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.

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.

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?

said by nwrickert :

...
Nevertheless, I would avoid web sites that required me to agree to some sort of TOS.

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, ...

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,...

said by Russian Ads :

By all means: make sure there's an USA law against advertisements as soon as possible. Our businesses will skyrocket!

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.

said by rawwhide :

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?

said by dave :

But why is that worrying? As long as you get to see the TOS beforehand, and elect to agree or leave.

said by javaMan :

I would have no problem with this concept either. At least I now have the option to participate or not.

said by dave :

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.

. . .

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.

The one visit then could have been enough to get advertising pop-up or pop-under software installed that couldn't easily be removed.

said by Blue2 :

And that's precisely the point. You don't talk about what you don't know. You don't know my book. I don't know your wife. And so you refrain from making comments about what you don't know. It's a simple principle.

said by antiserious :


Perhaps, but they don't prevent you from changing the channels, nor do they prosecute you for doing so. What purpose would legislating adblocking serve if it didn't provide for one or the other?

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 know these examples seem ludicrous, but frankly I don't think they're any more so than some of the arguments that have been postulated in this thread.

. . .

Welcome to Theatre Of The Absurd.

Who would propose such a law, and how far do you think they would get?

said by dave :

But discussing it is appropriate to this thread (we're in the meta-argument now of whether talk of theft is relevant or not; I say it is relevant).

said by dave :

That's the business model for most TV stations, and it works for them. They sell your eyeballs to advertisers. They try and have popular content as bait for the eyeballs.

said by antiserious :

...would it be legal and enforceable for a website owner to say "you must accept and view everything offered on these pages, in their entirety, under penalty of law"?

said by antiserious :

Can you 'steal' something by NOT taking it?

So then the purpose of the website is only to serve ads, and the content is an afterthought, a secondary condition?

Who would propose such a law, and how far do you think they would get?

said by dave :

If such a law is proposed, then you can bet that one likely argument in its favour will be that you're taking something from the web site and avoiding the "payment" of reading adverts. "Stealing" is a good, colloquial way to describe that, though I suppose it can be regarded as a tad inflammatory.

So, I find that discussion of whether not taking the adverts constitutes theft to be right on the money for this thread, even though it's not a viewpoint I agree with. You don't have to agree with a man to understand what he's talking about.

said by 44402812 :

Guess what it is not stealing so why are people even discussing this? David is right common sense dictates it is not stealing! If someone wants to argue this fact...show me a penal law...

said by 44402812 :

. . .Guess what it is not stealing so why are people even discussing this. . .

said by Blue2 :

Hogwash "here" referred to this particular thread. Why would I accuse security experts of hogwash, an area outside my expertise, and why would I choose this moment to do so? That's pretty illogical. Rather, when users in this thread started quoting marketing, advertising, and legal issues that I'm quite familiar with, and they appear to know little about, I pointed it out.

said by Blue2 :

I've referred to the vast number of assumptions made in this particular thread without one shred of knowledge: I'm making up what I say, my book was a "vanity press" publication, I'm trying to "market" myself, etc. I suggested that you stick to what you do know. I thank you, however, for commenting on my writing skills. (which might suggest that I do write.)

said by Blue2 :

Perhaps you could explain that a little better. Or as we like to say it in New York language, put your money where you mouth is.

said by Blue2 :

. . .

. . .I stated right up front that this was a legal issue not a technical one, and many posters here would be best not discussing such issues which they know little about.

. . .

said by NetFixer :

Perhaps the repeated attempts by you and IIIBradIII to ignore the original subject and hijack the thread to push a different agenda is part of the reason for the hostility that both of you have encountered in this thread.

said by Blue2 :

You see, this was never really an issue about "the (il)legality of blocking ads" at all for me.

said by Blue2 :

Since you hardly speak for everyone, how could you possibly know that I "insulted everyone"? You state "supposed" credentials, but I don't remember calling you a "supposed moderator" since moderators usually moderate, not inflame. You indicate now that I'm guilty of "calling me [you] and others names" and I'd like to know what names are those? I have no idea what you are referring to.

said by Blue2 :

Such attacks, akin to punching below the belt, particularly coming from the referee, set the tone for this forum.

I think the tone of this forum has degraded considerably during my four years here, demonstrated by demeaning and insulting comments, bullying and mob rule (I saw this demonstrated on some of the Kaspersky threads), lack of tolerance for opposing points of view, and not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt in what they mean.

said by SnowyOne :

You keep referring to 'what I don't know' without knowing what I do know.

said by mers2 :

You might want to take your own advice...

said by Wildcatboy :

What you call stealing, may or may not be stealing. The beauty of a free society is that values and moralities keep changing based on what the society believes is right. If 75% of people decide abortion is ok, it becomes acceptable regardless of what the Bible says. If majority of people believe file sharing is not stealing, you can say and do whatever you want; You won't win.

said by antiserious :

Speaking of beating people into submission, you've made at least 39 posts in this thread - how many people have you converted to your point of view?

said by antiserious :


So who, exactly, is guilty of 'attempted beating into submission'?

said by Blue2 :

But feel free to try to beat me into submission.

said by Blue2 :

So how does one construe comments such as ...

said by Blue2 :

He said "asinine"

said by Blue2 :

He said "What you call stealing, may or may not be stealing."

said by Blue2 :

He said "It's time you listened to us."

said by Blue2 :

He said "dumb judges"

said by Blue2 :

And I suggest a good class in manners, which is always in style, no matter the occassion.

said by Blue2 :

Wildcatboy's comment was sarcastic, and by implication suggested that "dumb judges" might read what I've written for "enlightenment".

Since I don't answer to you, there's no need to "inform you" of anything. You make all the assumptions you want.

And that's precisely the point. You don't talk about what you don't know. You don't know my book. I don't know your wife. And so you refrain from making comments about what you don't know. It's a simple principle.

said by nwrickert :

I suggest a good class in English literature.

Oh, and SnowyOne has already explained your misconstrual of "dumb judges."

said by Wildcatboy :

I don't need to explain what I meant.

So now his quotes don't stand by themselves and mean what they say?

said by Blue2 :

If I've misquoted him, surely he will be capable of explaining what he meant.

said by nwrickert :

Misquoting and misconstruing are quite different things.

If I've misquoted him, ...

said by SnowyOne :

"...I believe WCB was referring to the Judicial type of Judge. If you're also a Judge, pls inform."

said by SnowyOne :

As far as anyone commenting on your book, how can you reasonably ask if anyone posting to this thread has ever read it? Unlikely as it may be, how would one know it was your book even if one of us has read it??

said by Blue2 :

Now, you've called me dumb? And you've just commented on a book that you've never read? As a moderator, perhaps you need to look up what to moderate means:

said by nwrickert :

Wow! That was hilarious. A great spoof.

