Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Yesterday I received an email from a customer asking for the strange virus alert that appears on his screen everytime he vsits my site.
I explained him that is the anti-advertising feature of Norton Antivirus (against the Adsense cookies).
As my site is totally advertising supported, I think is dishonest browse the site while you block the adverts.
¿There's a way to catch users with these ad blockers? I'd like redirect them to a H1'ed page with only one paragraph: "This site is supported by advertising: be honest."
P.S. (I think there is some previous posts about this but I can't find them).
Powdork, you can serve a different version to these users if you don't want them to see your content.I would love to serve them a different version. Thats hopefully what the thread was originally about. Whether they get to see the cintent would be another story. Thats what the ads pay for. I can get my ads, through significant unneeded work on my part, to show, but I can't do anything about adsense not being clickable. Of course I realize how obnoxious adsense can be.;) Serving them a different page would be ideal, because then I could bombard them with the most revolting Norton Ads I could imagine and create.
Did I mention I don't like symantec.
I don't like Symantec either (destroyed good name or Peter Norton among other things).
Its not about likes or dislikes - its about fundamental rights that we all can enjoy. Fair use is the most important concept in digital age and if it gets overturned then we all (including you) will be taken to the cleaners.
Time of irrelevant ads that make up for irrelevance by being in-yer-face are soon to be over. You can fight (like RIAA), but you can't win.
I think you may find that recording movie with VCR off TV, then editing it and watching it privately constitutes fair use. VCRs and PVRs that allow to skip ads are perfectly legal, there are real world precedents of products that are acceptable, and Symantec is no different from Sony/Betamax in this respect.
Sure, no problems with that, except your analogy is not an accurate representation of the situation. An accurate one would be you taping a movie off TV and cutting the adverts out, then screening it to a public that pay you to watch it. That is what is happening here. Nortons are making a portion of their income by depriving me of a portion of mine.
There are legal precedents that can be used to throw lawsuit out of court, you have zero chance to sue company, and even if you can and win , then someone anonimous posts something that users want and they can use it in Mozilla. You will lose either way.The courts don't have to stop adblocking per se, they just have to stop companies from profiting off changing my website. If some zillageek figures out how to do it without altering my content, I don't have a problem with that (still block 'em if I could). My ads are all created in house with local artwork, tailored for each page or category, and I am careful to avoid standard banner sizes. But I need an adserver to randomly rotate them, count clicks, and allow advertisers to view their campaign statistics. For this the ads are blocked? The end result will only be less functionality for my clients and myself, the ads WILL be seen.
Nortons are making a portion of their income by depriving me of a portion of mine.
So "are" VCR makers and PVR (TiVo) makers which can block ads in real time, ie without manual editing. All of these are acceptable devices.
Some of you seem to think that your site is somehow changed - no, its not changed on your server, but it is rendered differently on the client side - it is totally up to the client how to view movie, read newspaper (skip ads), browse webpages. There is no chance you will win case which would give you right to decide how your content is viewed - if that was even remotely possible then big content-owners would have done that ages ago.
I'd like to see you in court trying to pursvuade the Judge that someone who watches TV must not go to fridge to skip ad breaks, or that someone who reads newspaper must not turn over page with an ad. Can't you guys see that its such a non-starter that you will be laughted out at court!
[edited by: Lord_Majestic at 9:08 am (utc) on Aug. 31, 2004]
Next you all will complain that blind users can't see your ads...Actually, thats a good point. What does Norton's gem of a program do to the accessibility I have built into my site?
So "are" VCR makers and PVR (TiVo) makers which can block ads in real timeTwo important points
I'd like to see you in court trying to pursvuade the Judge that someone who watches TV must not go to fridge to skip ad breaks, or that someone who reads newspaper must not turn over page with an ad.That would be analagous to someone not looking at my ads.
Can't you guys see that its such a non-starter that you will be laughted out at court!The fact that we're discussing it here would suggest otherwise. I consider my source code to be copyrighted material. It is hacked apart, rebuilt, and served to someone for a profit.
