Getting quoted from a post made in 2015 suprised me, but I am still here to reply back
.
I do think you are missing here something. It is not the question, what you are technically able to do. It si the question that if you use something, you should also pay for it.
I think you are missing the point. What you say is not right. Easy as that.
YES, if I use something (which costs), then I should pay for it,
IF YOU tell me in advance that I have to pay if I use it.
That is the whole point you are missing.
I will explain this further by using your example below.
The distribution channel of websites is the internet. That is the only way to offer thier service. Just because you have internet access this does not mean that everything that you can access with your internet connection has to be for free.
I never said that. So basically you pull a straw mans, as I never said something similar to this. Where did I say or meant that everything on the internet has to be free?
It is the same like with a magazine at a newspaper stand. The newspaperstand is the distribution channel.
Right. Good example, but below you will see how you misuse your example.
Scenario A: Now you can go there, read the magazine there without paying for it and leaving afterwards the newspaperstand. You had access to the content for free and left the shop without paying anything although you knwo, that this magazine can not survive without sales.
That is not how real life works. I can't go to a newspaperstand and read all the magazines there without paying. I have to pay before I can use it. Where do you live that you can use newspapers for free? In which country? If it is a fruits-stand or a newspaperstand, I know in advance that I have to pay before I can use those items or fruits. That is how real life is structured. There are shops and stores and stands, and if you want something, you pay before you can use it.
And this is what you are skipping in your example. In advance you tell people that they have to pay for it if they use the newspapers or whatever. You don't even tell it, real life is structured like that so you know that is the normal behaviour.
But now look at websites. They don't tell you in advance nothing. When I go to a newspaperstand, I have to give ACTIVELY my money to use those items. Actively, with conscious, with deciding in my mind... which means I have an agreement.
Whereas websites these days earn revenue from me or from you or from anyone else, WITHOUT getting explicitly my agreement! They trick people. If I knew earlier before I enter a website, that they will earn money from me without asking me, I would have never visited that site.
But that is the tricking here. They let everybody get in for free, make it look that everything is for free, and without you noticing they earn money from you!
So basically you make the newspaperstand look like a place where you can get magazines for free. Now once I use those magazines, for which I actively hadn't to pay anything, now at the end you earn money from me. Where did I agree to that? You tricked me! Either don't let me in to your website or deal with it that I will come with an adblocker. Easy as that.
This is what you do currently with websites. From a moral standpoint not really something you should feel good about.
Lol. I feel totally good doing that. Sorry, but every website who earns money by using people without having their agreements should feel bad about it. They abuse the system and I should feel sorry for them?
Scenario B: Or you go to the newspaperstand, look whether the magazine has interesting articles in it and then buy the magazine. There you pay real money out of your own pocket.
Yes, that is how real life works. I have to decide ACTIVELY if I want to make those men earn money out of me. I decide, not them. And if I agree with what they offer (a newspaper, chocolate, milk, etc.), I give them their revenue in exchange. But I decide.
If you compare scenario B with websites, than it is even better for you on the internet with ads . Just by Seeing ads you do not pay anything. With the magazin, you pay your own 5 USD. Looking at ads on a website costs you nothing. It is just less "convenient".
Whereas in this example I can't decide anything at all. You tricked me in your website and you decided for me that now you earn money out of me.
And what is the trick here? Yeah:
"Looking at ads on a website doesn't cost me anything!"
Nice trick. It never gets old. It is the same scam lottery people do. Do you know those little one-man-stands before stores or shops or in alleys? They tell you something like this: "We have a lottery and you can win a car!!! The only thing for you to do is to fill out this form, and give your signature. And in the lottery there are many things to win. A car, a ticket to Hawaii, multiple voucher codes for hundreds of dollars, etc. etc. It doesn't cost you anything, just fill in the form."
So you ask yourself, where is the catch here? It is for free and if I am lucky I can win something. Like those websites on the internet. Wait, what? I can use all those websites for free, I have access without a problem? Nice....
So where is the catch? Those lottery people collect your data from these forms (and they have your signature), now they sell these data to companies. And you get spam ads by phone, e-mail or post from then on. THAT IS THE CATCH.
Like the catch you earned money from all those visitors who visited your website and thought "it is for free". The catch was they earn money from your clicks, WITHOUT you noticing and agreeing.
So next time before you make an example, think it through.