|
 
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12 | Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads Ads? What ads?  | |
|
 | |
| Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI | Is there a post there? It's blank for me. Nothing...not even a dot (that I can see at least). | |
|
|
| 
DownTheShore
Maddie Knows Poopie
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads said by mers2  : Had the publishers and marketing folks not made ads so in your face and obnoxious they wouldn't be in this position. And that's not even mentioning the malware included in the ads these days. I agree. I'm relatively easy-going. I watch commercials on TV and listen to them on the radio. I'm not the type to edit out commercial on the things I record.
Online ads never really used to bother me, but then they started popping up all over the screen and wouldn't go away even when I clicked on the "x", or were flashing rapidly enough to trigger seizures in epileptics, or started flying across my screen at random times, or filling up the majority of the screen, or popping up whenever my mouse happened to cross a certain word, and I just said enough's enough and started using the software to block them. As far as I'm concerned, the advertisers brought it on themselves by being so aggressive and obnoxious.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs: | This debate will really heat up when and if broadband goes to a metered service. I am not even for sure If I should include if in the above sentence.
--
HUH!!! | |
|
Ryan
Premium
join:2001-03-03
Attleboro, MA | They can make ad blocking illegal when they make obtrusive ads and marketing scams illegal. | |
|
|
| 
33591094
join:2002-11-19
Canada
| Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads said by dadkins :No one is going to tell me what I have to look at! Ditto! | |
|
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | I'll look at what I want | |
|
BB1984
join:2006-05-31
Australia
| Legislate all you like... ban all ad-blocking programs (geez Orwell was a prophet) - but I'll just extend my '127.0.0.1 list' - done. Middle finger raised proudly in thy direction.
We are becoming so greedy as a society we are asking for some horrific karma to smite us - and sadly at that point, no-one will be spared.  | |
|
| 
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads said by BB1984 :Legislate all you like... ban all ad-blocking programs (geez Orwell was a prophet) - but I'll just extend my '127.0.0.1 list' - done. Middle finger raised proudly in thy direction. . . . Amen, Brother.
How are they going to legislate host files away?
Incredible that this one fringe lunatic can kick up a growing storm like this.
No wonder our country is in the shape it is today.
One person should be able to start something right, as the 'grass roots' movement grows behind him-- on the other hand, one person should not be able to implement or set in motion policy detrimental or unnecessarily restrictive to the majority, regardless of agenda or methods employed to achieve that end.
Hopefully this will be an 'issue' that lasts only a nanosecond, and quickly dies the forgotten death it deserves. | |
|
| |
| | |
|
|
| |
| 
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL | Ad blocking is "stealing", whatsa' matter with you? I don't use AdBlock.
I do use FlashBlock, and that controls those annoying flash ads. | |
|
| | 
Trel
Good Evening
Premium
join:2002-10-08
Hillsborough, NJ
| Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads said by nwrickert :Ad blocking is "stealing", whatsa' matter with you? I don't use AdBlock. I do use FlashBlock, and that controls those annoying flash ads. But you still get
--
/chown -R us:us /yourbase | |
|
| | | 
Sindows 7
join:2006-09-13
Hope, BC
| Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads said by Trel :said by nwrickert :Ad blocking is "stealing", whatsa' matter with you? I don't use AdBlock. I do use FlashBlock, and that controls those annoying flash ads. But you still get I clicked on your ad and it dont work, I want my damn screensavers............. | |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| I was always wondering - is it illegal to switch my TV to another channel when I start to see a commercial or listen a program on radio and it starts a new ad? because I have a feeling that it's my duty as customer - should I direct my face straight on TV and sit still if a commercial begins? Can I legally turn off a bit sound volume if commercial insists "ask your doctor" with volume level usually twice as much as a regular program sounds? I think I have to talk to a lawyer, because I'm lost here 
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... | |
|
CurtesyFlush
Bababooey, fafafooey, tatatoothy.
Premium
join:2002-08-23
Fontana, CA
| When I'm watching commercial TV, the very nanosecond that programming switches into commercial, the mute button is pressed and my head swivels a few degrees to the right for some web surfing. Legislate THAT vato. I can't recall the last time I even listened to a commercial on TV much less watched one.
I fail to see the difference between that and AdBlock Plus.
--
Jack Horkheimer gives me the creeps. | |
|
| 
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads quote:
When I'm watching commercial TV, the very nanosecond that programming switches into commercial, the mute button is pressed and my head swivels a few degrees to the right for some web surfing.
The second a commercial is starting I hit pause on my DVR then skip through the commercials and get back to the show. 
--
When in doubt read the Help File. | |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| No matter how distasteful, it's amazing how as soon as something is unpleasant, the arguments here become spurious. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. What matters is if someone can prepare legislation and get it passed.
When zapping hit digital boxes, many advertisers cried "foul" and hoped to block the introduction of such technologies. They lost, but that didn't stop them from trying as those with deep pockets win a lot more battles than they lose.