I consider my source code to be copyrighted material.
Noone changes your copyright - FYI there are legitimate (in many countries) uses to copyrighted materials that you might not like or even try to prohibit - for example reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is perfectly legit (AFAIK) in the UK and USA. TV program that I record on VCR is still copyrighted, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to just record part of it and show to friends in my house. Perfectly legitimate, perfectly fair.
2. They don't change the content of the actual TV show.
Ads are removed, same as may happen to banners on your site - situation exactly the same, and the fact that ads were paid for is irrelevant because as more people use PVRs more advertisers will be factoring in that into pricing, there will be a delay but in principle same thing will happen.
That would be analagous to someone not looking at my ads.
People have right not to look at your ads, and its up to them to use whatever technology they see fit to exercise their right. They don't hack your site, they merely browse your site (watch TV program or read newspaper) the way they see fit. When I buy mags they have those annoying inserts - I bin them straight away, should I feel guilty or perhaps I might even get sued?!?!
Anyway I think I put my argument forward and its up to you and others to decide whether to accept it or not. One thing though - you might not accept it, but technologically you will fail to stop users viewing content the way they see fit simply because you don't control how content is rendered on the client side.
Ads are removed, same as may happen to banners on your site - situation exactly the sameNot even remotely the same. The ads in many cases on my site are tied directly into the content of the page. The ad cannot be removed without altering the content of the page.
When I buy mags they have those annoying inserts - I bin them straight away, should I feel guilty or perhaps I might even get sued?!?!No way you would get sued. I have to bin those right away otherwise they end up blowing down the beach where I read the mag. But the magazine dealer would get in trouble if he were to open all the mags in his store, remove the inserts, and then sell the product at a premium as "Insert Free Magazines". That is what is happening here.
I have to bin those right away otherwise they end up blowing down the beach where I read the mag.
So you get to go to the beach where you can read mags? :(
Now I definately got no sympathy for you! :P
But the magazine dealer would get in trouble if he were to open all the mags in his store, remove the inserts, and then sell the product at a premium as "Insert Free Magazines".
Non-charging website is an equivalent of "free mag - paid ads" business model. I can still take free mag and remove annoying ads, while focusing on some bits of content in it that I see fit. Analogy is very good in my view as it is very similar with main difference being you remove ads from someone else's mag, where as your users remove ads from your site.
Now I definately got no sympathy for you! :PYeah, it's rough here in Tahoe.
Just a quick survey of all you ad blocking types out there. Do you surf with cookies enabled?
Do you surf with cookies enabled?
Yes, but don't hope your cross-checking of cookies will work - first some ads (AdSense) are IFRAMEed from domains cookies set by which won't be accessible by you, and ultimately if lots of people start checking whether particular image was requested then people will block them in an way that will still request image and thus set all cookies (on broadband its not issue of speed), but not actually display that, and I can't see how you will be able to verify it - it can still be accessible by JavaScript, but not displayed in a way that you can't check.
Waves to Powdork from Carson City.
If I happen to have an image in one of the sizes that NIS arbitrailly decides are banner ads it woun't be shown.
JS may or may not load from an external file, and may or may not run.
In these cases NIS is directly messing with copywritten material, and in some cases in ways that drastically change, or even stop, its presentation.
The diagram to the right graphically displays the point I am trying to make here. (Ooops, it was stripped out by NIS because it is the wrong size!)
I can live with people blocking my ads. Having to code around an overly aggressive piece of software just to get my pages to load is quite aggravating. And, I do have serious doubts that NIS is within its rights to change MY content for their profit. Let us be clear. I am not talking about 3rd party ads, but rather my original material that has been altered by this program prior to its display.
WBF
its up to them to use whatever technology they see fit to exercise their right.
I'm not agreeing that it's anyone else's right to change my content, but I'd like to point out that many Norton users have not in fact "seen fit" to block ads. They buy the program for other reasons, and ad blocking is on by default. That's Norton's doing, not the users', and countless users don't even know that they're seeing mangled pages.