At least I hope it was a spoof. Your long string of misconstruals of what Wildcatboy wrote, surely wasn't intended to be taken seriously.

said by Wildcatboy :

I kept reading your post and tried to come up with an answer but the more I kept reading the more I realized there's just one answer to all of it: "So what?"

said by Wildcatboy :

Good for them. They realized how asinine their idea was

said by Wildcatboy :

If people think the music has no value, then it doesn't.

said by Wildcatboy :

If the money she makes is not enough, let her stop singing.

said by Wildcatboy :

You think we're stupid? We won't do stupid things and we enjoy the rewards of being smart.

said by Wildcatboy :

The rest of your post about airlines and cosmetic companies, etc... will get the same response from me. So what? All it says to me is that their marketing campaigns failed.

said by Wildcatboy :

I don't go on the web to do a doctor's job or a lawyer's job. I go there to get enough information so when I talk to a doctor or a lawyer, I can safely determine whether he knows what he's talking about or not.

said by Wildcatboy :

What you call stealing, may or may not be stealing. The beauty of a free society is that values and moralities keep changing based on what the society believes is right. If 75% of people decide abortion is ok, it becomes acceptable regardless of what the Bible says. If majority of people believe file sharing is not stealing, you can say and do whatever you want; You won't win.

said by Wildcatboy :

We've been consumers all our lives and we've shopped in more than 6 countries. It's time you listened to us. :)

said by Wildcatboy :

Of course it may not stay that way for variety of reasons. Those dumb judges may actually get a hold of a copy of your book and see the light.

said by dadkins :

well, what were you trying?

said by dave :

Possibly because other people use dodgy logic like 'because most people believe it, it must be true'? Or 'I can easily block ads today therefore it cannot become illegal'. Or 'I do not like ads therefore it must be legal to block them'.

I'm not one of the two 'naysayers', but your posting is simply wide of the mark.

Again, this thread has not been about whether anyone 'likes' adverts or even 'likes' someone else's position on the matter. This thread has been, or at least has tried to be, about whether it is possible that the advertising lobby will be able to pass a law banning ad-blocking software.

I certainly have my differences with Blue2 and IIIBradIII with respect to this discussion, but I don't want to be associated with the 'nyah, nyah, you lose' viewpoint of this posting. It discourages honest debate.

said by dave :

Again, this thread has not been about whether anyone 'likes' adverts or even 'likes' someone else's position on the matter. This thread has been, or at least has tried to be, about whether it is possible that the advertising lobby will be able to pass a law banning ad-blocking software.

I certainly have my differences with Blue2 and IIIBradIII with respect to this discussion, but I don't want to be associated with the 'nyah, nyah, you lose' viewpoint of this posting. It discourages honest debate.

said by tradnav :

how come you are so omniscient and everyone else is just plain wrong and/or stupid?

Whether you like it or lump it..... no ads here!

said by non anon troll :

my understanding why they mention adblock is you can select any image/ad to block with adblock. you can be selective as to what image/ad to block but you cant do that with a browser (that i know of).
...just looking at it from the other point of view.

said by OZO :

I do not think we need to know that. Let's respect anonymity here :)

said by SnowyOne :

What's the ISBN?

said by Blue2 :

I've written a book about internet marketing. I've consulted for a number of Fortune 500 companies. I've worked in six different countries. So teach me. I'm listening.

said by dave :

I actually thought that Blue2 was one of the more coherent contributors to this thread, at least before it descended to name-calling and credential-swapping. Even if I don't agree with his position.

said by Blue2 :

I hope you have a good lawyer. Your position is an ignorant one.

said by The Snowman :

Dadkins said:

"If I may take the liberties with your post The Snowman... "

__________________________

Dadkins......oh my......I mis-read and thought you said Posey....who is my girlfriend.....so I asked her if she would mine if you have "librerties" and she smacked me one.

said by Blue2 :

I hope you have a good lawyer. Your position is an ignorant one.

I won't post again. Having illogical discussions is just a waste of my time. I only listen to people who know what they are talking about (even if I don't agree with them.)

Like I said, you know everything. Best of luck.

said by dadkins :

If I may take the liberties with your post The Snowman... :)

Message Boards 101
This goes out to EVERYONE:

Posting one's "alleged" accomplishments/awards/accolades on a message board, makes no sense!
It won't impress anyone!
It is pointing out that the poster is getting desperate and trying to ad validity to themselves and/or the discussion/argument.

Do you know who I am? No.
Do you know what I have done in my life? No
Would it make a lick of difference if I posted any of the things I have done in my life in this post? Hell no!

Well... Think about it! :hmm:

Thank you The Snowman!

said by The Snowman :



Blue2 said:

"I've written a book about internet marketing. I've consulted for a number of Fortune 500 companies. I've worked in six different countries. So teach me. I'm listening."

_____________________________

That plus a $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee.....but it does not impress anyone.
It strongly appears that you came to this forum with the intent of "talking down" to it's member. Obviously you are of the opinion that the members of this forum are ignorant and in need of you to enlighten them. (snip)

said by Blue2 :

And that is surely a way to continue to remain uneducated.

said by Wildcatboy :

If majority of people believe file sharing is not stealing, you can say and do whatever you want; You won't win.

It's time you listened to us. :)

said by Blue2 :

When you get sick, don't go to a doctor. Just look it up on the web. When you get arrested, don't call a lawyer. Check out Google. Don't bother going to school either. Everything you need is here.

said by Blue2 :

You state that "Consumers determine the value of the product" and "If the money she makes is not enough, let her stop singing." So your hypotheses are that if consumers steal music, that means it has no value? And that everyone but you is greedy?

said by Blue2 :

I've written a book about internet marketing. I've consulted for a number of Fortune 500 companies. I've worked in six different countries.

said by Wildcatboy :

I kept reading your post and tried to come up with an answer but the more I kept reading the more I realized there's just one answer to all of it: "So what?

said by EUS :

You don't seem to understand either:

as anyone heard if there are threats of passing a law outlawing Cookie Cleaners/monitors....

said by Wildcatboy :

Because it happens to be the first or second link in my google search. If it wasn't there, I'd go to the fifth and the 10th link and I'd get the same thing.

said by IIIBradIII :

I wish I could say it louder somehow, because I've already written it in plain English on more than one occasion in this very topic; so again, I too hope that a law is not enacted that attempts to rule this space. I'd rather indiscriminate adblocking web surfers step back and think of their impact on the person that just provided them with free content.

What is being conveyed here is that because so many have decided to strip ALL advertisements and paint all of the sites they visit with a broad brush rather than using their brains and actually putting some thought into it, they have brought this on themselves (if legislation is enacted to prevent them from doing so).

Many years ago, I was a religious Proxomitron user, until one day I sat back and thought about the impact of my thoughtless removal of sites' income streams. My opinion of this practice changed back then, and I've never regretted it.

said by Wildcatboy :

Again, if your service is not unique, you'll have to compete with others and competition is what it's all about. Trying to create the assumption of a monopoly when the monopoly doesn't exist, is yet another mistake among other mistakes you have been making and the result would be nothing but another failure on top of your other failures.

said by Blue2 :

I was specifically referring to several established newspapers who tried to move from ad-supported content to paid online subscriptions and then had to abandon this and move back to the ad-supported model.

said by Blue2 :

I don't think they feel that the music has no value. Just that "free" is better than "not free".

said by Blue2 :

Here's a simple test you can do here: Stop free entry at BBR and charge $5 to become a member. Then tell me what percentage of free users you convert to paying users.

said by IIIBradIII :

As we've already discussed here, no one is "force-feeding" you anything. When we visit a site to retrieve content, we are requesting it.

said by IIIBradIII :

If it's an asinine idea, why are you visiting his website?

said by IIIBradIII :

What is being conveyed here is that because so many have decided to strip ALL advertisements and paint all of the sites they visit with a broad brush rather than using their brains and actually putting some thought into it, they have brought this on themselves (if legislation is enacted to prevent them from doing so).

said by dave :

"Knee jerk" is simply a phrase used to smear a viewpoint that you disagree with.

said by dave :

Absent any prior agreement between the two of us, yes. Quit trying to paint it as though I've violated some moral code. He put up a web site and hoped I'd see the adverts.

