My ads aren't showing anywhere.

and copyright issues.

[Powdork]

I was working on two different client-friends computers today and very frustrated that ads on my sites weren't showing up at all, or weren't working properly. The first, a client, had Norton Internet Security with the firewall so my ads (served by phpAdsNew) weren't showing up at all and Google Adsense would show up but were not clickable (he rapid clicked on the Adsense Ads about twenty times, i thought I'd be getting a letter :o). On the second computer, my ex wife's laptop, she had installed AdMuncher and none of the ads showed up at all. These are ads I designed myself for clients specifically for my website and I feel showing my website without them is a violation of my copyright. The ideal remedy would be to make the ads unrecognizable to the services. If I cannot do that;
1. How can I block these vermin with .htaccess?
2. Do I have any legal recourse against the companies selling these products.
It may not be bad now, but the number of users with adblockers grows every day. Soon it will represent a huge amount of lost revenue (unless you're the one whose ads are being shown then it would represent a ptentially large amount of revenue).

Just so we are clear, I would have no problem losing a large portion of my visitors. If they have a problem with my site as i designed it they don't have to be there.

[hunderdown]

How can the ads being blocked be a violation of YOUR copyright? The content of the ads belongs to the advertisers, not you. The DESIGN of the site can be rendered in different ways by different browsers, so I don't think you can complain on that basis either.

So, if anyone has a basis for redress, it's the advertisers. And I HAVE read about companies complaining about ad-blocking or pop-up blocking. However, so far as I know, no one has won a case against an ad-blocking company.

Legally, this is somewhat similar to a TV viewer muting the sound on a commercial (or even changing channels). It's their choice. They may be using a remote to do so, making it EASIER for them to not see the ads, but that doesn't mean that the manufacturer of the remote is in any way liable.

The person with the ad-blocking software is exercising their freedom of choice. They are choosing to watch what they want to watch, not what you want them to watch.

What you could do is come up with a message asking visitors to your site to turn off their ad-blocking: "this site is supported by advertising. If you choose not to view the ads, you make it difficult for the site to continue to provide the information/services/games you rely on." Something like that.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of people have ad-blocking software working. Anyone seen any stats on that?

[Powdork]

As I mentioned, the ads were designed by me to be an integral part of the website. I haven't looked at the pagesource for pages altered by norton but I have looked at from admuncher. It ads a significant amount of bulk. If you use text ads (served by an adserver) that are inline with your content, these programs will physically alter your content. Norton (and others) are marketing this ability and making money from it. I think I am pretty close to a solution so the visitors see my ads. I have changed the directory in which the adserver resides and am now changing any filenames that are on the list of known items that cause to the software to activate. Adsense will still be inoperable, however.

What you could do is come up with a message asking visitors to your site to turn off their ad-blocking: "this site is supported by advertising. If you choose not to view the ads, you make it difficult for the site to continue to provide the information/services/games you rely on." Something like that.

Or redirect them to a page with a flash file (not served by an ad server) that really is an obnoxious flashing beeping ugly ad for Norton Internet Security. ;)

[robsynnott]

The issues here is that the user is using what is essentially a different client. They're perfectly entitled to do so. There is no copyright issue, any more than there would be one if you read your newspaper but avoided looking at the ads, or cut them out before-hand. And yes, you can stop users of Ad blockers from accessing your site, but it's antisocial and horrible, and will give you a bad name (and unless you're very careful will prevent the search engine robots from crawling your site).
Rob.

[hannamyluv]

but it's antisocial and horrible, and will give you a bad name

I don't think that anyone in this forum in in it to be social, they are in it to make money. You provide content/service and in exchange, visitors have to look at the ads. If they are so inclined not to, then they can go elsewhere and free load there.

There is a thread floating around that explains how to go about blocking people with that sort of software. I didn't flag it, and I regret it as it has come up several places (not just here), so perhaps someone who did flag it could post the link for the rest of us?

[Powdork]

I thought I had found a way in that Norton was showing no referrer and no UA. That was simple enough to block with .htaccess and also keeps out some other unwanteds (much worse than adblockers)They have since changed that. A visitor from someone with NIS now looks the same as any other visitor but the ads are not called (There is no "GET /adserver/...). I suppose there is a way to determine if a page is requested without the ads... anyone?
If you have a page and the ads are folded into the content seemlessly (I'm talking made part of your copyrighted textual content) and Norton serves their client your copyrighted material in a fashion that is drastically altered then they are making money by using and changing your copyrighted material. If I have images on my site and I cut them into slices for faster downloading and one of the slices just happens to be similar in size to any number of common banner sizes, it will be removed leaving the rest of the slices looking foolish. How is that ok?
And as far as the analogy of this being similar to pressing mute during commercials. To me that doesn't apply. Those commercials are bought and paid for. My advertisers pay by the click or impression. I'm not quite sure why this doesn't constitute interference with contract or a barrier to trade of some sort.

[hunderdown]

PowDork, go and talk to a lawyer about this. I'm NOT a lawyer but I think they will tell you that you have no case.

Copyright law protects the originator of content by providing sanctions if someone uses your content without your authorization. Norton isn't using your content, it's blocking it.

So is that interference with your business? I see your point, but the law might not. Norton could probably argue that they (the company) are not blocking the ads. They just created software that makes that possible. And thus, you would need to sue the visitors to your site who had enabled the blocking. I don't see how that would make any kind of sense.

I can understand that this is very annoying but I still think the best solution is neither technical (.htaccess, etc.) or legal. Post a message about ad-blocking and ask people to turn it off. Get them on your side.

[Powdork]

I know I probably don't have a case copyright wise, but yes, it is frustrating. What is going to happen when adblockers become as popular as pop up blockers? Of course it will be difficult to get that far because the major players (Google, Yahoo, etc.) aren't likely to start blocking their own ads.
Rather than blocking them, here are some ideas.
1. Require a login and email address from those using adblockers explaining that the step would not be necessary if...
2. Send them to a page explaining why they can't visit the site and how to remove the adblocking feature of Norton (if that is their adblocker).
3. Send them to replicas of the pages but with obnoxious flashy things where the ads normally are.
4. Put a default ad in a layer directly behind the original layer (This wouldn't work if you are using normal banner sizes).
5. Pay per view internet.

[hunderdown]

I think option 2 is possibly the best for you--though you might find it creates a lot of work for you, creating code to detect different ad-blockers, explaining how to turn them off, etc.

Do you know if you are getting a significant percentage of visitors who are blocking your ads? If it's only a small percentage, is this really worth doing?

[Jenstar]

Powdork, I believe NIS also blocks images based on the term "ads" or "ad" being in the URL for the image or the link. At one point, Adwords was advising advertisers to change URLs that had "ad" in it, as a possible workaround.

I am not sure if this is still a workaround now though, but it might be worth trying since you mentioned /adserver/

[Powdork]

I have removed or am removing everything found here [webmasterworld.com].

[Powdork]

I don't think it is a large %. I was just amazed that both computers (other than my own) I used yesterday had adblockers on them. The number is sure to grow, however.

[nativenewyorker]

If fewer affiliates promoted this canabalistic software, then it would be less of a problem. It never ceases to amaze me how some people fail to see the forest for the trees.