homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.41.199
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: eljefe3 & skibum

Affiliates Forum

This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 80 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Litigation Possible for Web Ad Blocking Add-Ons
engine




msg:3450835
 3:17 pm on Sep 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Advertising-supported companies have long turned to the courts to squelch products that let consumers block or skip ads: it happened in the famous lawsuit against the VCR in 1979 and again with ReplayTV in 2001.

Tomorrow's legal fight may be over Web browser add-ons that let people avoid advertisements. These add-ons are growing in functionality and popularity, which has led legal experts we surveyed this week to speculate about when the first lawsuit will be filed.

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.

Litigation Possible for Web Ad Blocking Add-Ons [news.com]

 

tim222




msg:3451354
 12:45 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

And all those people you know who blocks firefox from their website?

I've seen a couple the other way around. I've been redirected twice during the past month because I was using IE. Both sites said they were optimized for Firefox and that the site would not display correctly with IE. Of course, both of those sites had a Firefox AdSense referral button on the redirect page.

The funniest thing was, just for kicks I tested both sites for W3C compliance and both sites failed miserably. So apparently the two sites wouldn't work well with either browser.

callivert




msg:3451362
 1:05 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

The internet is a public medium and by putting it on the internet over public protocols you are giving everyone the ability to look at it.

Not true. With htaccess I can block users by internet provider, region, browser, and referrer.
You have the right to use adblockers. I have the right to block you.

frontpage




msg:3451406
 2:48 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

I like millions of other Windows users edit our host file ("c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc") to block Adsense and other ads from showing up on our webbrowser.

By blocking annoying ads, the web loads faster and is a safer place. I don't like the fact that these large ad serving companies track my internet viewing habits, its creates a security problem and it invades my privacy.

Stefan




msg:3451427
 3:34 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Not sure about Adblockplus (that's what was referred to in all the articles) - I have the regular Adblock running and have had since it became available. Also a filterset update extension. And I keep javascript disabled. That takes care of most of the garbage.

If websites decide to block me because I'm using FF, so it goes - I'll just hit the back-button. If they don't want my traffic, it means they have nothing to offer other than ads. If nothing else, it filters out the MFA's.

For my own sites, I'd rather hang myself that run ads like that, so I won't have to worry about blocking visitors.

plumsauce




msg:3451445
 4:20 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

A message to those in favour of blocking users who use ad blockers:

Please go right ahead.

I'm sure other sites are ready to pick up the slack.

If you also want to restrict by brand of browser, ever better!

I like millions of other Windows users edit our host file ("c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc") to block Adsense and other ads from showing up on our webbrowser.

Tip: point it at a spare server somewhere that always returns an empty 200 OK immediately. this avoids hanging the page load.

Solution1




msg:3451461
 4:56 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

I doubt that the advertisers themselves object to ad blocking. People who block ads aren't likely to respond to them anyway. So ad blocking helps delivering ads to only the people who can be influenced, thus helping targeting the ads, and avoids aggravating people who might be.

incrediBILL




msg:3451470
 5:37 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

I doubt that the advertisers themselves object to ad blocking.

Probably not true as they lose the brand exposure even if you don't click on the ads.

All of my directly sold ads are embedded server side so you couldn't block them as they are indistinguishable from all other content in the page.

That's the real way to stop ad blockers, you listening Google?

I want server side AdSense like you give to the premium partners!

Sylver




msg:3451478
 6:17 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't see any legitimacy in attacking ad blockers. Every user has the right to install whatever software he wants on his computer and if a user does not want to display ads, he has every right to do so.

I use the "host" file of my computer to block ads. Simple and effective. I have every right to refuse to download content from specific IP addresses, especially considering the fact that a large number of these ads companies have a tendency to place spyware (in the form of tracking cookies) on my computer.

Personally, I don't mind the ads. If they are relevant, I even like them. What I do mind is having my browsing habits spyed on by some ad companies without my explicit autorization. (Most privacy policies these days are full disclaimers giving 0 rights to the user). If you feel entitled to know what I am doing on my computer just because I happened to land on your page while following a link, too bad because I don't feel the same way and as long as I can control my computer,...

