Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
26
share rss forum feed


DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
reply to jgkolt

Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile.

Because that is how the websites pay for themselves. If everyone ran ad blockers no one would buy ads space.

The customers already pay handsomely for their connections and ISPs should not be permitted to interfere with traffic or worse, change someone else's copyrighted work.

This is site vandalism in transit.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
Not really changing the copyrighted work if the injects are outside (i.e. top, side, bottom) of the page itself. Looking at the above screen caps, it doesn't seem that the pages themselves have changing, only relocated on the users' screens.


DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
They changed they appearance of a copyrighted work. If I take newpapers off the stand and put ad stickers in the margins I'm changing the page.

dualsub2006

join:2007-07-18
Newport, KY
reply to DotMac4
I don't allow a website to simply loaded ads in my browser because the site is free. There are annoying things that go on and it is up to me to decide if I am willing to sit through those ads or not.

I allow Google and Yahoo text ads. These are generally found on sites that I use the free services from like Gmail. I have even clicked the ads and bought some things.

Graphical or flash ads are a big no-no in my book and I block them. I use Ad-Block Plus and No Script to do it. These ads annoy the hell out of me, consume computer resources and have the ability to be malicious. If any website business model relies solely on ad sales then perhaps the owner should rethink their business plan.

Most people, by far, do not block ads. Most people, by far click those ads or Google and Doubleclick and all of the ad companies wouldn't be in business. Me? I'm not having it.

And I agree. ISP's should not be allowed to do this. It is interference with inter-state communications. Your phone company can't insert a random ad in the middle of a phone call for the same exact reason. That should be a violation of Federal law in the US of A.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to DotMac4
It looks like the copyrighted work is still intact to me, just relocated. It would be the same as sliding the newspaper to the right on the stand and placing an ad next to it, not on it.


DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA

2 edits

1 recommendation

Uh no. You don't seem to understand how pages get rendered. The ISP has to inspect, intercept and then MODIFY Googles copyrighted HTML to add and locate their content (the javascript which obtains and displays the usage data).

There aren't separate HTML pages. There is one HTML page that the browser loads and that's the one the ISP took upon itself to modify.

backness

join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
reply to openbox9
sliding it to the side would be a pop under, not a whole new layout to the page


nklb
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
kudos:2
reply to dualsub2006
said by dualsub2006:

That should be a violation of Federal law in the US of A.
Just remember, the ISP that is doing this in the article is Canadian
--
for all your Linux questions

netposer

join:2003-02-06
Nashville, NC
reply to openbox9
That's not a frame or outside the browser. I bet if you looked at the source for that google page the JavaScript would be embedded into the HTML page served to you from google.com.

So what they did is intercept what google sent to you, injected the JS into the source and then gave it to you. So by any definition that is changing the content without google's consent.