No amount of calling me "irresponsible" will get me to accept that simply failing to read someone's advertising makes me "irresponsible". I have no obligation towards the fellow with the web site, and therefore cannot be called "irresponsible" if I fail to live up to my non-existent obligation.

said by IIIBradIII :

And this sort of knee-jerk reaction to someone trying to monetize their content is exactly what may be used as an example of why such legislation is necessary. Sad really.

said by Mele20 :

What if I CHOOSE to use a non up-to-date browser and choose instead to protect myself via use of the Proxomitron which blocks all ads (among many other things it does) unless I bypass it at a particular site? Why should I not have that choice? I use Fx 1.5.0.11 and SeaMonkey 1.0.3. I don't install all Microsoft security patches either. If a website wants to block me because I don't have Flash Player installed so? I go elsewhere. Now if that website happens to be my airline I am going to protest loudly until they put up an HTML version of the site, but in most instances, I just go elsewhere if some site wants me to install Flash Player or Quick Time or insists I have to look at ads. My hometown newspaper insists that I register to read the paper. Hmpf. I just use BugMeNot and if there is no BugMeNot current working login, either I make one for everyone to use or I don't bother reading the paper. I don't subscribe to the local paper and the reason is partly because they want to force me to register to read at their site. The two Honolulu newspapers don't force me to register to read them online. I would be far more inclined to subscribe to one of those (but there is no home delivery where I am) because of this.

If a law was passed to force users to read (at least display ads), I would just csncel my broadband and find something else to entertain me. It might be a good thing actually as I spend way too much time on the computer on the internet. :D

said by IIIBradIII :

So because a business owner chooses a business model with which you don't agree, you believe it is within your right to take what he has by circumventing his business model?

So if "people around the world" are responsible for taking an owner's content without paying for it (as described earlier in detail), he is responsible for their irresponsible behavior?

said by fatness :

Frankly, this is one of the most hilarious misunderstandings of how business is done that I've ever seen.

Goods and services are purchased by customers. They purchase what they want. When they go to WalMart to get shoes, they don't also want socks, a raincoat, and a brassiere. They just want shoes. If Walmart lobbies the government to require people to buy all those other items with the shoes, and the government complies by passing a law saying "selective shopping is illegal", then there is no recourse like you say to go elsewhere.

All consumers would then be forced to buy shoes bundled with whatever unwanted items that lazy marketing departments want to sell, and cannot sell on their own merits.

Business doesn't work that way. Consumption isn't mandated by government, and business has no divine right to make money.

People. Just. Want. Shoes.

said by dave :

Or the web-site owner can suck it up and respect my right to not take his adverts, or take a less adversarial approach to his would-be customers. His choice.

I don't see why you insist on his non-existent right to control my behaviour simply because forcing me to do something is in his interest.

This is not splitting hairs. This is the reality of the situation. If a man puts up a web site thinking that he can force people to read adverts, to the enrichment of his own pocket, then he is a fool, because that's not how the technology works, and if he doesn't know that, too bad.

In short, no matter how much you talk about his 'rights', I will not recognize them. There is no right to a customer, even if you freely give away valuable things to entice customers.

said by Blackbird :

I thoroughly believe in the layered-security model for protecting my computers, as well as other things security-related in life. The first line of my computer defence is to keep malware out of the computer to start with. Ad-blocking (either in my browser, via add-on software, or using a host file) means a web-site's ad-referral URL addresses are not accessed from the get-go. That reduces my exposure to malicious sites to only the one to which I'm currently connected or its related site pages... not the anywhere from 5 to 100+ additional alien sites that are encoded into all-too-many websites' ad-referral HTML code.

Of course a user's mileage will vary, depending on what sites he visits and how often unfamiliar sites are accessed. I almost never surf in harm's way. But I totally disagree that it's easy to avoid the malware-laden ad servers in Kiev... that kind of exposure is a not-infrequent consequence of the ad-site list embedded into the HTML of some specific, seemingly-innocent website one happens to be at - perhaps a website of normal, legitimate focus that simply hasn't vetted their advertisers as well as you'd like us all to believe. It has happened to me, on more than one occasion, that my AV system has popped up with a warning that something malicious has been put into my temporary cache... in every single case in the last 4 years, it has been an exploit arriving via referral ad that was not blocked because of some ad-block setting I'd relaxed for some earlier reason. Fortunately, the lower security layers in my system have always done their job - interception has occurred. But that certainly does not persuade me that I should abandon ad-input filtering and rely totally on those lower layers.

If you've frequented these security forums as you've indicated earlier, you ought to be aware of just how many folks' malware experiences have resulted from real-world attempts to deliver malware via referral ads from hijacked or infected ad servers.
Your optimism amazes me. What they should be and what they are, are two different things in this real world. And there is no way, going in from a typical information search, for a user to know which is which. Yet you would seem to have users trust to the ideal and go in unfiltered, regardless of the realities I've cited above. That may be fine for you... but it is wrong, utterly wrong, to rationalize businesses using laws banning ad-blocking to prop up their own weak, failing, or outdated website business model and thereby force everyone to be exposed to the full blast of ad-borne malware.

said by Wildcatboy :

If a content provider believes the only way to make money is to force-feed me the whole contents of his web page, then your question makes sense. He needs to figure out a way to do that.

said by Wildcatboy :

But the whole assumption is fundamentally wrong. That is not his/her only choice, therefore the solutions you are asking for will sound just as ridiculous as the question.

said by Wildcatboy :

dave already answered your other wrong question. You have the right to make money but you're not guaranteed to. If you have an idea and a certain strategy to make money out of it, and you fail, People around the world are not responsible for it, you are. It's time to accept responsibility for the wrong choices you've made and come up with better ones.

said by Wildcatboy :

It's ridiculous to try and come up with a law that guarantees everyone, with just about any asinine idea, to make money.

said by IIIBradIII :

Bottom line, it is not difficult to avoid the "malware-laden ad servers in Kiev". If you're smart enough to install and configure an adblocker you're smart enough to be using an updated browser with enough security in place to protect you, and yes, still accept advertisements.

said by IIIBradIII :

Let's get real here - pages are delivered a certain way and with a certain level of expectation that they are viewed in the manner in which they are delivered. d change his methods, or not - his choice.

said by IIIBradIII :

You can split hairs all you want and take the content without the accompanying ads by telling yourself that you "just didn't want all of it", or you can suck it up, respect the owner's right to their delivery method, and find your content elsewhere. If enough visitors are upset by the delivery method and never return, the owner may get the hint and change his methods, or not - his choice.

said by IIIBradIII :

Bottom line, it is not difficult to avoid the "malware-laden ad servers in Kiev". If you're smart enough to install and configure an adblocker you're smart enough to be using an updated browser with enough security in place to protect you, and yes, still accept advertisements.

said by The Snowman :

Public TV offers very good programs....without advertisement.......same for Public radio.

. . .

said by IIIBradIII :

... I don't understand this sky-is-falling mentality - I allow advertisements to pass and scan for malware regularly, yet I've never been infected with anything of the sort. Perhaps it is the web "neighborhood" I frequent - perhaps not.