They'll argue that you're altering their "content" by not seeing it in its entirety with ads (contrary to Dadkin's comment, "No one is going to tell me what I have to look at!"), that they don't agree to provide programming that is ad-free so you have no right to expect that, that without ad revenues the government should impose television taxes on everyone, etc.
Absurd you say? Then look around and prepare better arguments. Some of these measures have existed in Europe for years and are likely to get worse. In most European countries you pay an annual TV, radio, car radio tax, regardless of whether you watch it or not. You buy a TV, you pay a TV tax every year. Fair?
If you buy a portable hard drive or a USB drive, you also pay a tax for artist's rights. Yes, that's right. The Dutch have rejected that proposal, the French embraced it. So if I buy a USB drive to store my work files, I'm paying for little Johnnie who illegally downloads MP3s. Fair?
I don't think that the advertisers are going out of business any time soon. So they are going to find one way or another to have you watch their advertising or compensate them for their losses. It isn't personal. It's business. Even if I don't like it any more than you do. | |
|
| 
Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
 ·Shaw
1 edit | Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads We pay such a tax in Canada for blank media such as CDs etc.
See »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy for more details, but when I see numbers like over one hundred million dollars:
The Canadian Private Copying Collective has developed a methodology by which the proceeds are distributed to rights holders based on airplay and sales samples. As of September 7, 2007 over one hundred million dollars has been distributed.
And the courts giveth:
On December 17, 2004, a Canadian judge ruled that the blank media tax no longer applied to MP3 players such as Apple Inc.'s iPod. Before this, the rates were $2 for players with less than 1 GB of capacity, $15 for players up to 15 GB, and $25 for players 15 GB and over.
And the courts taketh awayth:
On 2007-2-12, CPCC asked the Copyright Board of Canada to reintroduce the levy of $5 to $75 into the sale price of MP3 players in Canada.[3] In addition, CPCC also proposed levies of $2 to $10 for memory cards (since withdrawn), 8 cent increases to CD, CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDiscs.
So this could be coming to a court near you if your unlucky.
Blake
EDIT
You know the part that really steams me about this is that one specific industry benefits from this tax whereas the same argument could be applied across many (ie I'm an ISV and people use blank media to copy pirated software but ISV aren't getting any money from this), so its just a money grab by a group that has a bunch of lawyers who are ready willing and able to scrap for a client that is willing to pay them. This isn't law in the sense of fairness and justice for all, its a legal industry. | |
|
| dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by Blue2 :No matter how distasteful, it's amazing how as soon as something is unpleasant, the arguments here become spurious. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. What matters is if someone can prepare legislation and get it passed. Agreed. I loathe most 3rd-party advertising, and prefer to pay to get advertising-free channels (in whatever medium we're discussing) but that has nothing to do with this topic, which is about a legal matter.
They'll argue that you're altering their "content" by not seeing it in its entirety with ads (contrary to Dadkin's comment, "No one is going to tell me what I have to look at!"), that they don't agree to provide programming that is ad-free so you have no right to expect that, On the surface, that seems to be a logically coherent standpoint to have, even though it results in an outcome I don't want. If so-and-so's business model is that they'll make money by selling your eyeballs to advertisers, and provide some interesting content to you as the bait to get your eyeballs in the right place, then I can't see any reason why they should *have* to provide the content if you're subverting their revenue source.
I can't say I blame 'em for trying to manipulate the law in their favour, though I hope the legislators can actually crawl out of the corporations pockets for long enough to say "no".
The appropriate market-driven response is that we'll all give up visiting web sites run by the most egregious offenders. (And we can do that even if the proposed law passes). But I can't see that happening; there are enough people around who seem to regard wall-to-wall advertising as normal.
Some of these measures have existed in Europe for years and are likely to get worse. In most European countries you pay an annual TV, radio, car radio tax, regardless of whether you watch it or not. You buy a TV, you pay a TV tax every year. Fair? A matter of opinion; I quite liked having a couple of advert-free TV channels, and found that an annual fee was a superior system to advert-based funding. As to fairness: well, I guess that's like paying for schools whether I use them or not (which I do; I think it's a social good even though I do not benefit).
However, that licence-fee-based system was born when there was a state monopoly on broadcasting, and worked well enough in an era of limited competition. It's probably not going to survive for long (mainly, according to what I've read, because the BBC is getting state funding and still producing bottom-feeding crap, so the notion that funding frees it from competitive pressure doesn't quite hold up).
I don't think that the advertisers are going out of business any time soon. So they are going to find one way or another to have you watch their advertising or compensate them for their losses. It isn't personal. It's business. Even if I don't like it any more than you do. I guess we're in overall agreement here. | |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| I have not seen any ads since sometime in the year 2000 when I got Ad/subtract that was in beta. When it was no longer free, I moved to its parent the mighty Proxomitron. I'd like to see Congress stop me from using Proxo. Force me to look at ads and I'll just stop using a computer. I don't have a TV..hated the ads. I read books ...not newspapers or magazines because of the ads. I would be more willing to pay a fee for not seeing ads than having the internet only if I agree to see ads. No way to the latter. The internet is not that important...not if I have to see ads.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason | |
|
Drunkula
Premium
join:2000-06-12
Denton, TX | That is one of the dumbest things I've heard of coming from Capitol Hill. Frickin morons....
