javaMan
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
1 edit | reply to rawwhide
Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads
My contention is not that ads are placed on websites but the associated security and privacy concerns that accompany them. Ad blocking software didn't evolve because people didn't like looking at a graphic that enticed them to buy a Toyota. If that were all there was to it, almost no one would be concerned. After all, they are just images like any other. As others have stated, one can simply ignore them--we have become consciously and unconsciously adept at that. Until the associated intrusions of online advertising can be addressed (which has its own arguments for and against), the issue of theft of revenue is a moot point to me.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to rawwhide
said by rawwhide  :This is what worries me. Advertisers and website operators could then place in their TOS to allow pop-up or pop-under ad software. But why is that worrying? As long as you get to see the TOS beforehand, and elect to agree or leave.
I'd be out of there smartish. And if enough people think like me, web sites like that would quickly go out of business.
I don't want to visit any website that treats me as the raw-material-for-sale for their business. But I expect other people to make their own decisions in the matter. As long as the terms are clearly stated, I have no problem with the concept.
This is the flipside of the argument that the law should not force you to take the ads in the absence of a prior agreement: that law would be absolving web-site operators from the consequence of their own stupidity. A law saying you couldn't willingly agree to receive adverts would be protecting users from the consequence of their own stupidity.
The one visit then could have been enough to get advertising pop-up or pop-under software installed that couldn't easily be removed. OK, I'd guess I'd take issue with the "couldn't easily be removed" part. That shouldn't be legal. |
|
javaMan
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
| said by dave :said by rawwhide :This is what worries me. Advertisers and website operators could then place in their TOS to allow pop-up or pop-under ad software. But why is that worrying? As long as you get to see the TOS beforehand, and elect to agree or leave. I'd be out of there smartish. And if enough people think like me, web sites like that would quickly go out of business. I don't want to visit any website that treats me as the raw-material-for-sale for their business. But I expect other people to make their own decisions in the matter. As long as the terms are clearly stated, I have no problem with the concept. . . . I would have no problem with this concept either. At least I now have the option to participate or not. Of course advertisers are going to argue that this represents an infringement on their right of access.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| reply to EGeezer
The problem with ads is that simple static ads (which don't really bother me, I don't click on them either) didn't/don't get the desired response (ie, "me wants more moola"), so now, we've evolved into in your face, annoying, bouncing, jiggling, flashing crap, as if that would make me (us) any more likely to "click" on them. And then there's the security issues with webmasters who don't give a damn. But we are expected to embrace this garbage? I don't think so.
Whether ad blocking software is made "illegal" or not won't make a difference (and I highly doubt that has a chance in hell of happening). People will just refuse to visit sites that serve up garbage and will stick to those that know how to do it right. There are plenty of them out there that manage to host the desired content that I am looking for without annoying the hell out of me with irrelevant, blinding ad content that I was NOT looking for. I don't return to sites that have more flashing ads than any content they supposedly contained.
Bottom line....I don't really care if these types of sites are "losing money". Should have done it better or not at all. I wouldn't click on those ads to save my life anyway.
--
JIHAD WATCH~~9549 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to javaMan
said by javaMan :said by dave :said by rawwhide :This is what worries me. Advertisers and website operators could then place in their TOS to allow pop-up or pop-under ad software. As long as you get to see the TOS beforehand, and elect to agree or leave. I'd be out of there smartish. And if enough people think like me, web sites like that would quickly go out of business. I would have no problem with this concept either. At least I now have the option to participate or not. Agreed. Maybe were onto something here.
The click thru anything mentality is a security issue & this could be a mechanism to slow down that mentality.
Clickin thru a legally binding TOS that leads to 9 hrs. of successive popups would put a chill on anyones click thru finger if they weren't willing to break the law & leave prior to the last popup being displayed. You bet it's absurd! |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
3 edits | reply to dave
said by dave :said by rawwhide :This is what worries me. Advertisers and website operators could then place in their TOS to allow pop-up or pop-under ad software. But why is that worrying? As long as you get to see the TOS beforehand, and elect to agree or leave. I dont have a problem personally with this either. Lets be honest though, do you read every TOS you see? I know most people *DO NOT* read any TOS. As La Luna stated, it isnt so much the static ads that I am against but rather the "in your face ads". With anyone being able to be a webmaster, how many webmasters care less about others computers because of ad display software or just want to make an easy buck $$$? Are we going to require special permits in order to operate a web site then? Teach webmasters responsible publishing and decent ad ethics?
edit: I guess we need to let the FCC or some similar body govern all websites then huh?
--
Tin-Foilers Union of America!!