I'd like to point out that many Norton users have not in fact "seen fit" to block ads
They see it fit to buy Norton in the first place, and by doing so they implicitly accept what software does by default - I am pretty sure Norton was highlighting this feature of their software.
I fault Norton in this. A lot.
A more compelling case for interference can be made by some of the big advertising networks, whose ads are targeted by NIS. I would venture that, as with Gator, if NIS hits enough major corporations in the pocketbook, there will be litigation.
I call it vandalism.
BTW, for better or worse, I select ALL my own ad graphics.
They see it fit to buy Norton in the first place
Actually, while some users do buy NIS, NIS also comes pre-installed on MANY computers. The people who use these computers on which it came pre-installed agreed to nothing other than the specs for the computer and certainly don't know the in's and out's of every piece of software that comes bundled with their purchase.
The people who use these computers on which it came pre-installed agreed to nothing
Very philosophical thought :)
But you may find that this is covered in small print somewhere in the box... Anyhow I think most people would agree that its okay to block ads because there is generally no compelling reason for users to see ads, and in minds a lot of people ads are associated with not AdWords but obnoxious (sp?) popups, popunders etc.
Anyhow, ad block feature in Norton must be in settings, its not spyware, so anyone who runs that software implicitly agrees with what it does.
The problem with Norton is that they package their product as an "Internet Security" product while designing the software with ad blocking "on" in the *default* mode. The average mom with 2 children has no idea that "Internet Security" according to Norton also means block all images in a particular size and shape or from a particular domain indiscriminately.
These people ARE NOT choosing to block the ads knowingly. Norton is choosing it FOR them.
Lord Majestic is arguing that he has a right to purchase software to block ads and that may or may not be true but the effect the average internet user is getting with the software is not what they are expecting. It's kind of like how those spyware and adware programs bundle other "features" into an otherwise ok software application and it's only a matter of time before governments realize that special laws pertaining only to the internet will have to be created to protect consumers and businesses alike. It won't be the first time something like this has been done for a new and different medium, industry, or situation.
As a side note, as soon as everyone realizes that everything involving publishing, media, copyright, and laws that apply offline do not all translate online, the better.
but the effect the average internet user is getting with the software is not what they are expecting.
Ask a decent number of average interner users whether they would like to stop those annoying popups and ads and I bet many if not most say YES. Lets not kid ourselves - ads is not something people like, they tolerate them on TV or billboards or newspapers or radio or video or cinema or train tickets or shopping bags or leaflets on the street or mag inserts or you-name-it only because they can't do nothing about them. But on the internet they can - and they will.
Equilibrium will be restored, but in my view consumers are on the attack and it will take some time for things to settle down.
Ask a decent number of average interner users whether they would like to stop those annoying popups and ads and I bet many if not most say YES.
The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the average internet user believes ALL ads are annoying. How about asking them if they would like to stop unannoying and helpful ads? But Norton doesn't ask which one should they stop. Think about that one for a bit.
And if you don't think some ads are helpful, I can count many times I was looking for information or a product to buy and found it in an adsense, overture, or adwords ad. In fact, I actually find ads relating to my particular hobbies and special interests whether in an offline magazine or on the internet quite interesting and I'm sure many others do too.
These people ARE NOT choosing to block the ads knowingly. Norton is choosing it FOR them.
IMO, that's the important point here. If Norton was clear that this feature was enabled by default and clear that content was getting blocked, when it's blocked, this would be merely an issue of user choice.
Norton's blocking is pretty arbitrary. Here's a full list of blocked strings [adblock.org]. Some entire domains are blocked. If you visit one of those with NIS's ad blocking turned on, the site is useless, without explanation.
Back to the topic of this thread, that site also describes how to avoid blocking by hiding blocked urls behind a local redirect. Don't think that can work with Adsense since the URLs are served via Javascript and unavailable for editing.
