Siryak
join:2005-11-26
 ·WildBlue
| How are they gonna know?
Considering the fact that the AdBlocking is done on your end and not theirs how are they gonna know who is AdBlocking anyway. You can't sue someone if you don't know who to sue.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows Vista Home Premium |
|
jbgroup1
Dolemite
Premium
join:2000-05-04
Beltsville, MD | You sue the makers of adblocking software. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
| reply to Siryak
Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall.
It denies the ad server connection.
If the connection is denied, they may see it.
If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that.
Do I care? HELL NO!
This is MY computer!
*I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection.
*I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen!
Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me!
They no likey? Tough shitsky!   
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
jjsk8r85
join:2005-02-17
Belleville, MI | reply to Siryak
they can see in their logs what IPs are and aren't being served the advertisements. your browser actually requests them when you go to pages with ads, and if it's not requesting them (ad blockers) they can see it. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to Siryak
MySpace does prohibit ad-blocking when viewing profiles just blocking the ads with html or css coding on your personal myspace site. Viewers can block but designers of their pages are not supposed to do so.
However, a lot of MySpace ads are definitely spyware or false advertising (free becomes text to cell number and get a charge). Of course, advertising all kinds of products on personal MySpace is a violation of TOS but don't see MySpace enforcing it unless it is sex-related.
I personally don't see how legally ad-blocking could be construed by the courts as being illegal. Stealing content is illegal but not blocking anoying ads. Internet explorer already blocks pop-up or pop-under ads. Is that illegal? No.
Maybe advertisers should stop using flash, which is known to have malware or spyware. I don't block text ads just flash ads. To me, Google is smart just putting non-anoying text ads along search results since some are useful. The flash ads, especially with music or somebody talking or other noises, are just anoying. Unless it is a major site, I block WMV too. Viruses come with those too.
Advertisers are going to have a tough time proving illegal vs. legitimate blocking of spyware/malware. Ad-blockers should just ad that language to their products (it blocks ads that are probably spyware or malware) and advertisers have no argument. Consumers shouldn't have to "open" their computer to viruses, spyware, and malware just because some advertiser's stupid ad isn't getting viewed because they are using the most common forms of causing such infections.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
DCB
@pacbell.net
 from:
dadkins 
| reply to dadkins
What he said x2!! |
|
theeinstein
Premium
join:2003-07-31
Fernandina Beach, FL
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! What he said 10X
This kind of garbage should piss everyone off. I swear these people arnt worth the gum on the bottom of my shoe!! |
|
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | reply to jjsk8r85
So all it has to do is request the ad, but not show it.
They'll like that MUCH better. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
2 edits | Re: How are they gonna know?
Not needed now.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
Magic501
join:2004-05-24
Lilburn, GA
| reply to dadkins
Very well said, and gets me to thinking. The whole argument stems from the premise " you are accessing the content, by viewing the ads". Such as MSN videos which make you view a commercial before it shows the video you want to see.
That said, why cant we just be informed what the requirements are and choose whether the content is worth it? Instead we are presented with surprises, which are not always good ones, subjected to stealth tactics, etc.....
The original poster mentioned Use of Bandwidth. I like this idea. Since the pipe owners are considering charging more for the content providers, why cant we the users charge to view, display, and get rid of unwanted solicitations?
The time, and effort alone spent trying to make the intrusive stuff "leave us alone" would probably make pay the ISP bill.
M |
|
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
| reply to jbgroup1
Start with me then, please.
You're giving me fine reason, not only to release a JB update, but the blocker control files.
As long as this is transparent, they'll loose. I already work on Madison Ave, and it has nothing to do with sleazy ad companies.
I'll have fun with some slick haired little lawyer that they throw against me, I used to have fun memorizing things like Black's Law dictionary, maybe I can put it to some use. |
|
Edward1978
join:2007-07-23
De Soto, IL | reply to dadkins
Right on, it is my connection. I can block ads if I want. |
|
dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content.
We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| said by dlewis23 :said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content. We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. then dont pick ads that make people want to block them. take google ads for example, simple and non intrusive but they still pay the bills im sure. and they dont piss people off like those ones with sound and video, im a gamer and sometimes have my sound up and if i minimize to look something up on dont want your website shouting at me i have won a free ipod.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
| reply to dlewis23
They'll deliver whatever they deliver, it's the wild wild west out there, and be bloody sure I'm gonna protect myself.
Maybe remote controls and such should be made illegal too because people like to skip through the commercials?
Hanging up on a commercial caller, oopsie...
Chuck 'em all in a Guantanamo bay? The folks there have real issues to deal with, not some stupid advertising.
Do I really need crap from doubleclick? I think not, but not just think, I block 'em. End of line. |
|
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
| reply to Kearnstd
Actually, google is pretty intrusive, and that's on my blocker list...
For a company that likes to pretend it's so "careful" it kind of sucks.
urchin.com
googlesyndication.com
google-analytics.com
google.com/coop
google.com/safebrowsing
And this is just blockers, but go there directly and they try to get away with redirecting URLs and such, that's unacceptable bullshit to me. Sites like those to make useful, turn off java etc. |
|
Scree
In the pipe 5 by 5
join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. And furthermore, if a connection is denied, or no data is transferred, how can they prove it's not just a connection error or other anomaly?
Anyway this is a bullcrap issue. I suppose next will be suing tv makers for having the ability to change channels when commercials are on. lmao |
|
dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :then dont pick ads that make people want to block them. take google ads for example, simple and non intrusive but they still pay the bills im sure. and they dont piss people off like those ones with sound and video, im a gamer and sometimes have my sound up and if i minimize to look something up on dont want your website shouting at me i have won a free ipod. I agree with that, some of the ads are just annoying. But we often don't have the ability to choose what ads are displayed.
But we still have bills to pay, and i really do fell like you are stealing when you block ads on my site. So ive started banning people who do it. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to dlewis23
said by dlewis23 :said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content. We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. *IF* you cannot pay the bills with less intrusive ads and still deliver the content, well, I imagine you are destined to fail. Sorry!
Even if I did not block the ads YOU have, if they are so annoying that your site is an unwelcome ad farm, I will not go to your site!
Take your pick.
You slather BS ads everywhere, I either block them or go elsewhere.
Both scenarios, you lose! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