Tin-Foilers Union Local 101... |
|
javaMan
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
| said by rawwhide :said by dave :said by rawwhide :This is what worries me. Advertisers and website operators could then place in their TOS to allow pop-up or pop-under ad software. But why is that worrying? As long as you get to see the TOS beforehand, and elect to agree or leave. I dont have a problem personally with this either. Lets be honest though, do you read every TOS you see? I know most people *DO NOT* read any TOS. As La Luna stated, it isnt so much the static ads that I am against but rather the "in your face ads". With anyone being able to be a webmaster, how many webmasters care less about others computers because of ad display software or just want to make an easy buck $$$? Are we going to require special permits in order to operate a web site then? Teach webmasters responsible publishing and decent ad ethics? edit: I guess we need to let the FCC or some similar body govern all websites then huh? Why would it need to be that complicated? You want to place advertising on your website, you warn people coming there and let them agree to what you're offering or you send them back where they came from. It doesn't seem all that complicated nor impractical to me.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by javaMan :Why would it need to be that complicated? You want to place advertising on your website, you warn people coming there and let them agree to what you're offering or you send them back where they came from. It doesn't seem all that complicated nor impractical to me. You know webmasters will make the TOS difficult to read, vague, and lengthy. Just so you the viewer do not realize that they are pulling the world over your eyes. Look at some freeware that is ad supported in its revenue. I get several calls a week asking for help to rid themselves of the advertising not knowing that it was put there when they install some ad supported software. Webmasters will do this in order to hide what they are doing. What some might do is install software on your computer that will display an ad every 10 seconds that will pop-up in a new window underneath your existing window. Even after you leave the website and close your browser, kick back and play your favorite game, the ad software will still command your browser to open even after you closed the browser so it can display a new ad.
You may think it wont happen, but I can see that very thing happening. What else can the webmaster get away with. The advertising based webmaster has pushed threw the legislative branch of government a win win for them. Now webmasters can argue that the software installed needs to make sure that you aren't running any adblock software or hardware and scans your computer. That ad display software and adblock detection software now wants to verify that the ads are actually being displayed to the monitor and no hardware ad-removal device is being used so this software monitors the display output and captures everything which then gets sent back home to be analyzed. Sound familiar? Its not that much of a stretch to foresee what can happen. Oh yeah in that TOS that you didnt read the webmaster also stated that you couldnt uninstall this software either and doing so is a violation against the TOS, which is grounds for a lawsuit against you the viewer for lost revenue. Now you are fighting that webmaster because of the removal. Some webmasters dont care about fairness or ethics. All some care about is the *MONEY*.
--
Tin-Foilers Union of America!!
Tin-Foilers Union Local 101... |
|
Russian Ads
@km.ru
| reply to EGeezer
We do run ads hosted on about 5,000 servers in Russia. And there are at least 10,000 like us. We do host 80-90% for USA companies, and that number is growing by the day, very fast.
Since there is and will no law against hosting your USA advertisement companies and there is no (and will never be) a Russian law against doing so; who is going to stop us and de USA-based companies from advertising? No USA law, that's for sure.
By all means: make sure there's an USA law against advertisements as soon as possible. Our businesses will skyrocket! |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by Russian Ads :
By all means: make sure there's an USA law against advertisements as soon as possible. Our businesses will skyrocket!
It's easy to understand why someone might be confused about what this thread is about. This thread is about the pros/cons of adblocking software/methods.
What's your opinon on that? |
|
bangaroo
Premium
join:2000-08-13 | reply to EGeezer
The roll-your-own solution.
Disable Active Scripting
Disable Flash
Utilize host files
All that is remaining is local site ads.
There is no need for any ad blocking software. |
|
Wildcatboy
Premium,Mod
join:2000-10-30
Toronto, ON |
I'm glad this thread is going back to its main subject instead of discussing people. Thank you and please keep it that way folks.
--
You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him long. |
|
Wildcatboy
Premium,Mod
join:2000-10-30
Toronto, ON
Host:
Security Product V..
Security
1 edit | reply to EGeezer
I see two or three ways such a law could be argued by its promoters. There may be more ways that I may not be aware of of course.
One: They could say: "We provide contents and support it by advertising. Removing those ads will deprive us from our profit."
Those who oppose it could argue that just like TV stations or newspapers, They are selling those ads based on the possibility of viewership and in fact they price it that way. The price of ads during Superbowl are higher than the prime time TV and a whole lot higher than ads ran at 3:00 AM.