As a webmaster, if you want to force people to view the ads, make them server side. As an added bonus, your page loads faster. If you can't do that because you are displaying ads from Google and Co., your only choice left is to either accept that some visitors or to block them from your website with javascript.

Bottom line is that the user has every right to do what he wants on his computer, and to filter content any way he likes, and the webmaster has every right to restrict access to his content in any way he likes.

Liane




msg:3451480
 6:21 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

It is your right as an advertiser to create whatever type of ad you want. It is my right as a consumer to:

  • Read your ad if I choose or ignore it and move on.
  • Block your ad with any software I choose.
  • Go elsewhere to find the content I am looking for if I am blocked because I use ad blocking software.

    As Solution1 said, “People who block ads aren’t likely to respond to them anyway”, so why bother being so petty as to block them from using your site! All you do is create animosity and what benefit do you derive from that?

    I look at it this way ...

    Macy’s and Gimbels pay a lot of money for their window displays. A lot of time and effort is spent creating these little vignettes. They do it to entice people into their stores. However, they do not prevent anyone on the street from viewing their lovely displays or visiting their stores just because they aren’t likely to buy anything from them!

    When people type in a string of search words and land on your site, consider yourself and your advertisers lucky. If they have ad blocking software, consider your advertisers out of luck and yourself lucky that those particular words managed to bring a complete stranger to your doorstep ... even if he/she is just window shopping! No harm done.

    And if you consider the use of your bandwidth to be harmful, compare your bandwidth costs to property taxes paid for a real brick and mortar store. People strolling by using your sidewalk or coming into your store without buying a thing.

    It’s the price you pay to be on the internet. Get over it!

    [edited by: Liane at 6:25 am (utc) on Sep. 15, 2007]

  • vincevincevince




    msg:3451485
     6:41 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    I think it is entirely reasonable for an advertiser to object to my blocking adverts. After all, they are paying for my computer, my electricity and my internet connection. Hang on... no, that's wrong... I provide and pay for what happens in my home and so I decide what happens in my home. Just as the advertisers pay for their server computers and get to decide what happens on them, even if that means serving ad-block-blocking scripts!

    callivert




    msg:3451509
     7:21 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    A message to those in favour of blocking users who use ad blockers:
    Please go right ahead.
    I'm sure other sites are ready to pick up the slack.
    If you also want to restrict by brand of browser, ever better!

    I didn't say I wanted to restrict types of browsers, I merely said that it could be done. btw I think you're overestimating how important your traffic is to commercial websites.

    I provide and pay for what happens in my home and so I decide what happens in my home. Just as the advertisers pay for their server computers and get to decide what happens on them, even if that means serving ad-block-blocking scripts!

    exactly right, vince.
    I wish we could have a sensible discussion about the evolution of different technologies, without people thinking this is somehow about good versus evil.

    moTi




    msg:3451555
     8:57 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    It works perfectly to get rid of the user, but I doubt if they turn off their ad blocker.

    if the said user is scared off, so be it. however, best practice might be to give the user a chance to taste some of your unique content he doesn't find anywhere else. then - after a few seconds or on certain pages - confront him with the adblock-blocker and let him decide if it's worthwhile to switch his adblock off.

    If they don't want my traffic, it means they have nothing to offer other than ads.

    wrong conclusion. i have useful content. but on the long run i can't provide it to people who aren't even able to potentially compensate my efforts.

    A message to those in favour of blocking users who use ad blockers:
    Please go right ahead.
    I'm sure other sites are ready to pick up the slack.
    If you also want to restrict by brand of browser, ever better!

    no one wants to restrict by browser. that would be silly. but one might want to restrict by ad blocking enabled. these people can go elsewhere, that's right.

    People who block ads aren't likely to respond to them anyway. So ad blocking helps delivering ads to only the people who can be influenced, thus helping targeting the ads, and avoids aggravating people who might be.

    i think this is a common misconception. imo ad blockers encurage the practice that all forms of ads get lumped together and get blocked as a whole. people might have nothing against unobstrusive google ads. but i'm sure many people find it more practicable to just block every ad type on every website by default. or worse: they don't even know what they are exactly doing or wonder about the many blank spaces. so they can't contribute to the financial survival of a publisher website even if they actually had nothing against it.

