Just because we don't like those companies doesn't mean there isn't some truth to their arguments (regarding Tivo at least, I'm not sure what they bitch at Netflix about).
Just because a company has something to sell, doesn't obligate people to buy it. if you can't get someone to buy it, displaying it for free then griping because people STILL don't want to pay for it, is just frankly ridiculous to me.
To answer your question above, they gripe because they are being disrupted by technology and cannot charge what they want to charge for their product.
That's not how it works. They aren't displaying it for free, they're displaying it in exchange for your attention/time on the accompanying ads.
You don't want to buy it because it causes friction to pay the $0.001 it costs to view the page that the ads take care of. Otherwise if there really is no value on that page, what are you doing there? You prove there is value to you by the act of visiting.
> They aren't displaying it for free, they're displaying it in exchange for your attention/time on the accompanying ads.
> You don't want to buy it because it causes friction to pay the $0.001 it costs to view the page that the ads take care of.
Well, current model also costs me that $0.001 (likely more) in electricity costs and exposes me to at best some ugly-looking crap made with adversarial intent, that has nonzero chance of scamming me into buying something I don't need, and at worst is a vector of malware delivery. It also costs me time wasted on waiting (10x longer load times) and productivity losses due to system slowing down if for some reason I need to keep the site open and do something else.
> You prove there is value to you by the act of visiting
You prove there is potential value by visiting. You won't know if there is an actual value until you at least skim the content. If you're visiting the same site regularly you can start to predict how much value you expect to get out of a visit, but at this point the site owner can probably convince you to pay for it somehow (be it subscription, turning off the ads, selling you their book, etc.).
The electricity costs you mentioned are externalities and not really relevant here. Otherwise you will start blaming everything for every little action you take. If you don't want to browse that site, you can stop at any level from going to that url, starting your browser, buying your computer, living in that country, etc.
When you go shopping, it will likely cost you gas, time, wear/tear, etc just like anything else but do you tally that and ask for a refund on the purchase price?
I also hear this "potential" value argument a lot - why are you continually going to sites that you consider to have no value? Just doesn't make sense. And either way, ads allow you to not lose anything monetarily if you feel that site didn't give you what you expected. It's very a fair and low-risk trade.
> The electricity costs you mentioned are externalities and not really relevant here.
This is very relevant here, because a big part of issue with ads is about dumping externalities on people. When you multiply that small electricity costs by number of people exposed to a bloated, flashy ad you'll see it actually adds up to a decent amount of coal unnecessarily burned. But that's beside the point, I only brought up electricity because it's commensurable to the amount of money ad-serving site makes on me.
> When you go shopping, it will likely cost you gas, time, wear/tear, etc just like anything else but do you tally that and ask for a refund on the purchase price?
I don't ask for refund, but I do tally that and include in my decision about which shop to go to.
> why are you continually going to sites that you consider to have no value?
As I said, if I go to a website regularly, it means that I have some concept of value I may expect to get from it. Bust most of browsing today is driven by a) search results, and b) link aggregators. Most of the websites I visit I visit only once or twice in a lifetime, because there was a link to a particular article on HackerNews, or maybe because it was the first search result for my query. In such situation I do not have concept of value I am about to receive.
> It's very a fair and low-risk trade.
It could be, in principle. It probably would be if the only ads displayed were AdSense ones. But as it is now, getting scammed or catching a drive-by malware is not low-risk trade.
> I don't ask for refund, but I do tally that and include in my decision about which shop to go to.
Then include that in your decision in whether to go to a site with ads. You wouldn't just take things from the store either?
> It could be, in principle. It probably would be if the only ads displayed were AdSense ones. But as it is now, getting scammed or catching a drive-by malware is not low-risk trade.
Scams are a greater issue than to put on advertising. Malware is an issue and I agree with that. The industry does need to work on this and things are changing but that doesn't suddenly make it ok to take. If the risk is too much for you, dont visit the site. Same as if the risk of driving on the freeways is too much, stay off the freeway.
You seem to keep saying you take risk and externalities into account but then say that you have no control and thus rationalize taking content, however you always have the choice of just not going to that link.
I think you are stretching the definition of the word free.
Me looking at something is not a form of payment. The payment is coming from the advertiser. The advertiser is paying the content producer, THAT is the business transaction. Whether I choose to view the ad and make those advertisements have value is not my concern. Those ads are the REAL value and worthy of my payment.
Otherwise viewing the NYT is like watching sunsets, the only way to monetiZe that is by slapping a billboard in front of me, at which point, i go elsewhere
Your attention (via looking or interacting) is the form of payment. This attention is given to the advertisers who pay the publishers who produce the content.
If you went elsewhere, there's no issue. But when you breakdown the billboard and still see the sunset (assuming the sunset is copyrighted and original content) then you're changing the value exchange unfairly.
You can't feed a family on people viewing stuff. Money needs to change hands. The billboard operator charges the advertiser. There is no obligation on the part of the viewer to look at anything.
Under your definition, getting up to go to the bathroom during commericials or making a conscious effort to look away from ads is ...immoral? Illegal? Fraud? There is no contract no quid pro quo.
The content providers are selling real estate. Thats it.
You can because this is how many publishing companies are run today.
The obligation is to accept the ads with the content. It's actually in the terms and service of many sites and doesn't require a signature. This is completely legal and binding, just not easily enforceable.
Sure there might be natural losses due to leaving or not looking at the screen but adblockers are all about your intent to completely remove the ads from the content before you even seen it. That's the issue.
I have a hard time believing those terms of conditions meets the inquiry notice requirements and would stand up in court against anonymous internet users.
I view a website and someone says I owe them my first born, does not make it so.
It wouldnt for many sites but it just wasn't a problem before because the value exchange held. Privacy laws and adblocking are causing these to become more visible with explicit Accept buttons however there's still the obstacle of proving identity online.
Anyways, this is something that paywalls solve entirely so it's a great model, but nobody wants to pay.