Bottom line, it is not difficult to avoid the "malware-laden ad servers in Kiev". If you're smart enough to install and configure an adblocker you're smart enough to be using an updated browser with enough security in place to protect you, and yes, still accept advertisements. ...

said by IIIBradIII :

... As to sites being aware of and standing behind the advertisements they display, I've already stated my thoughts on that. They should be both, and along with the agencies they employ to manage it for them should be held to a reasonable standard of "cleanliness" to make sure their visitors are not infected by their advertising partners.

said by Blue2 :

Of course there should be a better model than ad-supported content for interactive media. But when some responsible marketers have tried to move to paid content, people have made it clear that they want it "free". So if you have the answer, please provide it.

said by IIIBradIII :

Then your solution would be what, 100% Flash? Or should that site owner deliver all of their pages in PDF format so you couldn't alter them? Let's get real here ...

said by Blackbird :

Law is an impersonal thing. If ad-blocking is outlawed, it's outlawed. For use against reputable sites and for... uhmm... less than reputable sites.

said by Blackbird :

Are you assuring us that every such guy just wanting a few extra bucks is going to do full security diligence with his site and vet every one of his advertisers? Or the website in Zimbabwe carrying referral ads from those nice folks running malware-laden ad servers in Kiev? Yet when I Google something and visit a resulting website, there's every chance I'll end up at such sites from time to time. Are you willing to assume personal liability for what happens to all such users and their systems if they're legally unable to use technology to protect themselves from ads? Because that's what you're expecting them to do by accepting whatever a web-site dishes out.

said by dave :

If the web site owner wants the collection of pieces, which only gets assembled in my browser, to be considered as an indivisible entity, then he has simply chosen the wrong technology.

said by EUS :

That's not the argument here. The argument is; I can and will skip ads on my TV, in my newspaper, and on my computer as well. The ridiculous notion that I've found a way to "mute" the computer for ads is somehow being linked to theft of revenue is obscene.

said by IIIBradIII :

Agreed, so long as we don't alter their delivery method such that we receive only what we want and strip them of their revenue source for providing it to us freely.

said by IIIBradIII :

...Any reputable publisher should. When they select an ad agency to manage their content monetization, they should choose carefully and choose only those agencies with a proven record of clean ad-serving. There are many such agencies, and who are also just as picky about the publishers with which they partner to carry their ad inventory.

said by Blue2 :

Somewhat true. But it applies to all media: TV, radio, magazines, newspapers.

said by Blue2 :

That's where I often find the language and tone of this thread offensive.

said by Blue2 :

From my standpoint, consumers often are as "lazy" as marketers.

said by Blue2 :

Even worse, their expectations are often unreasonable. While traditional business models need to adapt to new technology (advertising/distribution/etc.), those who have been weaned on the internet have been brought up to think, "Why pay if I can get it for free? Shouldn't everything be free?"

said by Blue2 :

Sure, I'd vote for that too as a consumer, but there's a price to pay. As everything becomes increasingly price-driven, we seem to be moving towards the lowest common demoninator: offshore call centers, outsourced technical support, Chinese goods. Is that necessarily a good thing?

So, fine, work against insidious advertisers, spammers, forced popups, etc. But don't allow your anger at those abuses to label ALL marketers and advertisers as lazy or to think that most things of value in this world are free. There's often a "price" to pay, whether some here are willing to acknowledge it or not.

said by AB :

"2.2 Changes to Service. We reserve the right to change any of the features, Content or applications offered as part of the Service at any time with or without notice to you."

"Content offered as part of the Service". Catch that? ;)

said by dave :

Sure, they have a 'right' to try and get a return on their costs. However, I am under no obligation to transfer to my computer the advertisements that they hope I will look at.

said by dave :

1) Put up with the fact that some of us are seeing the content without seeing the adverts; take comfort in the statistics that show a sufficient number of people are.

said by dave :

2) Come up with technological measures that make it harder for me to evade seeing the adverts; but they need to recognize that this might push me over the edge of going elsewhere, and thus they don't win this way either.

said by dave :

3) Come up with a less offensive advert delivery mechanism, so that I don't feel the need for blocking tools.
4) Go out of business, like they deserve to.

said by SnowyOne :

A web publisher has every right to profit from their efforts. A web page hasn't any right to force the download of whatever it's serving up. You ask for that right & believe it would be a good idea. Talk about entitlements, look in the mirror!

said by SnowyOne :

Are you willing to also accept full responsibility for the content your web page is serving up?

said by IIIBradIII :

So you believe that no site has a right to monetize their own content and distribute it as they see fit? Everything should just be free for you, and apparently free of even slight encumbrances such as advertisements?

said by EUS :

The ad-driven website business model is broken,

said by EUS :

time for marketers to actually get off their collective asses, use some imagination, ...

What this means is, that's right, marketers will actually have to work with the consumer, not rely on forcing stuff on the consumer, to the benefit of both.

said by SnowyOne :

... Are you willing to also accept full responsibility for the content your web page is serving up? Maybe a few million dollar bond held in escrow to cover the recovery cost of victims that get infected by innocently visiting your site? What's that? Your site doesn't serve up anything malicious?
»Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads

said by IIIBradIII :

So you believe that no site has a right to monetize their own content and distribute it as they see fit? Everything should just be free for you, and apparently free of even slight encumbrances such as advertisements? Right, someone else should foot the bill for distributing free content for you to enjoy.

Heck, why not go all the way and tell any provider to stick it - "I'm sorry you have to pay for backhaul bandwidth, but that's your bill not mine so I expect you to provide me with an internet connection for free."

Talk about entitlement...

said by Blue2 :

... Well, it isn't just his reasoning, this issue doesn't just relate to internet content, and don't make the assumption that because no paper was signed, there can be no contract. There are implied contracts and content providers may argue that you knew this (or should have) when you started using their service. Turner Broadcasting's CEO was quoted a few years back as saying: "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis."

It doesn't take much to imagine that if everyone defeats his ad-supported content, he's either going to start charging for it or stop providing it. Could you assume that Turner gave you programming out of the goodness of their hearts, or assume that it was done with the hope for ad-watching if you knew that everyone zapped?

A while back an issue came up here about Wi Fi signals. If I don't lock down my WiFi signal, can you assume I'm offering it to you and tap into it? Are you stealing or is it my fault for not locking it down? Your argument would likely be that I should lock it down. Ok, fair enough.

But the actual issue came up when this issue went to the extreme of someone parking his RUV in front of houses with Wi Fi connections. I'm sure that no one left their connection unsecured in the fervent hopes of attracting RUV vehicles.

said by IIIBradIII :

So you believe that no site has a right to monetize their own content and distribute it as they see fit? Everything should just be free for you, and apparently free of even slight encumbrances such as advertisements? Right, someone else should foot the bill for distributing free content for you to enjoy.

Heck, why not go all the way and tell any provider to stick it - "I'm sorry you have to pay for backhaul bandwidth, but that's your bill not mine so I expect you to provide me with an internet connection for free."

Talk about entitlement...

said by EUS :

The ad-driven website business model is broken, time for marketers to actually get off their collective asses, use some imagination, and figure out a new way to tap into what it is people actually want to purchase.
It's not hard.
Big hint: Most compter-savvy people I speak to are up to releasing some personal info in exchange for a product or service.
What this means is, that's right, marketers will actually have to work with the consumer, not rely on forcing stuff on the consumer, to the benefit of both.

said by The Snowman :

Come tax filing time in the U.S. I can but wonder if those ad vendors are claiming the expense of those ads when they file their return.......after all it would be a ligit business expense.....