Again those ads are not sold based on the guarantee of viewership but simply the possibility of it. When those ads are priced, the number of people who would switch channels, those who would chit chat amongst themselves until the ads are over, those who fix their TV dinner, etc... are all taken to account. Internet content providers could follow the same rules and price their ads accordingly. There's nothing extraordinary about Internet ads in particular to warrant new laws.
Two: They could argue that the content they provide, including the ads, is just a single body of copyrighted content and removing the ads, infringes on their copyright.
This argument is even harder to sell, because the Fair use of Copyrighted material is permitted. Here's a quote from the link I previously provided regarding the case before the Federal trade commission in the U.S.:
"Uses of copyrighted works unauthorized by the copyright holder are not only permitted by federal law, they are actively encouraged by it. Section 107 of the Copyright Act, for example, encourages the unauthorized use of copyrighted works for various purposes including criticism, commentary, and news reporting. Under some circumstances, fair use permits the reproduction of an entire work by consumers."
Not to mention that since you are not selling or even sharing the material you alter before viewing, the copyrights laws have no teeth in this matter. It is solely personal, such as throwing the inserts away before reading your favourite newspaper.
The only other way that comes to my mind which may have a good chance of winning, is to have a members only web site where you provide the material exclusively to members, in which case the material will not be on public domain, therefore the rights granted to you under the copyrights law, may not apply and you would be under contractual obligations. Even in that case, this can not be considered a criminal act but simply a breach of a business contract which can be pursued in civil courts.
--
You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him long. |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by Wildcatboy :... Two: They could argue that the content they provide, including the ads, is just a single body of copyrighted content and removing the ads, infringes on their copyright. This argument is even harder to sell,... In the case of revolving/random ads that are out of the scope of the Publishers direct knowledge can they even copyright such a moving target to the level of copyright infringement rights? |
|
antiserious
The Future ain't what it used to be
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Scranton, PA
1 edit | reply to EGeezer
Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads
If a Webmaster would somehow force ads be delivered along with any content, wouldn't they then be liable for any repercussions from said ads? I'd love to see their response if any of their hosted ads delivered malware or installed anything on a viewer's computer. They'd have to vet each and every one very closely.
But I'd be all for a TOS page instead of a Home page. It would be a wonderful qualifier for sites to avoid. It might also serve to highlight just how many people use adblockers, or even pay attention to what's actually going on. If their average hits took a hit -  - they'd know right away how receptive their readership is to the concept, and could then act accordingly from a well-informed position - and so could we.
--
Bart - "This is the worst day of my life!"
Homer - "The worst day of your life so far!" |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| But I'd be all for a TOS page instead of a Home page. It would be a wonderful qualifier for sites to avoid. It might also serve to highlight just how many people use adblockers, ... I don't use an adblocker. Nevertheless, I would avoid web sites that required me to agree to some sort of TOS. I could probably find an alternative site with the information I wanted.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 2200 modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.5 |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by nwrickert :... Nevertheless, I would avoid web sites that required me to agree to some sort of TOS. Adiós nwrickert
»/terms.html
Of course you meant a TOS that you found objectionable.  |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Of course, it depends.
If it is a web site that requires a login, it would depend on whether the TOS is acceptable, and on whether what the site offers is worth the trouble to me.
If it is a web site that crops up from use of google or other search engine, then just the presence of a TOS that requires reading and clicking might be more trouble than it is worth.
I'm wondering how the web crawlers from search engines would deal with a TOS requirement? My guess is that such pages would not be indexed, so you would not find them in a search.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 2200 modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.5 |
|
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to antiserious
said by antiserious :Can you 'steal' something by NOT taking it? If I order a 'special' from a Chinese restaurant that comes with a fortune cookie, and I DON'T take the cookie, can they then claim I 'stole' it? Probably not, since I paid for everything - but If I'm offered a free lunch at a restaurant or soup kitchen that comes with bread, and I DON'T eat the bread, can they then claim I 'stole' it? I was thinking something similar today.
Say I go to a restaurant. It advertises "meals" and I want to buy one. I order tilapia, potatoes, and broccoli and am willing to pay the quoted rate. My food arrives and I begin to eat.
A person walks up to my table and offers to sell me insurance. I tell them to go away. Another person walks up to me and offers to sell me a weight-loss drug. I tell them to go away. Another walks up and offers to sell me something to lengthen my penis. I tell them to go away.
At this point I go to the manager and complain about people walking up to my table to try to sell me things, and ask him to make it stop. He replies that he allows it, and because I walked through the door I have to put up with it to eat there.
I think a lot of food would be thrown in restaurants that tried this.
--
Sure, that'll work.. |
|
