Right. The site owner can't stop that and the
way the user can is to ensure they don't download
anything with that functionality built in. One
cannot control the 'use' of a URI. Now
is it legal to build software that zaps that
functionality. If the argument is that the owner
of the desktop controls it, it should be. If I
were a site owner, I'd give that software away
for free. It gives 'killer app' a new meaning.
So again, can a TiVO or VCR chop ads 'on receipt'?
If the argument is based on ownership of the TiVO,
yes. If based on free reception of content that
is paid for, no. (The TiVO can chop; the TV can't.)
Does that analogy work for the
Internet? Does it make a difference if the
ad is in the content or imposed on the content?
Apparently, yes.
len
From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:]
This is offtopic but your question has been answered by the US judicial
system
http://news.com.com/2100-1024-1022791.html?part=dtx&tag=ntop