    Macy’s and Gimbels pay a lot of money for their window displays. A lot of time and effort is spent creating these little vignettes. They do it to entice people into their stores. However, they do not prevent anyone on the street from viewing their lovely displays or visiting their stores just because they aren’t likely to buy anything from them!

    with ad-blocker, not they aren't likely but they aren't able to buy anything. that should close my shop down. one advantage for the website owner: he can detect if a customer is acutally capable of buying something.

    victor




    msg:3451571
     10:29 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    How could compulsory ad rendering work technically?

    One way:

    * my user agent (browser) requests your (say) home page

    * embedded in the home page are many links to images, CSS files etc

    * some of those links have a new attribute, say the must render attribute

    * my user agent does not display me any part of the page until it has successfully grabbed the must render files.

    I'd be happy with that.

    Two obvious outcomes:

    * I'd use a search engine that had an option to ignore all pages that contain a must render attribute. Instantly, the web would be easily splittable into ad-compulsory pages and ad-free / ad-optional ones. We'd all benefit from that.

    * a whole new type of hacker attack becomes possible. One possible example: an ad-accepting person strays to a malware website and gets suckered into having to render the every page on a site being DDOSed.

    That second outcome needs a solution before the change is made.

    Then all you need is a law change to make honoring must render attributes compulsory. Easy!

    Receptional Andy




    msg:3451573
     10:34 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    The internet is a public medium and by putting it on the internet over public protocols you are giving everyone the ability to look at it.

    Not true. With htaccess I can block users by internet provider, region, browser, and referrer.
    You have the right to use adblockers. I have the right to block you.

    But this is somewhat different from what I was saying. Once someone arrives at the site that you have made publicly available and linked to via public sources, you're free to show (or not show) whatever content you like. Just as people are free to choose which content and which elements of that content they want to see on their computer. The suggestion that at some point of this process a law may have been broken seems strange to me. Browsers request content, and site owners choose how and whether or not to fulfill the request.

    And again, I'm struggling to see at which point this becomes an ethical/legal problem. What about if ads are in flash and the user does not or cannot install the flash player? Is that illegal? At what point does user choice about what content they view become an ethical or legal issue? The natural end of this would appear to be that some site owners want to dictate what technology is allowed on a user's PC.

    Of course, I fully agree that as a site owner you are free to try impose whatever restrictions you like on your users. But I think a legal case against a technology like adblock would be misguided at best.

    old_expat




    msg:3451582
     11:01 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    Hey, whose computer is it anyway?

    Your computer .. my web site.

    The cyber superhighway has lanes going both directions.

    I will install on my computer whatever software I please.

    Which is fine so long as you don't use it to hack my site or violate my TOS in any manner.

    If they want me to see their ads, they need to pay for my computer.

    Do I really need to continue ..?

    old_expat




    msg:3451586
     11:08 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    I can easily see how one could detect the use of an ad-blocker: use Javascript to see if ads have been removed or hidden in the DOM.

    Disabling the ad-blocker is a thornier problem. If the browser's security features are working correctly, it should be impossible. If you circumvent them, you probably face potential legal liability yourself.


    I think I would be happy with something like that which displays a message that tells users they are using software which causes my pages to load improperly.

    Then let them decide if my content is [potentially] worth their turning off the blocker.

    On some of my sites, the only way I have to monetize is Adsense .. and if they start blocking that ..

    old_expat




    msg:3451588
     11:15 am on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    Whenever a certain computer-oriented magazine editorially promotes ad-blocking software I send it back to the publisher with all the ads snipped out. The comparatively few pieces of paper remaining are accompanied by a short note, "This is what your magazine looks like with my ad blocking software turned on."

    Of course, it's never resulted in a reply, just makes me feel good in a weird sort of way.


    KUDOS!

    ROTFLMFAO!

