Except that you are wrong. If either party breaks a bone or needs stitches or any kind of substantial treatment it becomes aggravated assault.
I've seen only a few boxing matches but plenty of times one of the boxers has a cut that requires stitches, indeed this often happens in rugby matches too. You're saying that in these cases an aggravated assault has occurred and that the parties can't consent to their participation? Boxing is illegal in which case?
Yes a mutually agreed fight is different to a dual, a fight is just that, a fight to the death is quite different.
I'd prefer it to unblock by service (eg. let me tell it "Allow Google AdSense text-only ads through regardless of site."), but as it stands the proposal is hardly a neutering of ABP in any way.
Can't you do that by altering the filter settings?
Yes. You also cant tell someone on the street that "I am not responsible for any thing that may happen if you take this free fight with me. Go ahead if you are really sure..." and you happen to kill him. You will be responsible, even if it was free and you warned.
The person of average intelligence knows that fighting someone will cause harm and possibly death. They have no way of knowing if a particular item of food of edible appearance will kill you.
That said, I'm pretty sure that boxers aren't liable if the other party dies, same as playing a sport - a "free fight" is basically a bareknuckle boxing match is both parties agree to it. YMMV.
Yes there are! Being happy. Healthy. Fulfilled. Having an interesting life. Loving and being loved.
Being rich isn't a prerequisite for any of them - and it doesn't bring any of them on its own.
That's what poor people like to tell themselves, but it's not really true -- rich people are, in the aggregate, happier than poor people. Being rich doesn't make you happy per se, but it can sure help you avoid a lot of the things that make you unhappy. And there's no reason to believe that being rich makes any of that happy-generating life events more difficult or less likely.
I don't think poor people tell themselves that. I live below the poverty line (according to our UK governments figures) and work 2 jobs. Being rich would make me happier but that's because the problems in my life I genuinely feel are directly money related.
Not knowing if I can afford to pay the bills each month. Not being able to afford to eat healthily. Not being able to afford to take time off, nevermind take a holiday. No time for socialising, exercising properly,...
Mind you all these problems could be solved if you paid off my mortgage (about 80k GBP)... but I'm sure I'd find something to bitch about.
The price that you can sell at is the price someone is willing to pay. If you price it too high, especially for a big corp, then it's cheaper for them to start over and wipe you out leaving you with nothing (not even the business you had, possibly with some big debts and the stigma of a failed corp to drive off the investors).
You should of course start at the position above what you would most like to get from the deal but not so high that the other party thinks you're trying to gouge them.
It all seems pretty clear. A lot of the glyphs are recognisable to me, I've holidayed in Greece, studied physics and so can read the modern greek alphabet enough to use look up greek translations. As I'm a noob I'd have thought a greek scholar could just read that off.
I'd have thought that the letters could be used in a Greek version of recaptcha? Then it's just down to machine translation, or am I wrong?
The problem with these sorts of studies is they lump in the fixed and variable costs for car ownership. The only way you get rid of the fixed costs (like insurance and registration) is to get rid of the car altogether,...
In the UK these are both variable to an extent. Insurance costs less if you can guarantee a low mileage, with a hefty extra to pay if you go over. Registration is fixed, but if you park off road and don't use the car you can claim back your "road tax" in advance in monthly chunks. So you could mothball the car for the summer, say.
An apples-to-apples comparison should assume only the cost of maintaining/operating one car vs. the cost of one person commuting by mass transit.
A couple of years ago my wife and I lived without a car for a year.Then another year with a scooter.
Long trips it was always far cheaper to hire a car than it was to take the train. Very close price-wise if it had been one travelling. Very long trips then the prices were similar due to lots of petrol.
We'd get a brand new car delivered to our door. This compared to walking a mile to the station (or take 2 buses at £4 total or a taxi at £7) then paying twice as much as the hire car + petrol for our fare and not even getting a seat on some occasions (and getting turfed out of the spare seats in first class on one occasion when travelling with an 18month old - yes they made me stand and hold the baby despite not having a seat for us, the conductor said there were seats at the other end of the train, have you tried walking on a fast moving packed train carrying something heavy and delicate, he did give an alternative a £200 ticket OR get off; I digress). Then you have to connect with a bus at the other end and finish with usually a short walk (though with heavy bags this can be a pain). Now if the train was even the same price I'd use it. But we've got to eat.
Back when I could afford to go shopping high car park costs meant that going to the next city on the train was cheaper and reasonably convenient once you got to the station at our end.