Now I am just a dumb country boy who barely made it out of grammer school....but with enough knowledge to block any ad on any website......and make it so as it will never be seen by me again......an do I....that is no one's business but mine.......and no matter if someone would say otherwise..my reply would be "kiss my lilly white"
An should someone ask me if I give a crap about the cost to those "hosting"...my reply would be simple.. "hell no"....if they can not afford to pay to play..let them hang their hats elsewhere...take up golfing or go fishing.......oh I have heard the screams about "but the internet wont survive without revenue" BULL....the U.S. government maintains the internet and the tax payers dollars pays for that.....so unless the government goes bankrupt....the internet will be around a good long time.....even without the ad vendors and sleezy webmasters who try to hussle visitors to websites.
Monitor those who remove ads...please....how much of an idiot could anyone be to even entertain such a outragous thought....hell they can't even stop the script kiddies or spammers......
But of course I am just a dumb country boy.....so what the hell do I know....not a thing.....oh, but how to remove ads if I so desire.....an not need an adblocker to do it.

said by NetFixer :

Actually, I am quite sure that this thread is in the proper place. Your attempts to hijack it to push your own agenda on the other hand...

said by dadkins :

{Bolding mine}

Thank You!

said by OZO :

So, the bottom line is - with the new Internet era the old advertisement business model obviously becomes obsolete and must be changed. Making a laws that force users to watch ads on their computers is nothing more then a ridiculous attempt to resurrect the old and dying model. It will never succeed.

said by Blackbird :

The flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming that a person using such a model (knowingly or not) has some innate legal right to expect that folks who access his site must take his whole enchilada and essentially toggle his ad hit-counters... that he is somehow "due" that behavior, legally or morally.

said by IIIBradIII :

The bill that the publisher receives from his hosting provider every month, not to mention the cost of his time to produce and deliver the content.

said by IIIBradIII :

It's ok with me if you'd like to ask a moderator to move it to a more appropriate location, but understand my initial post where I stated that I am not taking any sort of position against reasonable security measures. If I've not already made it clear, I believe malware authors and spammers should be punished to the full extent of the law and then sued until they are penniless and begging for mercy.

What bothers me though is that some have taken the security issue hostage and used it as a banner under which they thwart the income streams of legitimate content publishers. This is the issue I'm debating here, and this is - I believe - the issue that may be regulated someday as a result.

said by SnowyOne :

Footing what bill?

said by SnowyOne :

The viewer doesn't pay a dime?

said by SnowyOne :

You're trying to get the benefits of an ad supported internet where the cost of access/bandwidth is covered by advertisers without paying a dime towards the cost of that access. So exactly who is the freeloader??

said by Blackbird :

A business model exists, whether the "guy" realizes it or not. The model is simply a description of the real-world generic method someone is using to try to make money as a business. In this case, it is that the site offers free information to all comers and tries to sell ad-space to pay for the costs of that endeavor, with the operator relying on the hope that those visiting the site will download and peruse the full enchilada - free info plus ads. The flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming that a person using such a model (knowingly or not) has some innate legal right to expect that folks who access his site must take his whole enchilada and essentially toggle his ad hit-counters... that he is somehow "due" that behavior, legally or morally. While he may hope for it, there is nothing legally binding on anyone to take anything (fully or partially) away from his "free" web site. There is no legal contract and there has been no fee (simple or otherwise) change hands... nor can there be for a "free" service provided unilaterally to all comers. In essence, there is no transactional legal standing. The site operator simply has the hope that everything will work out for him to recover costs. That is the inherently weak or vulnerable nature of an ad-supported "free content" model. All the logical gymnastics in the world cannot change that reality so as to justify some kind of legal compulsion that tries to force users to view the entire package of what the site offers. If you give something away free, you have no legal right of expectation that the recipient will do something for you in return... that's what makes it "free". You may control the free information's further copying/distribution via copyright, but that's the extent of your legal rights.

If the web operator wants to reduce the inherent vulnerability of what he's trying to do, he needs to incorporate the technical methodologies to assure the ads must be accepted along with the free info as a cost of doing business with such a model. If he can't do that, he either has to accept the limitations of what he's currently attempting or change his model to something that forces direct compensation to him and thereby obtain legal standing to protect the resulting contracts. The ball is squarely in the operator's court, not his viewers' and not the legal system's.

It is my fervent hope that courts recognize these realities and immediately toss out any legal attempts at interfering with the public's right to use their computers/software as they see fit... else we'll lose a lot more than ad-blocking capability, namely freedoms of choice and ownership.

said by IIIBradIII :

And the comparison is indeed a valid one if we step back and look at this from a content publisher's standpoint. You mentioned retail - but that's not at all what this is about. Stop thinking in terms of a physical transaction. If a publisher produces content for viewers in exchange for ad 'impressions' from his audience, there is indeed a transaction taking place here. Only the viewer doesn't have to pay a dime - the advertiser whose ad appears alongside the content is footing the bill, one viewer at a time.

said by dadkins :

You are jumping to conclusions.
Many here block across the board(like you and I with popups) and various other means... and the things you are speaking of are casualties of war.

Well, they started it!
Measures were taken to eliminate the "Bad Ads" and their servers, and apparently "legit"(loosely used term) ads are getting ignored in the process.
Well, tough!
I'm carpet bombing ads. I don't care!
Since the ad servers are indiscriminately hammering, so am I!

Screw me? No! Screw them!
Are you saying I should allow ads? Not going to happen!
Are you going to kill your ad blocking? Didn't think so!

LMAO!

said by Gemologist :

I think the reason IIIBradIII is so bent out of shape is because he relies on Ad based revenue on his personal website. I was nice and polite and blocked the ads at their base so I did not have to view the annoying things, rofl.

said by IIIBradIII :

You've not explained how the logic is flawed, only how you interpret the situation differently. I suppose I could say your view is flawed and be done with it. :) But let's not.
...
You keep assuming that there is some "business model" associated with published content - in some cases there is, but in many there is not. Perhaps a guy just wants to make a few extra bucks to spend at his local watering hole on the weekends.
...
...for purveyors of adblocking software such as the FF plugin, their days may be numbered, courtesy of the courts. I personally don't want to see that happen, as the "little guy" always receives the short end of the stick in such cases.

said by NetFixer :

Apparently not much if all you can do is equivocate when you are asked to explain why you are so adamant that ad blocking has nothing to do with security (despite the fact that this discussion is taking place in a computer security forum and the connection between on-line advertisers and malware is well known).

said by Gemologist :

I think the reason IIIBradIII is so bent out of shape is because he relies on Ad based revenue on his personal website. I was nice and polite and blocked the ads at their base so I did not have to view the annoying things, rofl.

said by IIIBradIII :

Wonder all you like - this forum has been in my favorites list for years. I've even posted in here. But what does this have to do with anything being discussed?

said by mattmag :

That is a very poor example, and you wrote in that line the key phrase-- "for sale". This shows that the explicit purpose is for the peddler to *sell* a product. Hence, one would *expect* to pay for such a relationship, and it happens every day, and it is called "retailing".

A person who posts information on a website that has no associated fee schedule, either real or perceived, is therefore *not* establishing a retail relationship with a buyer, who is the reader. The reader is free to read and move on.

Simply placing ads in or near that information does *not* create said retail relationship, it only becomes another piece of information available for free on the free site. Thus, it can be ignored, by whatever means, and no retail transaction has been disrupted, since none was established.

You can't continue to pose arguments for the sake of arguing when they are this far off-base. It only serves to further undermine any credibility you may have once had...

said by NetFixer :

Accusation? Heavens no. If it were an actual accusation, it would not be subtle (check my posting history).

I can't help however, but wonder why someone with no previous apparent interest in this computer security forum would suddenly begin flooding a thread with obvious security implications (or at least it is obvious to those of us in the business who fight it on a daily basis) with posts that insist that the subject being discussed is not security related.

