 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
 ·Start Communicat..
| reply to TBusiness
Re: Horrible thought: said by TBusiness:And what law are these companies violating? Copright? NOPE! They are not changing anything of the code. Instead they can be pop-overs. Oh how naive you are!
The owners of the websites could sue the provider for associating their products and services with another company that without their prior approval. Based on the image, an H&R Block ad is appearing on Apple's website. Apple could argue that someone may draw an association between the two by assuming that Apple endorses their product or services when no such endorsement actually exists. For this reason alone anyone doing this could be hauled into court, and a blanket subscriber TOS that attempts to hold harmless the ISP for doing this most likely wouldn't fly either. |
|
| Still does NOT play into copyright law. and yes; you are unable to sue your ISP in the United States. |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| said by TBusiness:Still does NOT play into copyright law. and yes; you are unable to sue your ISP in the United States. Who said anything about copyright law? I certainly didn't.
It's about unintended and/or unauthorized association. Do you think Apple would want a Surface or Windows 8 ad injected on top of their website? |
|
|
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to TBusiness
said by TBusiness:Still does NOT play into copyright law. and yes; you are unable to sue your ISP in the United States.
It wouldn't be the user doing the suing. |
|
| reply to TBusiness
You're referring to the arbitration clauses that many have in their service agreements, I assume. That doesn't mean you can't sue; it just makes it harder to win. You can still sue, as can any other subscribers, and the ISP must still answer in court, even if all they do is bring up the arbitration clause.
But that isn't even the issue here. Web site owners whose sites were affected can sue the hell out of them, and that pesky little arbitration clause will be irrelevant. And, as I said in another post, the site owners can simply block access from that network. Just wait until subs can't access Google, YouTube, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. Yeah, that'll go over really well.
Where I work, the general philosophy of the legal department is to avoid the risk of lawsuits, because, even if you might win, there's still a cost in terms of time, energy, and bad publicity. Now, do the calculation. Are a few bucks from advertisers worth lawsuits, Web site blocks, and angry customers? You're pissing off lots of people for a few bucks, and even the potential advertisers may run the other way. |
|
| reply to Gone
it would be a website owner suing the ad company for modifying their site, or something to that effect. |
|
| reply to TBusiness
you can still sue your ISP, just not class action. you have to take them to small claims court now. I think 100 small claims court actions against a single ISP would be an extremely good show of unhappiness and force. |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| reply to Chubbysumo
said by Chubbysumo:it would be a website owner suing the ad company for modifying their site, or something to that effect. If the ISP is the one doing the injection without the knowledge of either party, the ISP would be the one who would get hauled into court by the website for creating the association without authorization. The advertiser could very well sue the ISP for the exact same reasons, too. |
|