    Solution1




    msg:3451693
     3:35 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    The reason ads are on webpages, in between TV and radio shows, on billboards, etc., is that people are not interested in them, and here people are forced to see them. People don't seek out ads. The reason ads on webpages are animated, put squarely into view, have bright colors and bolded text, etc., is because else people will ignore them. And we also all know why beautiful women feature in ads.

    Advertisers pay those who have the power to force people to see ads whether they're interested or not. Let me repeat the important words here: "power" and "force."

    Naturally, people device all kinds of ways to ignore ads. They develop "banner blindness" (anything drawing attention at the edge of a webpage needs to be ignored). People go to the bathroom during commercial breaks. Or they use more advanced ways, like Tivos or other harddisk recorders for television commercials, or ad blockers for ads on webpages.

    This all is a dynamic between those forcing people to see ads, and people evading that.

    Let's face it: forcing things on people is by definition not respectful. Whether it's just a tiny little bit disrespectful or quite disrespectful is not the point here. Whether ads are a generally accepted way of companies communicating is also not the point. People will evade that disrespect.

    So this whole thing of forcing people not to view webpages with adblockers filtering them, is nothing else as continuing the dynamic of forcing ads on people. Calling it illegal to use adblockers again is just that same thing.

    And yes, webmasters do have the right to block adblockers. That websites "can't" do without ads, is not the point. There's a whole lot of things that are not the point. It all boils down to the dynamic I described above.

    jtara




    msg:3451694
     3:41 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    Ad-blocking is almost EXACTLY the same as cutting the ads out of a magazine.

    I want to see the arrest scene when the cops break into some old lady's house and discover her at the kitchen table, "weapon" (scissors) in hand...

    Now, the one subtle difference is that in the case of a magazine, you've received delivery of the complete magazine - in the case of web ads, (at least in some cases - depends on the software) you are able to block (at least some of) them from arriving in the first place.

    Another analogy - that's not much different from sorting your mail at the mailbox, and dropping the advertising offers in the trash immediately. Again - I want to see that arrest scene!

    The difference does point-out one flaw in the blocker-blocker schemes, and a work-around. The schemes mentioned so far require that the user have Javascript. You've now cut out mobile users, those who choose not to enable Javascript, and many of your disabled users.

    The alternative is a bit complex, but might be done using a server module. The server could check for missing requests for ad URLs, and then refuse to provide further content to that user.

    Of course, I think this is all ridiculous, and any webmaster who blocks the blockers is probably doing themselves a disservice. That is, unless you WANT to be branded as anti-consumer.

    A good example to munch on: what do users think of sites that disable the "back" button? To me, blocking the back button is a flashing warning sign that this is not somewhere you want to be.

    When a website engages in an ongoing "war" with their users, I think I'd rather use another website - whether I block ads myself or not. Don't think the users who don't block ads will not know. They will - they'll pick it up through the occasional technical flaw, and probably the overall tone of your site. Your sour attitude toward your users is sure to show through...

    Serving ads is going to become more and more of a challenge, and, IMO, the revenue model is eventually doomed. (Eventually can be a long time, though - IMO, advertising-supported broadcast TV is doomed, but it will take a while yet.)

    Better now to think about alternate revenue models.

    Ad blockers are NOT going to "ruin the web". There are many, many sites that aren't supported by advertising - online stores that sell their own goods, manufacturer's sites, educational and government sites, etc. etc. etc.

    Frankly, the sites that suffer from ad-blockers the most, for the most part, not going to be missed.

    tim222




    msg:3451698
     4:01 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    Better now to think about alternate revenue models.

    People are doing that. There are inline ads (hyperlinked to keywords in the article). Worse yet, there are articles that contain blatant endorsements for products. Personally I think that's alot more intrusive than an ad on the side of the page. But it seems that's where this is all headed, if ad blocking becomes so popular that it kills revenue from traditional ads.

    amznVibe




    msg:3451704
     4:14 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    Turn off your pop-up blockers if you truly believe website owners have the right
    to force whatever they want onto your screen. Practice what you preach.