And BTW, I do understand the intellectual property aspect. I operate several web sites and manage several others for clients, and I earn part of my income from licensing fees and royalties. I also pulled all third party ads from my web sites and those of my clients because of the security risk of hosting active content not under my control.

said by IIIBradIII :

If the roadside peddler who sets out watermelons for sale leaves to grab a bite to eat, is it not his hope and expectation that when he returns his melons will either all be present or there will be money left in his tin in exchange for some of them missing?

said by IIIBradIII :

Is that a carefully veiled accusation? If so, knock yourself out but you're aiming at the wrong target. I won't even bother listing the reasons why that's a hilarious assumption, because that's not why we're here. But nonetheless we welcome your input on the subject at hand.

said by NetFixer :

I read your earlier 2 point type disclaimer (which BTW is a method often used by "bottom-feeding malware authors and spammers" to put the blame on their victims). You certainly seem to be trying awfully hard to steer the conversation away from its security implications despite the fact that it is taking place in a computer security forum.

said by IIIBradIII :

I realize this is a lengthy discussion, but if you don't mind taking a few minutes to catch up it would help us stay on track:
»Re: The (il) legality of blocking ads
Ctrl+F malware

said by NetFixer :

I can't decide if you are very naive and are unaware of the malicious role played by many purveyors of on-line advertising, or if perhaps you are or have been a participant.

said by Blue2 :

Porn is offensive and children need to be protected from its unsolicited appearance. We do this on TV, radio and print. And we need to do this on the web.

Advertising, on the other hand is not by it's nature offensive (though of course, much is), and one doesn't need to be necessarily protected from it.

said by Blue2 :

Advertising is a necessary revenue stream and is how most, if not, all products are sold.

said by Blue2 :

So, your honor, if one is allowed to create a product whose sole purpose is to selectively block it, aren't you permitting the creation of a means to turn off that revenue stream and therefore killing one of the underpinnings of commercial enterprise? Can one then turn off copy protection...and how about...and so on...

said by IIIBradIII :

Because using a program called something along the lines of "adblock" implies a certain motivation. Disabling javascript and the like across the board is likely more security minded. Not scientific of course - but the intent of the majority of adblock users is not really in question.

said by jimmie :

What I don't get is how some two bit blogger was able to make this such an issue.

said by NetFixer :

And pray tell, how is the content provider (and/or law enforcement agency, should some idiotic law actually be passed), going to determine my motivation? I don't think that even the NSA is capable of performing that task.

I in fact do block most ad servers and limit scripting to only those sites that I deem trustworthy (and worth visiting) primarily for security reasons. The end result (blocked ads) is the same whether my motivation is security concerns or simply aesthetics.

In short, this discussion is about the wisdom and feasibility of declaring ad blocking software illegal. The motivation for the ad blocking is totally irrelevant since there would be no way to reliably determine motivation. If security concerns were declared exempt, then all any software supplier and/or end user would need to do is to declare that security is the overriding concern. The result would be an unenforceable legal statute.

said by Blue2 :

2. Advertising, like many things, works by numbers and large ones. You and your behavior are not important in the grand scheme of things.

3. Advertising takes many forms, some obvious, some not. If you think your cut it out of your life, that's probably not true unless the island you live on is deserted.

said by Mele20 :

How do you create awareness by advertising when the target consumer avoids advertising?

said by dave :

And the crowd may see the medicine show without anyone accepting the snake-oil pamphlet thrust towards their grubby hands.

This doesn't mean the crowd are behaving immorally, nor that there should be a law requiring them to accept the pamphlet.

Maybe the proprietor will then go out of business and the crowd will see no more shows for free. That's between him and the crowd; it's not something to make laws about.

said by Blackbird :

The reasoning in your referenced posting is flawed. Web providers of free information are not legally "due" anything for their efforts... they voluntarily offer free information along with paid ads in the marketplace in the hope and expectation that the ads will be viewed and registered somehow as "hits" for which they will be compensated. But that hope is simply a consequence of their chosen "free" business model. It is not legally or economically guaranteed. The burden for its success does not rest with forcing some "legal" compliance with ad-viewing by site visitors. If the site operator wants to assure ad viewing, it is his obligation to be sure his site has the technical horsepower to guarantee that such viewing occurs, regardless of who or what equipment views the site. If that means blocking viewing by ad-blocked computers, so be it. If it means rendering the ad graphics directly into the frame structure containing the free information, so be it. But those are the real costs of making a vulnerable business model less weak... it is not and should never become grounds for imposing legal restrictions upon the equipment or software of the general computing public. Once again: that is the route to bad law.

said by Blackbird :

Well, violently or quietly, this is not about taking without payment something offered for sale. It's about whether a customer is legally or morally obligated, when taking something offered for free, to take any additional "stuff" (advertising) that is shoved at him as well.

said by Mele20 :

I stand by what I said. Advertising doesn't work (maybe for the masses) as I will try various products. Then when I find the best, I stay with it unless it changes drastically.

....

You decide by trying, not by what an ad says, and when you find what you like you remain brand loyal and again there is little need for advertising.

said by IIIBradIII :

I can't imagine any content publisher trying to fault us for disabling certain plugins due to security concerns, but again, this is not what this discussion is about. We're talking about intentional blocking of advertisements by those who still want to get the content that accompanies them.

said by AB :
What impact are you referring to?

said by IIIBradIII :

I can't imagine any content publisher trying to fault us for disabling certain plugins due to security concerns, but again, this is not what this discussion is about. We're talking about intentional blocking of advertisements by those who still want to get the content that accompanies them.

said by dave :

Does anyone still doubt that advertising works?

said by IIIBradIII :

The content is still displayed and the publisher's resources used, but he receives nothing in return.

said by Thaler :

Ad blocking is underhanded? Damn, I must be really sinister for dumping all those Sunday advert inserts just straight into the trash...or taking a leak during commercials.

said by IIIBradIII :

Discussed here

said by AB :

Many, many more would not consider it underhanded in the least, btw.

said by IIIBradIII :

I can't imagine any content publisher trying to fault us for disabling certain plugins due to security concerns, but again, this is not what this discussion is about. We're talking about intentional blocking of advertisements by those who still want to get the content that accompanies them.

said by IIIBradIII :

Correct, not illegal - but many would consider it underhanded once we're made aware of the impact it has.

said by AB :

My point exactly.
Without the ad, you would not have known the show was in town, and therefore would not have spent money to go see it-- that show at that place at that point in time.
What you may or may not have have done eventually anyway is beside the point.

said by Blackbird :

Well, violently or quietly, this is not about taking without payment something offered for sale. It's about whether a customer is legally or morally obligated, when taking something offered for free, to take any additional "stuff" (advertising) that is shoved at him as well.

said by dadkins :

Querry friend:
I uninstall(completely) Flash.
Website has images and ??? that do not require Flash to be viewed.
Ads *ARE* Flash.

Are you saying that I Have to install Flash?

Replace "Flash" above with "Java".
Ok?

Another querry for you:
Security dictates that I disable javascript.
So much for your javascript determining whether or not ad was displayed, huh? :o

Start a poll, ask about javascript! LOL!
Bet you get a few "No"s in that poll.

said by IIIBradIII :

Violently? When I was in college I worked retail and busted a kid for trying to steal a CD - he was actually very calm about it but admitted what he was doing....

said by AB :

I'm not attempting to do anything underhanded or illegal. I'm simply going about my business.

said by Thaler :

. . I've always intended to go see Avenue Q, regardless of the ad. I've had my heart set on it, but I've just been waiting for it to become local again. The advert simply alerted me to an opportunity I wasn't aware of. . . .

said by Thaler :

ROFL.

