EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
|  The (il) legality of blocking ads
Well, it seems some folks are considering whether using plugins like AdBlock is illegal. I suspect that someone with money to buy friends in Washington will be drafting legislation to introduce.
Given the crap that gets presented and downloaded through popups, banners, scripts etc it seems that banning or restricting blocking applications could jeopardize system security. Also, one might wonder how the powers would enforce restrictions or prohibitions of blocking tools and settings.
said by article :
If ad-blockers become so common that they slice away at publishers' revenues, "I absolutely would expect to see litigation in this area," said John Palfrey, executive director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
Firefox's Adblock plug-in is probably the most prominent way to configure Web browsers not to display advertisements. It lets people block ads from individual Web sites such as Doubleclick.net or through configurable directories, like "/banner". Similar plug-ins are available for Opera, Safari and Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
Link here.
--
My Flickr Gallery |
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12 | Ads? What ads?  |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to EGeezer
They can litigate to their hearts content, but they will lose even more money in the long run. I'm sure that many will contribute to or provide legal service pro bono for authors of such add ons like AdBlock Plus. Plus there are many alternative methods for blocking ads like host files. Had the publishers and marketing folks not made ads so in your face and obnoxious they wouldn't be in this position. And that's not even mentioning the malware included in the ads these days. It's a lose/lose proposition for publishers/marketers if they chose to go the litigation path.
--
Team Discovery
|
|
DownTheShore
Maddie Knows Poopie
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| said by mers2  : Had the publishers and marketing folks not made ads so in your face and obnoxious they wouldn't be in this position. And that's not even mentioning the malware included in the ads these days. I agree. I'm relatively easy-going. I watch commercials on TV and listen to them on the radio. I'm not the type to edit out commercial on the things I record.
Online ads never really used to bother me, but then they started popping up all over the screen and wouldn't go away even when I clicked on the "x", or were flashing rapidly enough to trigger seizures in epileptics, or started flying across my screen at random times, or filling up the majority of the screen, or popping up whenever my mouse happened to cross a certain word, and I just said enough's enough and started using the software to block them. As far as I'm concerned, the advertisers brought it on themselves by being so aggressive and obnoxious.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs: | reply to EGeezer
This debate will really heat up when and if broadband goes to a metered service. I am not even for sure If I should include if in the above sentence.
--
HUH!!! |
|
jadinolf
I love you Fred
Premium
join:2005-07-09
Ojai, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to hpguru
said by hpguru :Ads? What ads? 
--
This post printed on 100% recycled bytes |
|
Ryan
Premium
join:2001-03-03
Attleboro, MA | reply to EGeezer
They can make ad blocking illegal when they make obtrusive ads and marketing scams illegal. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to EGeezer
My bandwidth, my laptops.
I decide what does or does not display on my screen.
Don't use FF or AdBlock(Plus?), but my browsers do have blacklists.
Outpost can, and does, deny the ad server from connecting to display their shi... er uh, cra... wait, garba... uhm, ads.
No one is going to tell me what I have to look at!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | reply to EGeezer
I'll look at what I want |
|
BB1984
join:2006-05-31
Australia
| reply to EGeezer
Legislate all you like... ban all ad-blocking programs (geez Orwell was a prophet) - but I'll just extend my '127.0.0.1 list' - done. Middle finger raised proudly in thy direction.
We are becoming so greedy as a society we are asking for some horrific karma to smite us - and sadly at that point, no-one will be spared.  |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits | reply to EGeezer
he is fucken owned
»jacklewis.net/
i all ready by passed it  it only took 2 min's
add this to you blacklist & disable JS
»jacklewis.net/nojs.htm
works on firefox and Opera |
|
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
| reply to EGeezer
Ad blocking is "stealing", whatsa' matter with you? :
»Using AdBlock Plus Is Stealing
»AdBlockers Getting Popular
--
JIHAD WATCH~~9482 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| If anything the consumers of broadband have a better argument that the display of ads is stealing bandwidth.