--
Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. | |
|
The Snowman
Premium
join:2007-05-20
·Verizon Online DSL
| Oh really ! So the want to insist that we see those crappy ads, huh. NAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW !
Anyone who would like a free copy of AdShield 1.02 (the last freeware version)... it can be located at the provided Link........it is a completely LEGAL download To wit: "Last Freeware Version". Last I heard it worked on XP..Internet Explore 6.......
A free copy of Spywarrior's block list: "Aginis For Adshield" can be found at his website.....if you can not find the site just type "Agnis" in google search....and look for spywarrior's site...on the first search page.
»www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_INTERNET.php
*** Note: most of the other programs at that Link are for win98....so pass on downloading them.
when using Adshield you may want to not use "Block Listed Pages" because doing so will freeze internet explore when going to websites they use doubleclick and certain other ad companies....their ads still wont show.
| |
|
Caution
@netcarrier.net
| »www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/reso···AdShield
AGNIS for AdShield contains a set of ad block lists for use with AdShield 1.2 and AdShield 3.0. These AdShield block lists are ports of the original AGNIS block lists for AtGuard, Norton Internet Security, and Norton Personal Firewall (see the AGNIS section above on this page).
These block lists are based in part on info from:
discussions in the SpywareInfo Forums, Spyware Warrior, CastleCops,
and other forums that specialize in crapware removal | |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| So basically, the idea is to take the same track the RIAA has and wage war against consumers in order to "win" them over into buying product?
Yeah. That'll work. Just ask the RIAA how well their lawsuits have been working and winning over fans. | |
|
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| John Palfrey, executive director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
UH WTF does he have to do with the government? I did not read the link just the part you posted did someone else say something?
He is just a nobody who said what he thinks like everyone does. | |
|
| dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
1 edit | Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads If you read the article, then, yes, other people had opinions - CNET canvassed some number of lawyers (i.e., people who might be expected to have opinions on litigation). | |
|
| |
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON | Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads OH well still just heads talking to me it means nothing. | |
|
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| said by TOPDAWG :John Palfrey, executive director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. UH WTF does he have to do with the government? I did not read the link just the part you posted did someone else say something? He is just a nobody who said what he thinks like everyone does. Boy, for a group of security "gurus", one often reads a log of hogwash not to mention illogical, emotional and ridiculous comments here.
"The Berkman Center for Internet and Society is a research center at Harvard Law School, which focuses on the legal study of cyberspace." That hardly makes him a "nobody". That makes him a legal expert, and also makes him likely to be one of those that legislators will refer to when they search out experts on issues having to do with law and cyberspace.
Now exactly what are your credentials to slander such experts so casually? Open mouth, insert foot?
Sometimes I wonder... | |
|
| |
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON | Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads Nope he still a nobody. To someone has proof someone who can pass a law talks to him he is just one more person on the earth saying his option.
I could give a crap what his job is and the title of his job. However that is just my option. | |
|
|
HardwareGeek
join:2003-11-15
Brooklyn, NY
| I think this is just going to cause more ads on sites. Because websites are going to want to get people who aren't viewing ads to see more ads to make up for the ad rev their losing.
Example if a site gets 3000 page views a day and 1500 of those page views are by people with ad blockers and they are getting a 4 dollar CPM, they lose $6.50 because of the ad blockers.
It may not be a lot but if the site is getting 11,000 hits a day it can add up.
I think websites are going to start hosting the banner ads on their own servers with redirect links that don't go through a 3rd party and in essence make ad blocking programs useless. Because if you block the ad thats stored in the image folder of the site, you may end up blocking all images from the site.
I for one run a site and I'd admit I put a few too many ads up in the past, and plan to get rid of 80% of them with in the next year or so because ads are annoying especially the ones that talk to you or the flash ones or the ones posted above that bounce around.
--
Email/MSN: Michael at hardwaregeeks.comAIM: MikeR35292 | |
|
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads said by HardwareGeek :Example if a site gets 3000 page views a day and 1500 of those page views are by people with ad blockers and they are getting a 4 dollar CPM, they lose $6.50 because of the ad blockers. Actually that is a good example of why this is a big non-issue for advertisers. Simple fact of the matter is that the vast unwashed masses of internet users do not block ads and most aren't even aware they can block them. Those of us who are blocking them are in a very small minority.
Granted, there are exceptions. Sites like this one no doubt have a larger number of ad blocking users and there are others.
--
God is the problem. | |
|
|
|
|
·
The (il) legality of blocking ads