Holy crap dude. If an ad is that out-of-the-blue that it's almost offensive in its content (not saying that adult diapers are offending, but it's sure as hell not why I turned on the tube), you can bet your ass I'm going to either:

A.) Get a snack, hit the restroom, something away from the TV.
B.) Change the channel.

I'm sorry, but if an ad's that damn bad in either the message and/or content, I feel no obligation to keep watching something that's counter-productive to my entertainment. Nowhere in the history of advertising have media viewers been under the obligation to read/watch every single ad that's thrown their way. Again, why should the internet be any different?

said by AB :

I understand.
But the bottom line is that you saw an advertisement, and initiated the response they were hoping that the ad would elicit from you-- to wit: paying to go see the show.
Therefore, the ad did in fact have an effect on you, and caused you to spend money on that 'product'.

said by dadkins :

There is nothing that any advertiser can do to force you OR me to look at *ANY* ad, anywhere. Period.
So it displays. Wow!
Am I still a bad person because I didn't look at it? Didn't pay attention to it?

said by dadkins :

So it gets pushed across the line but my browser refuses to render it, now what?
As far as anyone outside of my room here is concerned, the ad was delivered.
What now? They still get paid(if you say so) and yet I didn't have to see that POS ad!

said by Thaler :

Still saying the same thing. The advertising doesn't change my preferences. I've been a long term fan of Avenue Q way before I saw the ad. Simply saying I now want to see the play purely based on that TV spot is wrong - I've wanted to see their play for a long time. Finding out that its local was informative, not somehow making me jump into a genre due to a flashy ad.

Hell, I see a lot of local broadway ads and they all go into my mind's little crapper. As much as they'd like to glitz up Lion King and/or (insert meme here) on Ice, there's no way in hell I'd go.

Very, very seldom does an advertisement make me aware of a product opportunity that I wasn't already self-aware of. I still have yet to be swayed by advertising in buying one product over another.

said by IIIBradIII :

It's no different than showing us ads for adult diapers when we're watching late night TV - that's definitely not what I turned my TV on to see, but that's the price I pay for watching the show without having to PPV it.

said by dave :

The question, however, is whether the will of the content publisher to hawk his snake-oil should prevail over the will of the would-be customer to not take the snake-oil pamphlet but at the same time watch the travelling medicine show.

said by IIIBradIII :

I think you're confused - no publisher I've seen is trying to force you to view anything.

What they do want is to have their content displayed as they sent it. Just having the ad appear alongside their content when you view it provides them with an 'impression' and they can be paid accordingly. They don't seem to care if your eye actually travels over to that side of the page or not.

said by IIIBradIII :

Each blocked advert is indeed a financial hit to the content publisher, albeit a very small one. Multiply that "small hit" by millions of adblock users and you can see why the advertising industry has taken notice.

said by IIIBradIII :

You are correct in that there is no law written in the books about blocking advertisements on sites whose livelihood depends on it. But because so many surfers these days think it is ok to do so, there may very well be a law against it soon enough. And I would hope that we all have our own moral code that would prevent us from doing it.

said by Blackbird :

Your analogy makes no sense for the current discussion. The robber is breaking existing common law by violently taking from the owner what has not been voluntarily offered to him in any sense, security camera or not.

said by IIIBradIII :

and you can see why the advertising industry has taken notice.

said by AB :

You realize you're saying two different things here?

On the one hand you say advertising doesn't work on you.
On the other you say you only bought a particular product (went to the show or whatever) because you were made aware of it through advertising.

said by AB :

I'm under no obligation to watch an ad for adult diapers or anything else when I turn on the television.

said by IIIBradIII :

It's no different than showing us ads for adult diapers when we're watching late night TV - that's definitely not what I turned my TV on to see, but that's the price I pay for watching the show without having to PPV it.

This illustrates an even greater problem.

said by IIIBradIII :

And following your logic, if I don't install a security camera in my store and I am robbed, the robber is not at fault because I failed to employ such a simple security precaution.

The simple facts of the debate are these:
- Those who provide free content and are compensated by advertisements when such content is viewed are upset that many viewers are choosing to take their content and not view the ads.
- Those who are taking the content and removing the ads maintain that they have a right to do so.
...

said by dadkins :

NO!
Not ad blocking "solutions" The whole debate is over ad blocking "software".

No one here is purposely robbing anyone.
There is *NO* guarrantee that ANYONE will see the ad(s).
There is no guarrantee that anyone will even visit the site!

Dude!

Advertisers are betting on clicks.
Even if I see an ad for a penis enlargement, refinance loan, or Free iPhone... there isn't going to be any clicking on those ads!
Wasted bandwidth on both ends, huh?
Yeah, screw it! Display the ad and still no one clicks it - they're making a fortune, huh? :uhh:

said by antiserious :


In the case of newspaper ads, the rate is based on circulation, of course - but both parties KNOW that not everyone will look at every page, let alone every ad on those pages. Often a premium is charged for the 'hot' pages or placements, but it is understood that a percentage of the circulated medium is all that can be reasonably expected. The same holds true for direct advertisement (junk mail) although with a much lower expected viewage.

It would be reasonable to expect that internet advertisers expect a portion of their ads to go unseen, and they had to have figured that into their initial decision. That some of us are better at 'aversion' than others could logically be considered as already calculated into the mix. Not to mention that some equipment is incapable of displaying some ads, but that doesn't stop the 'provider' from wasting bandwidth delivering it, to a phantom audience.

said by AB :

When I search Google for "how to turn off XP search assistant", for example, I'm not searching for "penis enlargers".
So how is showing me an ad for penis enlargers providing me with the content I was searching for?

said by AB :

And if I should agree to view the ads, then block them anyway-- so what?

said by IIIBradIII :

Ok fella, could you once again read the topic of this discussion (The (il)legality of blocking ads) and either get on board or excuse yourself?

said by dadkins :

BUT, you do NOT see any ad blocker software! You are seeing a BROWSER!

said by IIIBradIII :

. . We ask webservers to show us domain.com/page-we-want.html and they do. As they are showing it to us though, some of us are instructing our adblocker/browser/proxy to alter their content and strip out the method by which the provider is compensated. This alteration is the problem - it robs the provider of the monetary compensation they are due by providing us with the content.

said by Blackbird :

What I'm calling "physical" is just that: damage to hardware or software functionality. The financial "damage" you cite is actually a predictable consequence of an operator's choice in using a particular business model that, by its very nature, is vulnerable to failure when ordinary "customers" employ simple and legitimate content-discrimination choices of their own.

said by IIIBradIII :

Sure, I know what it is and use it myself for DNS purposes. And it is unfortunate that they are used as a golden ticket to prevent providers from receiving requested compensation for otherwise free content.

said by IIIBradIII :

So you would confine the only method of "damage" you may be doing to a site as physical? In business and in law, "damages" may be both tangible and intangible, and in this particular case we're talking about financial damage.

said by IIIBradIII :

What I see is a filter list that will serve much content and rob the providers of the revenue they should be getting by serving it.

said by dadkins :

Hey Brad,
Ever see a Hosts file?
Do you know what a Hosts file actually does?

Would you like to see one? I'm sure it could be arranged.
Several are freely available.

Pretty sure you will find "a couple" ad servers in them.

said by dadkins :

Look closely at this image from SlimBrowser, what do you see?

said by dave :

There is no 'alteration'.

I asked a web server to send me page-we-want.html. I accepted that page in its entirety.

Now I need to interpret the content of that page. When I come to (some of) the IMG tags, I choose to do nothing.

