On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, at 12:55pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Flash used as ads are bad because I don't have the option of not watching > it!
I think that's rather the point. I favor alternatives to advertising as a way of funding content production and distribution. But, I do wonder if people are prepared to accept the consequences. Even if people are willing to give away their content, distribution is not free, and the more popular something gets, the higher the distribution costs. How many people here clicked the button on the page hosting those animations to donate a dollar to cover the site's bandwidth bill? I am not saying anyone here should feel obligated to make a donation to that site. I am not saying filtering adverts is morally or legally wrong (the way ad execs would like it to be). Nor am I saying that new content will stop being produced if the traditional distribution channels stop being profitable. I am not predicting the imminent death of the Internet[1]. What I *am* trying to do is make people stop and think about these issues. Remember always the all-powerful rule of TANSTAAFL[2]. And be careful what you wish for. Footnotes --------- [1] http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1E442643 (Jargon File) [2] http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/TANSTAAFL.html -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
