It's offensive for you to place your opinion in the context of "right and wrong", specifically that your opinion is "right".
If content owners want to block adblocker: They can! They absolutely can use javascript to detect ad-blockers and prevent the majority of all of them from visiting the site unless the adblock is disabled.
Sites like Hulu.com use anti-adblock to ensure that their terms are met and that users view advertisements or are barred from content.
Instead of making a moral argument against the legal and acceptable use of browser extensions, you should be examining the business decisions that lead to intentionally and strategically choosing to NOT BLOCK users who use adblock.
"Inventing your own terms about the cost of something produced by someone else is never ok."
I totally agree, which is why I question your invented ethical cost regarding browser extensions and advertisements.
Their terms are clear, and if they want to block certain users, they are free to do that. You don't need to invent some silly ethical argument where none needs to exist. If adblocking was against the law (like, say, shoplifting) then your argument would have merit. But it's not.
Your argument is similar, in my view, to saying "it's unethical to go to Best Buy to window shop and later purchase on a website. You should respect the terms and businesses intentions of a brick and mortar store and pay extra since you walked in the door".
I agree with about when you say that businesses should not ignore the fact that adblock is wildy used when making decisions.
Imagine now that if a working drm solution existed for films, it would be ok to download the unprotected ones for free? Surely a technical solution is way of making a business profitable, but not an argument to justify a bad behavior.
And yes, even if moral is irrelevant to businesses, it is still something worth considering as individuals.
"Imagine now that if a working drm solution existed for films, it would be ok to download the unprotected ones for free? Surely a technical solution is way of making a business profitable, but not an argument to justify a bad behavior."
Apples and Oranges.
If the movie studio offered an officially hosted version of the movie with advertisements for free online, and I watched without advertisements on their official site (similar to a news organization posting their news online for free, with ads), then yes it's ok. They can (and do! See: Crackle) block that particular behavior from working very simply.
But, to go pirate a movie from a third source? That's not only wrong it's actually illegal.
I don't go to "thenewsbay" and download illegal copies of the New York Times, so it's unfair to make a comparison to pirated movies.
If content owners want to block adblocker: They can! They absolutely can use javascript to detect ad-blockers and prevent the majority of all of them from visiting the site unless the adblock is disabled.
Sites like Hulu.com use anti-adblock to ensure that their terms are met and that users view advertisements or are barred from content.
Instead of making a moral argument against the legal and acceptable use of browser extensions, you should be examining the business decisions that lead to intentionally and strategically choosing to NOT BLOCK users who use adblock.
"Inventing your own terms about the cost of something produced by someone else is never ok."
I totally agree, which is why I question your invented ethical cost regarding browser extensions and advertisements.
Their terms are clear, and if they want to block certain users, they are free to do that. You don't need to invent some silly ethical argument where none needs to exist. If adblocking was against the law (like, say, shoplifting) then your argument would have merit. But it's not.
Your argument is similar, in my view, to saying "it's unethical to go to Best Buy to window shop and later purchase on a website. You should respect the terms and businesses intentions of a brick and mortar store and pay extra since you walked in the door".