how-to block ads
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to fatness
Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads
Actually, that has happened in (low end) restauarants I've been to.
Except they don't have a guy walking up to you. Instead, they play some commercial radio station that has 2 songs then 17 adverts.
All this goes to show is that the analogy is not good.
The trouble with this particular analogy is that you paid for food, and had no reasonable expectation that there would be a non-food 'cost' as well. The exact analogy would be somewhere where you can go and get free food, but you have to be advertised-at while eating. (Don't some religious cults do that?)
Most of the non-network cases I can think of where you get something for free, in return for adverts, they take care to hand you the spiel first before you get the gift (say, time-share condo scams).
Analogies are not a good way to proceed here. This is different. | |
Wildcatboy
Premium,Mod
join:2000-10-30
Toronto, ON
Host:
Security Product V..
Security
| reply to EGeezer
Yup, here in Toronto, Most Esso gas pumps have a TV on top of them. Not only do you buy gas at the current high prices, the moment the pump starts, so do their ads.
--
You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him long. | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
| Yeah, I'd forgotten about the fuggin' gasg stations that play adverts at you.
But this all seems off-topic. Unless you'd like to conclude that since all these other people can force adverts on your attention even while they're taking your money, it is entirely reasonable that web site owners have some legal assistance in getting you to listen to their ads. | |
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to nwrickert
said by nwrickert  :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. I'd think it would be good if a site claiming any right to a forced download of its ads to be forced to allow web crawlers to index its TOS & even possibly deny the indexing of its main page. Let the TOS ClickThru of Death do it's job! | |
Wildcatboy
Premium,Mod
join:2000-10-30
Toronto, ON | reply to dave
Not at all. I don't think Gas stations can complain if I go there with ear plugs while looking away from the TV screen.
--
You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him long. | |
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| reply to fatness
said by fatness :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. Logically, the manager's answer would stand only if you were warned before entering the restaurant that (in addition to non-obtrusive print ads in the menu) you will be served up obnoxious, jiggly, live people ads while you are trying to eat your food, thus allowing you to make a choice about whether you wish to watch garbage when you only expected to pay for and eat a meal.
--
JIHAD WATCH~~9555 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 | |
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL | And I had thought there was an additional cover charge for the floor show  | |
Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to EGeezer
Analogies aside, it seems to me there are several aspects to this that have major bearing on the possibility of any sort of legislation actually being created to ban ad-blocking or the viability of such a law's enforcement once created:
1. The "free-to-all-comers" aspect of how these websites are currently structured and operated... in the eyes of the law, no fee changing hands for services rendered ordinarily implies no damages that can be recovered from a "customer" - hence no legal standing for creation of law restricting such customers' viewing activities.
2. The lack of TOS's that caution and restrict access to initially-arriving "free" website customers to only those agreeing to accept ads - a lack of stated and agreed-upon quid-pro-quo or contract is generally considered an arrangement unenforceable by law.
3. The existence in the website industry of readily-adoptable technical means that inherently force a site viewer to receive sponsoring ads - this can be argued to demonstrate that "free" websites currently being 'deprived' of ad revenue by user ad-blocking are merely the result of the site operators' use of inherently weak, vulnerable, or unwise technical approaches, whose employment is rationally the sole responsibility of the site owner and not due the protection of specific law.
4. The long-standing, widespread, and integrated nature of certain basic software (eg: host files) used for legitimate purposes such as computer security, whose ordinary functioning may be 'diverted' to ad-blocking of websites - this makes ironclad, legal banning of ad-block capability a practical impossibility. Laws impossible of enforcement are bad law.
5. The current integration of ad-blocking capability (intentional/direct or otherwise) directly into some web browsers implies a legal definition of the prohibited ad-blocking would have to be extremely broad in scope and onerous in detail. This raises a likelihood that anti-spyware, anti-adware, or even certain anti-virus security products could be construed to conflict with such definition.
6. The design/distribution of software with ad-block potential from a multiplicity of international sources renders impossible the broad, practical enforcement of legal prohibition of the distribution of ad-block software. Again, laws impossible of enforcement are bad law.
7. Use of new law that inhibits website ad-blocking (particularly for security purposes) by a visiting computer user sets in motion a corresponding reasonable, legally-enforceable counter-expectation by such user that any ads being force-fed him by a given ad-paid website (especially on a referral basis) will be safe and malware-free in his computer. The cost impact of that ad-vetting will be borne by every free-site operator that does not wish to expose himself to class-action tort, since any law banning ad-blocking will of necessity be universally applied for all free sites. Every coin comes with two sides.
Admittedly, bad law occasionally gets passed. But the difficulties of practical wording of such a law, its unlikely enforceability in any meaningful way, and the eventual free-website lawsuit liability for malware damages to ad-block-banned viewers' computers seem to me to each be "killing" issues that will either block such legislation or guarantee its early death upon appeal or by legislative repeal.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... | |
Kiwi
Premium
join:2003-05-26
USA
·Comcast
·Aristotle Internet
4 edits | reply to EGeezer
Nice thread, Geezer, I bet you didn't see all this coming 
MySpace, LiveJournal: Don't block our ads
[Excerpt] From the article.
A site that produces more spyware, malware than any other on the net that I'm aware of. Last night under pressure to allow access to MySpace I turned security way up and went there, in less than 3" 6 trojans attempted access. Needles to say that tweaked some interest and gasps from those wanting access, from that blocked site, yes, the site relies on ads to make money and fosters the worst ad pit from hell, to boot, there is no way for such a business to secure a site and USERS pay dearly.
The problem has been stated, clearly by many posts here and without further prolonging the agony, it seems relevant that if an Ad company has sufficient deep pockets to ensure that all ads are free from legal recourse for causing harm to a users system, go for it. But, while these companies may go for it they may also need to quench the thirst of MS and other browsers who make deliberate efforts to block ads and that's aside the many people who can't stand this ridiculous method of doing business via a site method to attribute financial gain, sites should be developed for a PURPOSE.
Let's for a minute consider any and all business endeavours that use the internet to conduct business, outside of ad revenue, they could claim ads are disrupting their business flow and they would be correct, aside the security issues ads are time wasters. The internet is not TV, Radio or the newspaper ~Unless you are the ISP, then everyone is a customer.
I can see where anybody who relies on ads to pay their bills, could well try defending the idea that ads are their Right to produce and that's true, but the same group have little concept, or none in terms of security or lost time to legitimate business / research et al; because of a media these companies have no interest in, keeps haunting their commerce with delays.
A law could well pass to secure Ad-In, but you would also have to contend with State & Federal agencies that currently refuse and filter this poor business plan of throwing ad's in peoples faces. Aside that any Law passed in this arena can not be enforced without breaching the privacy Rights of users, this might come to pass in America, but believe me America is not the World, just a part of it, although it's known for it's failure to thrive in real terms and meaningful laws. If such a law passed in America, it would not be enforceable in the greater World, nor in America anyway, without user retribution.
Fortunately the internet is still not owned sufficiently to indulge censorship and by that I mean the Right to deny access to problems, ads fit a problem scenario; wasted business time and security issues.
Added for emphasis, I knew somebody that utilized ad campaigns to make money, lucrative to the tune of $160,000 a year. I mentioned that there were laws regarding tax, the income dropped because tax was then paid, a very unhappy camper. Then laws were passed that curtailed some of that profit (Anyone remember gambling on-line) with redirect ad campaigns. _So, my point is if Ad companies make an inroad, the Government will find a way to seek compensation, or block it!
Ad companies outa lay low, they might be next on the hit list.
Hopefully this stupidity will pass, as it should. | |
|
