You may not have meant it that way, but this could be taken to mean that people who record TV shows and watch them later while skipping the commercials are shoplifting. I don't buy that at all.
Neither do I. Even before VCR's, people got up to piss, or get a drink or snack, or even changed to one of the other channels when ads came on. That's the nature of the medium. Those advertisers paid for the privilege of being on the air with a show, rather than being paid-per-view.
I admit that it's more of a gray area with website ads, because with TV commercials the advertisers have no way to see how many people actually watch the ads; they just pay the networks a flat fee depending on the show's ratings. With website ads, though, they can actually track how many times the ad is displayed and pay the website owner per view. In that case, then, yes, an ad-blocker does somewhat reduce a site's income from advertising.
Thank you. My point exactly.
I do have mixed feelings about that, but I really hate advertising, and if a site has a donation button I will donate small sums now and then in lieu of viewing the ads. If they don't have a donation button... maybe they should get one?
Well, that works too, of course. But that requires active participation, as opposed to the passive participation of advertisement. For a passive medium (looking at stuff), you're not going to get a lot of active participation!
I wonder - I was tryiing to think of a parallel to window shopping, and then thought about home delivery, which is comparable to RSS. Do ads go into RSS feeds? I've never used one. If not, and it's not a pay service, it also cuts into ad revenue, which hoome delivery doesn't.
At some point, the model
does break down.