The scooter however was probably the most cost-effective method of getting around - 80mpg, easy to park nearly anywhere, low running costs. Sadly one can't carry 2 people and a baby on a Scooter (in the UK).
You can't buy a ticket to have a seat, unless you pay first class, on many trains though. That's insane IMO, that they even let people stand on a train never mind that you can't actually guarantee a seat.
A few years back when I was at Uni I paid £50 for the trip from home. I had to sit on the floor most of the 3 hour trip every single time, once there wasn't room to sit.
Back when I was a patent examiner I had an idea about harvesting power from radio waves, we're submerged in a sea of radio broadcasts. Capturing some of this seemed like free power.
Then I thought, would this work on a large scale - it seems like free energy - but the issue you (geekoid) mentioned popped to mind and I discounted it as a "maybe someday I'll mess with that" idea.
Then last week on the Gadget show I see wireless power transmission for gadgets... but also mention of harvesting power from radio waves (without mention of the downside of scaling it).
Perhaps there's enough cosmic background radiation in the right frequency bands that we can use that instead. (I'm thinking radio, microwave rather than visual).
They didn't get in trouble though. People noticed that the BBC's researchers had broken the law in the UK (at least 44000 times), the police, government and judiciary didn't bat an eyelid.
Did you see the BBC program about doing this.. they went the whole hog and DDoS-ed a [known] server and spammed a couple of email accounts (on free email hosting systems, without consent it seems). They also actively modified computers without consent and potentially across international borders.
No prosecutions, no sackings, not even an apology.
In the current case however, they just predicted the domain to be used and snapped it up in advance. I wonder if they offered it for sale?
Researchers at the UK's broadcasting corp the BBC recently illegally bought and ran a botnet including purposefully altering peoples computers without consent. Some of those people were/probably/ outside the UK, possibly even in the US.
The BBC's computer magazine program "Click" illegally purchased, ran and used a botnet to alter thousands of computers and before some DDoS and spam runs (!).
That gives useful information:
1) They contacted users to tell them I think, there should be details of how that went down, part of the contact was altering background images (illegally) to display a "you've been cracked" (I'm sure they said "hacked" and didn't mention that it was by the BBC from the UK).
2) The UK Government / legal system doesn't care if you do illegal cracking, altering personal computers, etc.. You might have to be a BBC employee, YMMV.
Rant: I'm looking forward to 2 becoming part of an extradition defence in the future.. "well the BBC did it and you did F all, now you want to extradite me???". I guess that presupposes our legal system is also a justice system.
Its easy. Teachers' Unions have no incentive to do anything but gain as much money and power for the teachers as possible. They are not there for the students.
I'm in the UK, that said I can't see our cultures are *that* different?
Teachers on the whole are there for the students. The 2nd teaching union here the NASUWT in my experience also is, I can't comment about the others I don't know enough about them. One problem is that in a way they're like lawyers they ultimately serve their members - if a teacher is being struck off then the union is there to represent them in legal matters. This means unions are often seen in the media protecting poor (or even evil!) teachers.
No one has yet mentioned scarcity of supply as an issue. Most would accept that any teacher is generally better than none at all.
The UK mention was to broaden the field to a more global view - everything else is in the field of US law.
I am admittedly less familiar with US Copyright. 17 USCS SS.106 (b) is the point of issue - preparing derivatives. This Section is equivalent to Berne's Article 2 IIRC, Art.2(3?) referring to alterations, arrangements, etc.. USCS has to be at least as narrow as Berne in order to satisfy the Convention.
The cited Temple Journal article gives a compelling discussion (IMO) of relevant prior judgements, I've not checked which levels these reached and so how binding they would be.
As I've said before, I don't like it, but I think this is the proper interpretation of the law we have (internationally) - that use of adblockers is alteration (creating a derivative) and unless this is specifically licensed (it is specifically denied by ToS of eg MySpace) then an ABP user, for example, is infringing the copyright of the content author.
There is no such thing as "Fair Use" in the UK. Fair use is limited in the US, as I understand it, to actions that provide a social function (education) and those that do no commercial harm to the authors. Removing ads fits neither of these categories.
pp485 ibid: "The court interpreted the Web site argument to suggest that 'any action by a computer user that produced a computer window or visual graphic that altered the screen appearance of Plaintiff's website,however slight, would require Plaintiff's permission.' "
ibid: "Because ad-blocking software makes a permanent change, it is analogous to Shaklee, and thus infringement. Other cases support this view. In WGN Continental Broadcasting Co. v. United Video, Inc., the Seventh Circuit noted that a copyright licensee who 'makes an unauthorized use of the underlying work by publishing it in a truncated version is an infringer - any unauthorized editing of the underlying work,... would constitute an infringement of the copyright.'"