--
HUH!!! |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL | reply to La Luna
Ad blocking is "stealing", whatsa' matter with you? I don't use AdBlock.
I do use FlashBlock, and that controls those annoying flash ads. |
|
Trel
Good Evening
Premium
join:2002-10-08
Hillsborough, NJ
| said by nwrickert :Ad blocking is "stealing", whatsa' matter with you? I don't use AdBlock. I do use FlashBlock, and that controls those annoying flash ads. But you still get
--
/chown -R us:us /yourbase |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| reply to EGeezer
I was always wondering - is it illegal to switch my TV to another channel when I start to see a commercial or listen a program on radio and it starts a new ad? because I have a feeling that it's my duty as customer - should I direct my face straight on TV and sit still if a commercial begins? Can I legally turn off a bit sound volume if commercial insists "ask your doctor" with volume level usually twice as much as a regular program sounds? I think I have to talk to a lawyer, because I'm lost here 
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| reply to BB1984
said by BB1984 :Legislate all you like... ban all ad-blocking programs (geez Orwell was a prophet) - but I'll just extend my '127.0.0.1 list' - done. Middle finger raised proudly in thy direction. . . . Amen, Brother.
How are they going to legislate host files away?
Incredible that this one fringe lunatic can kick up a growing storm like this.
No wonder our country is in the shape it is today.
One person should be able to start something right, as the 'grass roots' movement grows behind him-- on the other hand, one person should not be able to implement or set in motion policy detrimental or unnecessarily restrictive to the majority, regardless of agenda or methods employed to achieve that end.
Hopefully this will be an 'issue' that lasts only a nanosecond, and quickly dies the forgotten death it deserves. |
|
CurtesyFlush
Bababooey, fafafooey, tatatoothy.
Premium
join:2002-08-23
Fontana, CA
| reply to EGeezer
When I'm watching commercial TV, the very nanosecond that programming switches into commercial, the mute button is pressed and my head swivels a few degrees to the right for some web surfing. Legislate THAT vato. I can't recall the last time I even listened to a commercial on TV much less watched one.
I fail to see the difference between that and AdBlock Plus.
--
Jack Horkheimer gives me the creeps. |
|
Sindows 7
join:2006-09-13
Hope, BC
| reply to Trel
said by Trel :said by nwrickert :Ad blocking is "stealing", whatsa' matter with you? I don't use AdBlock. I do use FlashBlock, and that controls those annoying flash ads. But you still get I clicked on your ad and it dont work, I want my damn screensavers............. |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| reply to EGeezer
No matter how distasteful, it's amazing how as soon as something is unpleasant, the arguments here become spurious. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. What matters is if someone can prepare legislation and get it passed.
When zapping hit digital boxes, many advertisers cried "foul" and hoped to block the introduction of such technologies. They lost, but that didn't stop them from trying as those with deep pockets win a lot more battles than they lose.
They'll argue that you're altering their "content" by not seeing it in its entirety with ads (contrary to Dadkin's comment, "No one is going to tell me what I have to look at!"), that they don't agree to provide programming that is ad-free so you have no right to expect that, that without ad revenues the government should impose television taxes on everyone, etc.
Absurd you say? Then look around and prepare better arguments. Some of these measures have existed in Europe for years and are likely to get worse. In most European countries you pay an annual TV, radio, car radio tax, regardless of whether you watch it or not. You buy a TV, you pay a TV tax every year. Fair?
If you buy a portable hard drive or a USB drive, you also pay a tax for artist's rights. Yes, that's right. The Dutch have rejected that proposal, the French embraced it. So if I buy a USB drive to store my work files, I'm paying for little Johnnie who illegally downloads MP3s. Fair?
I don't think that the advertisers are going out of business any time soon. So they are going to find one way or another to have you watch their advertising or compensate them for their losses. It isn't personal. It's business. Even if I don't like it any more than you do. |
|