There is nothing that has been altered. I simply chose how I wanted to render HTML. An express design goal of HTML is to leave the rendering to the client browser.

said by Blackbird :

While I may request "free" information from a website, there is nothing on earth that requires that site to deliver it to me unencumbered and wide-open, simply by my asking... and the site should have no legal or moral right to restrict whatever filtering or other tools I may try to use while requesting that information, as long as I do no physical damage to the site's servers and such.

said by IIIBradIII :

We ask webservers to show us domain.com/page-we-want.html and they do. As they are showing it to us though, some of us are instructing our adblocker/browser/proxy to alter their content and strip out the method by which the provider is compensated.

said by dadkins :

Like I suggested, learn your software.

said by IIIBradIII :

... When we visit a site, we are requesting content from that site that we want to see. The technical goings-on in the background are even called GET requests - we are asking to be fed information. The site in this scenario is not attacking our PCs or shoving anything in our faces that we have not asked for.
...
What we have to understand when we fire up our browsers is that we are essentially opening up a window and looking for something that is not on our computers; so if we find what we're looking for, and it is presented in a format that doesn't please us, we need to go elsewhere, not steal from the site that didn't give it to us exactly how we wanted it.

said by dave :

If you're going to claim that I asked for content, you have to tell me which action I executed that asked for those adverts.

said by IIIBradIII :

Ok this has got to be the best attempt thus far at splitting hairs in this debate. My mention of the GET request was to prove the point that when we visit sites we are requesting content from them, not having it shoved in our faces as many describe it. The fact that our browsers use multiple GET requests to completely load a page of content is irrelevant.

I would propose that it is a visitor's obligation to accept content as presented by the provider, or not accept it at all.

said by dadkins :

Ads, blocked across the board - NOT site specific!
Yes! Opera does block ads, downloads, and various other items - you really should look closer at your software...

said by dadkins :

Have I added other ads to this list? You damn skippy!

said by dadkins :
*IF* a site has one(or more) of these blocked ads or ad servers... guess what! They get blocked!

said by dadkins :
No one, not even you pal, will dictate to me what I do or do not see on my screen, period!
Am I entitled to ??? content? NO!
If a site does not allow me to view whatever without seeing some dumb ass ad, I go elsewhere!
Get it?

said by article :

If ad-blockers become so common that they slice away at publishers' revenues...

said by dave :

Firstly, it's not stealing until there is a law that classifies it as such.

said by dave :

Secondly, the crucial issue seems to be whether it's ok to take less than "everything that's offered". Is it a crime to decline content when offered?

said by dave :

Thirdly, your technical argument breaks down, since actually the browser needs to GET each advert.

said by dave :

So, in the end, I don't think this appeal to morality is helpful. The question is, rather, this: given someone else has a web site offering stuff you want along with stuff you don't want, what is your obligation (in the absence of prior agreement) to take the stuff you don't want?

said by dadkins :

Ok, all of that is fine...but, what if the Browser itself is denying that ad from displaying? ... So, they are going to be lobbying for legislature to kill off ad blockers? What do I care? My BROWSER is doing all the work!

said by dadkins :

I frequent several sites that serve up all kinds of neat "stuff" and not a single ad is on the page.
How is it that these sites can deliver goods without the nonsense, but the complainers cannot?

said by dadkins :

*IF* some site does have El Crapo ads, and they are offensively annoying(with or without my *BROWSER* killing the ads) I never go back to that site! So, the site owner/operator has done themselves a disservice, huh? When people ask me "Is this site ok?" I *WILL* tell them "NO!" They lose yet another pair of eyes!

said by Thaler :

We can only speak for ourselves, and in my case, it's a resounding NO. The only advertising that works on me is informative ones on products I'd actually have an interest in. (ie. I saw an ad for Avenue Q. I love the musical and have always wanted to see it live. Without the TV spot, I probably wouldn't had even known they were in town.)

said by antiserious :


I don't see how they can realistically expect to prevent adblocking.

said by Blue2 :

Yes, that's true. And someone might go after them for that. But you can't start generalizing from specific examples to general ones: Some ad servers aren't secure. Therefore, all ads should be blocked. That logic quickly becomes faulty whatever the subject.

said by Thaler :

Look at my e-mail's spam box and tell me what part of it is non-offensive. I really, really doubt that it's family-friendly to be recieving ads of "It's Been Slipping Out" and "Barely Legal F***ing Hot Teens".

said by Thaler :

There's also the unsecure media advertising online that gets a malicious ad every so often, exploiting users to install boucou spyware.

said by norwegian :

Only on a commercial level, not on any other. The end user ends up paying more for an inferior product because of over zealous payments to run these ads.

I'm still filtering advertising.

said by dave :

Does anyone still doubt that advertising works?

said by dadkins :

chance in hell that I will ever purchase this product!
The commercial GAVE me a headache!

said by Blue2 :

Advertising, on the other hand is not by it's nature offensive (though of course, much is), and one doesn't need to be necessarily protected from it.

said by Thaler :

Personally, I've never found Charmin ads to be irritating enough to take note. Besides, if I find an ad that's annoying enough to remember, that's when I conciously start advoiding that product altogether.

said by Mele20 :

That is a bad example you gave in regard to how repetition sells a product. Charmin sells for one reason and one reason only (but not the basic Charmin), because Charmin Ultra is the softest, highest quality toilet tissue made. It is the quality that sells the product not an ad that I never saw or heard of until now. I buy Charmin ULTRA, not regular which is junk tissue, and no other brand ever simply because of its quality.

said by Blue2 :

I wish it weren't true, but unfortunately it is. Research demonstrates over and over again that irritating ads do work. The usually cited industry example is Charmin toilet paper): »www.ciadvertising.org/sa/spring_···page.htm

said by dadkins :

I'm laughing at the very idea of anyone bitching about me controlling what gets displayed on my screen now! :D

said by anonagain :

You will find that what is objectionable is completely up to the user or service provider to determine - not the content provider. That is why Zango lost.

said by Mele20 :

Charmin sells for one reason and one reason only (but not the basic Charmin), because Charmin Ultra is the softest, highest quality toilet tissue made. It is the quality that sells the product not an ad that I never saw or heard of until now. I buy Charmin ULTRA, not regular which is junk tissue, and no other brand ever simply because of its quality.

said by orph4824 :

I realize advertising in the paper helps keep the cost of the paper low. The first thing I do is take the inserts out pile them without giveing them a second thought, and used for fire starting or potty training material for young puppies.

said by Blue2 :

Porn is offensive and children need to be protected from its unsolicited appearance. We do this on TV, radio and print. And we need to do this on the web.

Advertising, on the other hand is not by it's nature offensive (though of course, much is), and one doesn't need to be necessarily protected from it. So that aformentioned case law on offensive material is not relevant here...

said by Blue2 :

So that aformentioned case law on offensive material is not relevant here. Advertising is a necessary revenue stream and is how most, if not, all products are sold.

said by Blue2 :

The point is that it is anything but "trivial" to disprove, judges who know little about technology will decide, and complicated cases will always make for bad laws.

said by swhx7 :

What's more likely to happen is that advertisers will increasingly use technical tricks to make sure you don't get the page unless you're also getting the ads.

said by rawwhide :

Slander? Are you serious? Calling someone "a nobody" is hardly slander. Nobody - a person of no importance, influence, or power. Until he is famous(actor, musician), a politician, or billionaire then he is no more important, influential, or powerful as you or me. Calling him as such, is just being honest.

said by Blue2 :

In fact, ad blocking software could be ruled illegal while browsers are deemed legal. These are not necessarily exclusive. Ad-blocking software could be ruled to exist solely to bypass TOS agreements, while browser developers might successfully argue that ad-blocking is just one of hundreds of browser features.