[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would consider that they are in a better position to determine the licensing terms of their own products than I am. If I had inadvertently mis-read the licence, and done something that I shouldn't do, then I would be grateful to have my error pointed out to me. I imagine that most people would prefer to be told that they are doing something wrong, and be given the opportunity to stop doing it, than be prosecuted for it.

You really are the ideal victim^h^h^h^h^h^h customer.
You'll just assume that their statements as to both the facts and the law are correct?
In reality, the judge in the ACS:Law case, which was exactly the situation we are talking about here of rightsholders writing to accused infringers, found that they had misrepresented both the facts and the law.
I think most people would prefer not to be told they had done something wrong when they hadn't.

That seems like a reasonable argument. If the advertisements are paying for the programme, and you are avoiding the advertisements, then you are indeed, in effect, taking it without paying for it. The "payment" required to watch the programme is to also watch the adverts.

So by analogy, if an online news site complained to your ISP that you had viewed their articles, but their logs showed that you had not viewed their adverts, so you must be using an ad-blocker, so you are infringing their copyright, so if you continue to do so they can apply to have your connection terminated, what would your response be?
Have you ever used ad-blocking software? You dirty thief you