How many lawyers post on slashdot? I did work as an intellectual property professional (in Patents) for 5 years, FWIW.
The differences between the sibling posts example and yours of covering a TV screen versus the case in point is the commercial detriment of the copyright holder.
You've bought (or someone else has) the book you're ripping pages out of. The authors commercial interest is not harmed. If you were a bookshop owner and you carefully bawdlerised the book by excising various pages, you'd be in breach of the authors moral and commercial rights wrt the book - you've altered their work and affected it's commercial value (even if more people now buy it, it's not your call to make).
Similarly with the TV all financial elements are solved prior to your viewing of the screen whether that's payment of a subscription by you or pay-per-presentation by the advertiser.
In the case of the webpage the financial benefit accrued by the author is dependent on the presentation, or more usually the use of, the adverts he causes to be presented as part of his work. By only displaying the non-advertising part of the work you've altered it and caused a potential financial loss.
All that said, I have no problem with use of ABP / NoScript, I don't believe it is allowed under international copyright law however.
pp485 ibid: "The court interpreted the Web site argument to suggest that 'any action by a computer user that produced a computer window or visual graphic that altered the screen appearance of Plaintiff's website,however slight, would require Plaintiff's permission.' "
ibid: "Because ad-blocking software makes a permanent change, it is analogous to Shaklee, and thus infringement. Other cases support this view. In WGN Continental Broadcasting Co. v. United Video, Inc., the Seventh Circuit noted that a copyright licensee who 'makes an unauthorized use of the underlying work by publishing it in a truncated version is an infringer - any unauthorized editing of the underlying work,... would constitute an infringement of the copyright.'"
http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/#suits gives cases where Gator, in particular, were successfully sued for covering parts of a web page with their own popup adverts a related transformative derivative action that is also mentioned in the article above.
Berne requires that the signatory states don't allow unauthorised alteration that would affect the commercial benefit to the author. As you've payed for the work, your mode of listening doesn't affect the author's benefit.
If you were to play the album, as an album, in a commercial setting and miss out songs and reorder it then possibly the copyright holder would have something against you at court. The court would likely declare you had to play the album in order, parties to meet own costs and minimal award of damages (0.01 USD), IMO, but the copyright holder would still have the right to dictate the way the work was presented commercially.
Coming back to our webpage discussion. If you've paid for the content without ads then you can consume it in the manner you wish (assuming you didn't have conditions set when you bought the license). If you've not paid then you don't have a right to remix it.
[Grammar/Spelling trolls - no I don't know when to use paid/payed.]
There's a particular blog that I used to frequent. It got taken over/ rebranded as part of AOL and the ads got super annoying so that the content simply couldn't be read. Flashing audio-visual ads. I let them know I hated the ads; they ignored it, I left. I don't think they miss me!
I use adblock/noscript but for places I hang out I disable them so they can display their ads and decrease their clicks/presentations ratio. If on the other hand the ads are dynamic and looping, use audio, have flashing imagery then I re-enable or leave.
On my own blog I've found it hard to find affiliates ads with no looped/flashing images.
Nope, that is a normal operation of the browser to view a web-page. That's how interpretation of HTML works. Kinda like viewing a page with a screen-reader.
It is a difficult task to discriminate legally between the mode of display of a rendering means [browser] incapable of displaying visual ads/versus/ a mode of display of a rendering means modified so as not to display ads. But the just because legal confusion can be made doesn't mean that the intention of the law is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that you are wrong. If either party breaks a bone or needs stitches or any kind of substantial treatment it becomes aggravated assault.
I've seen only a few boxing matches but plenty of times one of the boxers has a cut that requires stitches, indeed this often happens in rugby matches too. You're saying that in these cases an aggravated assault has occurred and that the parties can't consent to their participation? Boxing is illegal in which case?
Yes a mutually agreed fight is different to a dual, a fight is just that, a fight to the death is quite different.
So how is it again?
I'd prefer it to unblock by service (eg. let me tell it "Allow Google AdSense text-only ads through regardless of site."), but as it stands the proposal is hardly a neutering of ABP in any way.
Can't you do that by altering the filter settings?
