Is it moral for you to be forced to read/view something?
You're a skipping a chapter in some author's book. If that ruins author's business model - bad for the author.
You're a skipping a chapter in some author's book. If that ruins author's business model - bad for the author.
It's quite simple. If there is no way to get paid for producing quality content, no one is going to produce quality content. I don't like the ad-riddled web any more than you, but it allows billions of people access to content they would not otherwise have access to. If the online ad business goes away, what fills that gap?
Please don't suggest micropayments, people don't want to pay anything to read a website.
And if I got the book as PDF/EPUB and without paying anything (but legally)? Would it be moral for someone to force me to read because their business model says so?
Also, if we can say the comparison with software is valid, there is a lot of software (of various quality from a total trash to exceptionally good stuff) that comes gratis and doesn't try to sell you anything.
If no businesses can profit/sustain off ads and this is the only avenue to obtain any content - people will pay. Or they'll go without content. When there is no content - there will be a demand for content. And people will pay.
If there are sites that can sustain off ads and still produce content that people view - and you can't do that - you're fucked. Too bad. That's business and unfortunately your competitor is beating you at it. There is nothing wrong with that.
I don't think this statement (or the contrary) was ever proven true. I'm absolutely sure the problem is awfully complicated and we can't simplify it as "no money - no quality content", especially as some sort of universal dogma.
That said, if anyone knows of any research/experiment in this area, they're most welcome to share a link.