    Let's go right back to the dark ages of 2000-2003 or so.

    Hasn't Internet Explorer had a built in pop-up blocker since the late version that shipped with XP?
    Then sue microsoft and leave everyone else alone - they have the deepest pockets.

    [edited by: amznVibe at 4:17 pm (utc) on Sep. 15, 2007]

    europeforvisitors




    msg:3451728
     5:11 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    The reason ads are on webpages, in between TV and radio shows, on billboards, etc., is that people are not interested in them, and here people are forced to see them.

    Depends on the ads. People who read trade and enthusiast publications value relevant ads, for example; reader surveys have shown this. And some popular publications on and off the Web (such as Craigslist) are read only because of their ads.

    RandomDot




    msg:3451760
     6:18 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    If your content is that good and that valueable, then why don't you take it offline and publish it in a book, magazine, newspaper, whatever you want, where people will be forced to look at any advertising the publisher decides on to put along with the information to ensure his/hers and yours revenue and profit margins? That is - IF - you can find an editor who will actually publish it.

    The internet does not have that editorial restriction. The only editorial process on the internet is that of the webmaster of the website. That is the advantage. The disadvantage is the estimated revenue and/or profit margins of any work done. Adblocking naturally cuts into the revenue models which are usually being used - not because of you or your work specifically, but because advertising and the revnue models on the internet in a general sense has become too aggressive for some people, and hence they will counter them by simply blocking the advertising they do not like, for time and ever forth.

    You do not just become a brand or a name or a god by having a website and publishing some articles on various topics, it is about building and contributing with something of a perceived value to the visitors/users of the website which will make them return at some point.. Yes, it IS a very hard and very long road and it does not just happen overnight - and yes, the major brands of the real world has enormous advantages and alot more resources than most other people to build their customer bases on. But it is possible, it just requires what most people dislike the most: Work.

    Sincerely, and have fun,

    tim222




    msg:3451762
     6:24 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    But it is possible, it just requires what most people dislike the most: Work.

    Why work for an employer who refuses to pay? Ad blockers are taking away the financial incentive to do the work.

    jtara




    msg:3451785
     7:02 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    Better now to think about alternate revenue models.

    People are doing that. There are inline ads (hyperlinked to keywords in the article). Worse yet, there are articles that contain blatant endorsements for products.

    That's still the same revenue model - advertising.

    Why work for an employer who refuses to pay? Ad blockers are taking away the financial incentive to do the work.

    Perhaps this is a GOOD thing. Frankly, 90+% of websites are garbage. Especially if you include the parked domains, MFA sites, etc.

    The advertising model encourages pumping out garbage "content". If the advertising model dies, this garbage sites die with it. Good riddance! I'll be sorry to see a few good sites go.

    I'll still be able to do my banking and investing online, Wikipedia will still be there to answer my trivia questions, still be able to buy stuff online and have it conveniently delivered to my home, still will be able to renew my car registration online, see if my plane is delayed, and will still be able to read the Wall Street Journal - which I PAY a subscription fee for.

    I'm not so sure I will miss the sites that disappear, any more than I miss the Fuller Brush Man, Avon Lady, or Tupperware Parties.

    The alarm bells ring a bit too loud here, where nearly everyone suffers from a certain myopia.

    The sky isn't falling - though it's come a bit unglued right over a few of our heads.

    Bondings




    msg:3451878
     9:33 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    jtara, I don't think you realize how much is going to disappear that way.

    Just one question, how would you find stuff online if there is no way to search for it on Google, MSN, Yahoo and Ask? Since all of those will have disappeared or started charging huge subscription sums for x searches/month (and even then barely earning something).

    D_Blackwell




    msg:3451909
     10:52 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    I can only hope that the market will work this out. Lawsuits will just interfere with the stormy business of progress.

    Chances are, if a site can't survive having unwanted content blocked, and has that many people blocking - then it doesn't have enough worthy content to stand the test of time anyway. Let's dig their grave now. So far as I am concerned, site owners can code however they like, for better or worse (and I do). And computer owners can configure their browsers however they like (and I do).