Yes. You also cant tell someone on the street that "I am not responsible for any thing that may happen if you take this free fight with me. Go ahead if you are really sure..." and you happen to kill him. You will be responsible, even if it was free and you warned.
The person of average intelligence knows that fighting someone will cause harm and possibly death. They have no way of knowing if a particular item of food of edible appearance will kill you.
That said, I'm pretty sure that boxers aren't liable if the other party dies, same as playing a sport - a "free fight" is basically a bareknuckle boxing match is both parties agree to it. YMMV.
I wonder where is BadAnalogyGuy when you need him :)
He's like a sports car, not there when you need him, but smells when you have the bosses wife over for tea.
There aren't many things better than being rich.
Yes there are! Being happy. Healthy. Fulfilled. Having an interesting life. Loving and being loved.
Being rich isn't a prerequisite for any of them - and it doesn't bring any of them on its own.
That's what poor people like to tell themselves, but it's not really true -- rich people are, in the aggregate, happier than poor people. Being rich doesn't make you happy per se, but it can sure help you avoid a lot of the things that make you unhappy. And there's no reason to believe that being rich makes any of that happy-generating life events more difficult or less likely.
I don't think poor people tell themselves that. I live below the poverty line (according to our UK governments figures) and work 2 jobs. Being rich would make me happier but that's because the problems in my life I genuinely feel are directly money related.
Not knowing if I can afford to pay the bills each month. Not being able to afford to eat healthily. Not being able to afford to take time off, nevermind take a holiday. No time for socialising, exercising properly, ...
Mind you all these problems could be solved if you paid off my mortgage (about 80k GBP) ... but I'm sure I'd find something to bitch about.
The price that you can sell at is the price someone is willing to pay. If you price it too high, especially for a big corp, then it's cheaper for them to start over and wipe you out leaving you with nothing (not even the business you had, possibly with some big debts and the stigma of a failed corp to drive off the investors).
You should of course start at the position above what you would most like to get from the deal but not so high that the other party thinks you're trying to gouge them.
Having said that I hate costing things.
It all seems pretty clear. A lot of the glyphs are recognisable to me, I've holidayed in Greece, studied physics and so can read the modern greek alphabet enough to use look up greek translations. As I'm a noob I'd have thought a greek scholar could just read that off.
I'd have thought that the letters could be used in a Greek version of recaptcha? Then it's just down to machine translation, or am I wrong?
The problem with these sorts of studies is they lump in the fixed and variable costs for car ownership. The only way you get rid of the fixed costs (like insurance and registration) is to get rid of the car altogether, ...
In the UK these are both variable to an extent. Insurance costs less if you can guarantee a low mileage, with a hefty extra to pay if you go over. Registration is fixed, but if you park off road and don't use the car you can claim back your "road tax" in advance in monthly chunks. So you could mothball the car for the summer, say.
Pasadena to Glendale looks to be about 8 miles. You could cycle that in about 40 mins. Walk it in 2 hours.
An apples-to-apples comparison should assume only the cost of maintaining/operating one car vs. the cost of one person commuting by mass transit.
A couple of years ago my wife and I lived without a car for a year.Then another year with a scooter.
Long trips it was always far cheaper to hire a car than it was to take the train. Very close price-wise if it had been one travelling. Very long trips then the prices were similar due to lots of petrol.
We'd get a brand new car delivered to our door. This compared to walking a mile to the station (or take 2 buses at £4 total or a taxi at £7) then paying twice as much as the hire car + petrol for our fare and not even getting a seat on some occasions (and getting turfed out of the spare seats in first class on one occasion when travelling with an 18month old - yes they made me stand and hold the baby despite not having a seat for us, the conductor said there were seats at the other end of the train, have you tried walking on a fast moving packed train carrying something heavy and delicate, he did give an alternative a £200 ticket OR get off; I digress). Then you have to connect with a bus at the other end and finish with usually a short walk (though with heavy bags this can be a pain). Now if the train was even the same price I'd use it. But we've got to eat.
Back when I could afford to go shopping high car park costs meant that going to the next city on the train was cheaper and reasonably convenient once you got to the station at our end.
The scooter however was probably the most cost-effective method of getting around - 80mpg, easy to park nearly anywhere, low running costs. Sadly one can't carry 2 people and a baby on a Scooter (in the UK).
You can't buy a ticket to have a seat, unless you pay first class, on many trains though. That's insane IMO, that they even let people stand on a train never mind that you can't actually guarantee a seat.
A few years back when I was at Uni I paid £50 for the trip from home. I had to sit on the floor most of the 3 hour trip every single time, once there wasn't room to sit.
Back when I was a patent examiner I had an idea about harvesting power from radio waves, we're submerged in a sea of radio broadcasts. Capturing some of this seemed like free power.
Then I thought, would this work on a large scale - it seems like free energy - but the issue you (geekoid) mentioned popped to mind and I discounted it as a "maybe someday I'll mess with that" idea.
Then last week on the Gadget show I see wireless power transmission for gadgets ... but also mention of harvesting power from radio waves (without mention of the downside of scaling it).
Perhaps there's enough cosmic background radiation in the right frequency bands that we can use that instead. (I'm thinking radio, microwave rather than visual).
O RLY?
Where are the 9000 year old trees growing?
They didn't get in trouble though. People noticed that the BBC's researchers had broken the law in the UK (at least 44000 times), the police, government and judiciary didn't bat an eyelid.
Did you see the BBC program about doing this .. they went the whole hog and DDoS-ed a [known] server and spammed a couple of email accounts (on free email hosting systems, without consent it seems). They also actively modified computers without consent and potentially across international borders.
No prosecutions, no sackings, not even an apology.
In the current case however, they just predicted the domain to be used and snapped it up in advance. I wonder if they offered it for sale?
Researchers at the UK's broadcasting corp the BBC recently illegally bought and ran a botnet including purposefully altering peoples computers without consent. Some of those people were /probably/ outside the UK, possibly even in the US.
Prosecutions? Sackings? Not a sausage.
So it's not just Russia.
The BBC's computer magazine program "Click" illegally purchased, ran and used a botnet to alter thousands of computers and before some DDoS and spam runs (!).
That gives useful information:
1) They contacted users to tell them I think, there should be details of how that went down, part of the contact was altering background images (illegally) to display a "you've been cracked" (I'm sure they said "hacked" and didn't mention that it was by the BBC from the UK).
2) The UK Government / legal system doesn't care if you do illegal cracking, altering personal computers, etc.. You might have to be a BBC employee, YMMV.
Rant: I'm looking forward to 2 becoming part of an extradition defence in the future .. "well the BBC did it and you did F all, now you want to extradite me???". I guess that presupposes our legal system is also a justice system.
Its easy. Teachers' Unions have no incentive to do anything but gain as much money and power for the teachers as possible. They are not there for the students.
I'm in the UK, that said I can't see our cultures are *that* different?
Teachers on the whole are there for the students. The 2nd teaching union here the NASUWT in my experience also is, I can't comment about the others I don't know enough about them. One problem is that in a way they're like lawyers they ultimately serve their members - if a teacher is being struck off then the union is there to represent them in legal matters. This means unions are often seen in the media protecting poor (or even evil!) teachers.
No one has yet mentioned scarcity of supply as an issue. Most would accept that any teacher is generally better than none at all.
Sorry the article is at http://www.temple.edu/law/tjstel/2005/fall/v24no2-Hemmer.pdf the link was to information about the presiding professor.
The UK mention was to broaden the field to a more global view - everything else is in the field of US law.
I am admittedly less familiar with US Copyright. 17 USCS SS.106 (b) is the point of issue - preparing derivatives. This Section is equivalent to Berne's Article 2 IIRC, Art.2(3?) referring to alterations, arrangements, etc.. USCS has to be at least as narrow as Berne in order to satisfy the Convention.
The cited Temple Journal article gives a compelling discussion (IMO) of relevant prior judgements, I've not checked which levels these reached and so how binding they would be.
As I've said before, I don't like it, but I think this is the proper interpretation of the law we have (internationally) - that use of adblockers is alteration (creating a derivative) and unless this is specifically licensed (it is specifically denied by ToS of eg MySpace) then an ABP user, for example, is infringing the copyright of the content author.
There is no such thing as "Fair Use" in the UK. Fair use is limited in the US, as I understand it, to actions that provide a social function (education) and those that do no commercial harm to the authors. Removing ads fits neither of these categories.
Temple Journal of Science and Tech & Enviro Law Vol.XXIV page 483+, under review of Professor of Law Donald P Harris ( http://www.law.temple.edu/servlet/com.rnci.products.PublishNow.RetrieveSingleArticle?serv=templelawdb&db=templelaw&site=TempleLaw&sction=faculty_Harris_briefbio&article=1&part=2 [temple.edu] )
pp485 ibid: "The court interpreted the Web site argument to suggest that 'any action by a computer user that produced a computer window or visual graphic that altered the screen appearance of Plaintiff's website,however slight, would require Plaintiff's permission.' "
ibid: "Because ad-blocking software makes a permanent change, it is analogous to Shaklee, and thus infringement. Other cases support this view. In WGN Continental Broadcasting Co. v. United Video, Inc., the Seventh Circuit noted that a copyright licensee who 'makes an unauthorized use of the underlying work by publishing it in a truncated version is an infringer - any unauthorized editing of the underlying work, ... would constitute an infringement of the copyright.'"
How many lawyers post on slashdot? I did work as an intellectual property professional (in Patents) for 5 years, FWIW.
The differences between the sibling posts example and yours of covering a TV screen versus the case in point is the commercial detriment of the copyright holder.
You've bought (or someone else has) the book you're ripping pages out of. The authors commercial interest is not harmed. If you were a bookshop owner and you carefully bawdlerised the book by excising various pages, you'd be in breach of the authors moral and commercial rights wrt the book - you've altered their work and affected it's commercial value (even if more people now buy it, it's not your call to make).
Similarly with the TV all financial elements are solved prior to your viewing of the screen whether that's payment of a subscription by you or pay-per-presentation by the advertiser.
In the case of the webpage the financial benefit accrued by the author is dependent on the presentation, or more usually the use of, the adverts he causes to be presented as part of his work. By only displaying the non-advertising part of the work you've altered it and caused a potential financial loss.
All that said, I have no problem with use of ABP / NoScript, I don't believe it is allowed under international copyright law however.
Reading:
Temple Journal of Science and Tech & Enviro Law Vol.XXIV page 483+, under review of Professor of Law Donald P Harris ( http://www.law.temple.edu/servlet/com.rnci.products.PublishNow.RetrieveSingleArticle?serv=templelawdb&db=templelaw&site=TempleLaw&sction=faculty_Harris_briefbio&article=1&part=2 )
pp485 ibid: "The court interpreted the Web site argument to suggest that 'any action by a computer user that produced a computer window or visual graphic that altered the screen appearance of Plaintiff's website,however slight, would require Plaintiff's permission.' "
ibid: "Because ad-blocking software makes a permanent change, it is analogous to Shaklee, and thus infringement. Other cases support this view. In WGN Continental Broadcasting Co. v. United Video, Inc., the Seventh Circuit noted that a copyright licensee who 'makes an unauthorized use of the underlying work by publishing it in a truncated version is an infringer - any unauthorized editing of the underlying work, ... would constitute an infringement of the copyright.'"
http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/#suits gives cases where Gator, in particular, were successfully sued for covering parts of a web page with their own popup adverts a related transformative derivative action that is also mentioned in the article above.
Possibly. That is where interpretation comes in.
Berne requires that the signatory states don't allow unauthorised alteration that would affect the commercial benefit to the author. As you've payed for the work, your mode of listening doesn't affect the author's benefit.
If you were to play the album, as an album, in a commercial setting and miss out songs and reorder it then possibly the copyright holder would have something against you at court. The court would likely declare you had to play the album in order, parties to meet own costs and minimal award of damages (0.01 USD), IMO, but the copyright holder would still have the right to dictate the way the work was presented commercially.
Coming back to our webpage discussion. If you've paid for the content without ads then you can consume it in the manner you wish (assuming you didn't have conditions set when you bought the license). If you've not paid then you don't have a right to remix it.
[Grammar/Spelling trolls - no I don't know when to use paid/payed.]
There's a particular blog that I used to frequent. It got taken over/ rebranded as part of AOL and the ads got super annoying so that the content simply couldn't be read. Flashing audio-visual ads. I let them know I hated the ads; they ignored it, I left. I don't think they miss me!
I use adblock/noscript but for places I hang out I disable them so they can display their ads and decrease their clicks/presentations ratio. If on the other hand the ads are dynamic and looping, use audio, have flashing imagery then I re-enable or leave.
On my own blog I've found it hard to find affiliates ads with no looped/flashing images.
Nope, that is a normal operation of the browser to view a web-page. That's how interpretation of HTML works. Kinda like viewing a page with a screen-reader.
It is a difficult task to discriminate legally between the mode of display of a rendering means [browser] incapable of displaying visual ads /versus/ a mode of display of a rendering means modified so as not to display ads. But the just because legal confusion can be made doesn't mean that the intention of the law is wrong.