Sites don't require advertisements around links to their sites. Once you follow a link (scent) to the destination that is when advertisements are shown in exchange for allowing you to access something of value.
>Once you have served it to me, you don't get to dictate how I use it.
If you do not have a license to modify the site that is copyright infringement.
I modify the ebooks I read, changing the font and other formatting, reducing the size of images or removing them entirely, and removing advert pages (sometimes, not compulsively). I do this for my own readability preferences (I don't have a formalized disability, just preferences at this point). As I am not reselling the artist's work, I consider this fair use. To what degree am I wrong?
> If you do not have a license to modify the site that is copyright infringement.
It is fair use.
If I buy a physical copy of a poster, and draw on it before I hang it on my wall, it's fair use.
If I buy a CD and it includes an instrumental version of a track and I badly sing to it, it's fair use.
If I buy a designer brand table and decide it's too tall, I can saw off 5cm from its legs, and it's fair use.
If I download a freely distributed document from the Internet, to display on my computer's screen, and decide not to look at a part of it - it is fair use.
>If I buy a physical copy of a poster, and draw on it before I hang it on my wall, it's fair use.
It's not necessarily fair use.
>If I buy a CD and it includes an instrumental version of a track and I badly sing to it, it's fair use.
Unless the venue you are at has paid for the performance rights of that song that is copyright infringement.
>If I buy a designer brand table and decide it's too tall, I can saw off 5cm from its legs, and it's fair use.
It's not necessarily fair use.
>If I download a freely distributed document from the Internet, to display on my computer's screen, and decide not to look at a part of it - it is fair use.
Considering removing ads hurts monetarily I definitely don't think it could be fair use.
> Unless the venue you are at has paid for the performance rights of that song that is copyright infringement.
That "venue" is my home. The instrumental mix was included on the CD for the sole purpose of torturing my cohabitants with my awful singing. Why else would you include an incomplete mix? It doesn't add to the listening experience. As an artist, you could have released an "alternative version" as a bonus track (e.g. with a guest singer, or acoustic instead of electric guitars), but instead you intended to let the listener play the artist. It's not just fair use to use the track in that way, the entire intention for its existence is fair use.
> Considering removing ads hurts monetarily [...]
Money changed hands as a part of a deal, and I was not a side in that transaction, even though the subject of that transaction was my attention - something that I have a very limited amount of, and something I should have full authority over. You never asked me if you can redirect my attention in that way, not until you have already showed me the ad.
If it hurts you monetarily when I use your service and then not look at the ads, then don't provide me with the service. I'll move on, thank you.
>Once you have served it to me, you don't get to dictate how I use it.
If you do not have a license to modify the site that is copyright infringement.