 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Ad injection is copyright infringement Ad injection changes the copyrighted content of web pages.
Hope Google and others sue them out of existence. | |
|
 |
 | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Re: Ad injection is copyright infringement said by dbmaven:A general comment to several people who got 'stalled' on the ad inject piece. Said in the article:
The company is not injecting ads over existing advertising relationships, though there are companies who are.
What part of "not injecting ads" seems to be causing the difficulty?? Because it's a total lie. They WERE injecting ads.
quote:
Consumer nerves weren't exactly soothed when reports emerged that in addition to using surveillance hardware to monitor your browsing habits, the company was also involved in an ad injection system that allowed ISPs to insert their own ads into websites (regardless of the existing advertising deals struck between webmaster and other advertisers).
And this
»ISPs Injecting Their Content Into Websites
Nebuad was actively testing ad injection and according to reports WAS IN USE by some small ISPs although now they claim it was an accident. Yeah right.
quote:
Perftech's tool has some similarity to an ad-injecting system being tested by NebuAd, which is now being used by smaller operators like Texas's Redmoon.
They've done it. That fact is not in dispute. Where the ads are placed is irrelevant. The fact that they modify copyrighted HTTP code to inject the ad (so that browsers render the ads) is completely relevant.
Now they're trying to do damage control to prevent the inevitable PR nightmare any ISP (like Rogers) would face if they dare implemented such a system.
»benanderson.net/blog/weblog.php?id=D20070622
I don't trust anything they now claim. | |
|
| | |
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | Re: Ad injection is copyright infringement Yeah, and I'm supposed to believe Nebuad, who developed and offered the technology to the ISPs? Next up, total trust in Gator and Brian Roberts.
The fact that they were doing it last month and this month claim they no longer do it...it will take more than a few weeks to prove that is the case. | |
|
| | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Ad injection is copyright infringement The injection system used by NebuAD was developed for WISPs to insert paid ads over Wi-Fi browsing sessions to help fund their business models. I guess one Texas ISP stupidly tried to use it on traditional wireline service, which was what the outcry was about. From my conversations with NebuAD I can tell you that injecting ads like this is not their business model, and they do not support the idea. Their focus is solely on behavioral advertising via deep packet inspection. | |
|
| | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Re: Ad injection is copyright infringement Doesn't matter where they use it or why it was developed. You can't legally modify copyrighted work without permission of the author and at least in ther Perftech system that is exactly what they did.
The very concept of illegally modifying a page author's HTML without consent should piss off everyone. And I'm suspicious of any company that would partake in such research and deployment.
Now they go from modifying HTML to snooping inside people's private data during transport for a quick buck and I'm supposed to take their word that they're not going to sell the data? Yeah right. Famous last words just before they sell the data.
Sorry, they're scumbags...the ambulance chasing lawyers of the web advertising industry. They they shouldn't be trusted for a second.
And how exactly are they going to be "firing" ads my way?
If NebuAd really wants to be forthcoming about their service and that it is truly benign, then let them tell us what ISPs they're dealing with.
The fact that they and/or the ISPs refuse to identify themselves speaks volumes. Why the secrecy? | |
|
| | | | | | | said by Karl Bode:The injection system used by NebuAD was developed for WISPs to insert paid ads over Wi-Fi browsing sessions to help fund their business models. I guess one Texas ISP stupidly tried to use it on traditional wireline service, which was what the outcry was about. From my conversations with NebuAD I can tell you that injecting ads like this is not their business model, and they do not support the idea. Their focus is solely on behavioral advertising via deep packet inspection. Karl,
I seem to be missing (along with several others) the explanation of how the mechanism that is used to 'target ' me with ads works. If in fact the information is 'randomized' _TWICE_ before the ad can be created, how, EXACTLY, can I then be sent an ad for a generalized website visit (vacation travel), when no one is supposed who I am, or my IP???
Not belligerent, just confused.
Dave | |
|
| | | | | |  TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx | Re: Ad injection is copyright infringement The answer is here: »Re: A Joke, Karl? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Ad injection is copyright infringement Ok, I got it. I did not read your previous post well.
Thanks,
Dave | |
|
|
|
·
·