> The idea is that as you visit a specific page (say, the NYT) and read their content, they can dictate that they want it read the way the serve it.
Yeah, I can't believe that logic or that the "do no evil" people can seriously claim it's wrong for you to run your own choice of code on your own computer. When you make data available to someone, there is no obligation for them to use it how you want (except to not redistribute as per copyright law). That's how data works. If NYT really doesn't like it they should render their pages to .png or .mp4 and display that (although it doesn't change anything fundamental, just makes it harder for users to find code that customizes it).
>When you make data available to someone, there is no obligation for them to use it how you want (except to not redistribute as per copyright law). That's how data works.
Well, that depends on the law of any given country.
For one, they could give the data with a specific licence -- "you can only view it on our site, with our theme and ads". One could even argue that you have a moral obligation to at least see their ads, as they are what pays them for the content you consume.
But the mere "that's how data works" I see as fatalistic. Data works the way we make it work. We should not let technology dictate to us if content creators should be compensated or not.
>>Data works the way we make it work
Who are "we" in this statement ? If you mean the distributors of the data, then you are wrong - just because you give some piece of data/information to another man, does not give you a right to force him to do anything with it. The receiver still has the free choice to do anything he pleases. Of course, you may ask politely, and make certain actions more probable, and most people will respect your wishes. But if you do not want people to do stuff with your data, just do not make it public ... it is that simple.
>>We should not let technology dictate to us if content creators should be compensated or not.
Technology shapes the enviroment in which we thrive. Every law, including copyright law, should be adapted to it in time, or else it will cause much suffering, and then there will be rebellions against it, forcing the lawmakers to adapt the law to the new realities. Content creators will do well to think about sources of compensation, which benefit from the easier/instant copying and computation possible now.
Yeah, I can't believe that logic or that the "do no evil" people can seriously claim it's wrong for you to run your own choice of code on your own computer. When you make data available to someone, there is no obligation for them to use it how you want (except to not redistribute as per copyright law). That's how data works. If NYT really doesn't like it they should render their pages to .png or .mp4 and display that (although it doesn't change anything fundamental, just makes it harder for users to find code that customizes it).