just decided to listen selectively (with an ad blocker).
But that's just it. The terms weren't clear when the transaction occurred. To me, temporal order is important. It's basically the concept of "informed consent."
> I have a problem with that consent being part of a deal and you withholding it while still accepting what it was being traded for.
Again, the order of events matters.
> I'm still not understanding your argument that you feel justified in taking something when you know you aren't supposed to have/use it.
I disagree about whether I'm "supposed" to have it. I don't have a problem with acquiring something in a transaction (and agreeing to all terms at the moment of the transaction) and then using it in a way the other party did not intend.
> I may have fruit in my hands at the store while approaching the counter, but they aren't mine until I've paid. If I choose not to pay, it's my responsibility to return ownership to the store (or in the case of a non-tangible good, to not utilize it).
But in your analogy, I bought the fruit at the time. The store teller told me the price, I paid it, and the teller sent me on my way. Then I got home, opened the bag of fruit, and found a note that says "the purchaser of this fruit hereby agrees to not bake this fruit into a pie." My position is that I simply do not care about this note. I acquired the fruit in a transaction which clearly did not involve that term. I will not return the fruit and I'll bake it into a pie if I please.