    Though IE comes first for paying the bills - I especially enjoy banning IE users entirely from my personal sites:)) And I'm not even very nice about it:))

    Stefan




    msg:3451924
     11:35 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    I think you're overestimating how important your traffic is to commercial websites

    I think you're overestimating how important commercial websites are to me ;-)

    [edited by: Stefan at 11:47 pm (utc) on Sep. 15, 2007]

    Liane




    msg:3451925
     11:38 pm on Sep 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

    Macy’s and Gimbels pay a lot of money for their window displays. A lot of time and effort is spent creating these little vignettes. They do it to entice people into their stores. However, they do not prevent anyone on the street from viewing their lovely displays or visiting their stores just because they aren’t likely to buy anything from them!

    with ad-blocker, not they aren't likely but they aren't able to buy anything. that should close my shop down. one advantage for the website owner: he can detect if a customer is acutally capable of buying something.

    Sorry Moti, if that were true then Macys and Ginbels would also be forced to close down. Your theory has holes.

    The thing is that you never know who it is you are blocking. Tick off the wrong person and you "might" lose future business down the road. Blocking ad blocking software is short sighted in my opinion.

    A year ago, I wasn't looking for a house, but now I am. I wasn't looking for furniture, but now I am.

    I don't allow cookies except for a very few sites I frequent. It's just a personal preference of mine. Those who don't allow me to view their site unless I accept cookies give me the option to accept their cookie or push off. I usually push off. If the message is particularly rude, I generally disallow that site from then on. It's pretty much the same concept.

    I have no problem pushing off. Too bad for those who have products I may want to purchase though because I don't stop until I find what I am looking for and then I buy it. But I like to buy on my terms and not those which are shoved down my throat.

    Again, these are just personal preferences. As a webmaster, I always ask myself what I would like to see and I go with that. If you have no problem accepting cookies, dealing with pop ups or any form of advertising, then by all means, use those methods. But we are all different and if webmasters can't accept the differences from one person to another, then you are definitely limiting your potential sales.

    I see no reason for law suits over it though. Just seems rather trivial to me. Each to their own!

    callivert




    msg:3452019
     2:37 am on Sep 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

    there seem to be two conversations going on here, with people talking entirely across each other.
    conversation 1. what are the implications of adblocking software? is it a threat to certain business models? will it lead to litigation? how should webmasters deal with it- ignore, attack, persuade, etc? what does the future hold for adserving technology? do adblockers mean that advertising will need to evolve to new forms that are harder to block? are adblocking surfers a net gain to a webmaster or a net loss?

    conversation 2. I have a right to use adblocking software. if you've got a problem with that, get over it.

    ScubaAddict




    msg:3452049
     4:16 am on Sep 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

    This is all very interesting - but I always seem to get agitated on this subject.

    Ad blockers have the right to block ads.
    Webmasters have the right to block the ad blockers... but webmasters need to be given that option - it is currently very difficult to block ad blockers - but it is possible.

    For the past year and a half I have been tracking users who have been blocking my ads - not doing anything, just keeping track of the percentage of my users blocking my ads. Started at just below 5%, and is now consistently above 15%. Last week I started blocking those users.

    I provide my content for free. My competitors charge for content that is inferior to mine - very much inferior. I don't care if my users choose not to turn off their ad blockers and decide visit my competitors. This is my livelihood. The government takes 35% of my income, and adblockers take another 15%.

    Don't want to turn off your blocker? Fine go elsewhere - or pay my premium fees. I could care less - but I sure am not going to continue to allow you to steal the product of my hard work. Those times are over.

    I do find it quite humorous - those who have ad blockers, turn off javascript, turn off flash. Hahahaha! Do you also wear a helmet when you go outside? Not drive on roads that have billboards? Plug your ears when a sports announcer says "Invesco at Mile High" or "Coors Field"? Hahaha.

    [edited by: ScubaAddict at 4:38 am (utc) on Sep. 16, 2007]

    This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 80 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
    Global Options:
     top home search open messages active posts  
     

    Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
    rss feed

    All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
    Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
    WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
    © Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved