Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The masses do not know such a simple to install piece of software exists. Eventually good things catch on, and it will spell the end to adsense as we know it.
I believe ad-blockers are somehow illegal. If an user does not want to see ADS, then visit another page. If the user wants to see the page, then he has to see either everything or nothing. That's how the internet should work anyway. Has any suit been filed against Norton, etc?
Since the web is a receiver-controlled medium, the receivers can implement whatever they wish to restrict what is actually displayed from the pages they fetch.
Since the web is a receiver-controlled medium, the receivers can implement whatever they wish to restrict what is actually displayed from the pages they fetch.
I think that's a bit obvious and exactly what has been repeated so many times. My question is whether it is actually legal or not for ad-blockers to change the way a page is displayed as to not see any advertisement.
Since the web is a receiver-controlled medium, the receivers can implement whatever they wish to restrict what is actually displayed from the pages they fetch.
As a publisher, try it with Adsense code.
My question is whether it is actually legal or not for ad-blockers to change the way a page is displayed as to not see any advertisement.
A different argument: is it then the viewer's "fault" that your wbe page does not render as you envisenged in their web browser?
Worse, does it become your responsibility to ensure that it does?
Despite what WCAG2 may say, a prime tenet of the web has always been equivalent, not identical, experiences.
I'm inclined to think its the equivalent of someone purchasing a book, taking it home and scribbling all over it with a crayon. Once its in their 'hands' they can do what they like with it, short of public display - so, if the user isn't redisplaying (scraping) it in some fashion, they can view it how they choose.
That's a valid point, especially for using the free stuff.
However, putting a disclaimer on a site/page about keeping the full integrity of a page while displaying it should be an acceptable option.
Take it as is or leave it please.
Besides, mass programs for ad-blocking should be regulated. If something like that interferes with papers, radio or tv ads, we would have a major problem.
Public would have the option either to pay substantially higher prices or to use the service as is.
If people don't want to see the ads on your site then its obvious that you don't have the consent of the user to show those ads. Your ads are to intrusive for that particular user, and the user finds them an annoyance. Perhaps you should find more integrated ways to advertise which will meet with the agreement of your visitors.
Besides, mass programs for ad-blocking should be regulated. If something like that interferes with papers, radio or tv ads, we would have a major problem.
So you're saying that VCRs and DVRs should be regulated and/or banned?
They provide essentially the same service as ad blockers (with the exception that the user can choose to watch the ads if they want to).
activeco, do you feel that user-defined style sheets should be regulated? Are illegal? Are wrong?
After all, a piece of software - the browser - is changing your site, without your consent, as per my wishes.
For those clamouring for regulation, legislation, filing of lawsuits, or that blocking is illegal, what are you doing about it? If you feel that Norton should be held responsible for financial losses on your site, then why are you complaining here when your time would be better spent discussing a class-action lawsuit with your lawyers?
Just how far will your wrath extend? If "it" can block, should it be regulated? Should Cisco be called to task for creating hardware firewalls? Zone Labs for software firewalls? Who created the "hosts" file? Should they be hung out to dry?
As for why do I "complain" here instead of doing something about it, you again miss something and that is the meaning of this forum and exchange of opinions and ideas.
I don't think I am so much affected to ask for some class action or similar solution, which shouldn't prevent me to discuss about it and it's ethical or possible legal validity.
As for why do I "complain" here instead of doing something about it, you again miss something and that is the meaning of this forum and exchange of opinions and ideas.
I don't think I am so much affected to ask for some class action or similar solution, which shouldn't prevent me to discuss about it and it's ethical or possible legal validity.
I can't imagine any regulation being passed that could effectively resolve the problem. For example, how would the proliferation of open-source ad-blockers be restricted? It makes no sense from a telecommunications standpoint because no one is interfering with the transmission of web pages, just changing how they're rendered on a given display device.
There is always the option that people exercise not to pay attention to the ads, even if it means getting up to leave the room (as people do when TV ads are on in some cases). That renders any arguments about ad-blocking moot. Essentially, if you want people to look at ads, you have to make it worth their while to do so. Look to the NFL Football Superbowl model; people tune in at halftime just to watch the ads.
Look to the NFL Football Superbowl model; people tune in at halftime just to watch the ads.
I know. That's probable reason why very few heard of this guy:
ALBERT P. NOVAK'S quest to kill television commercials continues. Five years ago, the inventor in Goldens Bridge, N.Y., patented a device that lets a viewer electronically mark any undesirable commercial as it crosses the screen.
...
He still has one problem. The commercial killer does not fill the space left by the unwanted ads, leaving the screen blank. Viewers would have to decide whether blank and silent is better than lively but annoying.
The New York Times, Jun 11, 1988
But that's neither here nor there. I think ad blocking may indeed become a problem, and I hope Google will be flexible and let us move to some sort of API/download the ads kind of a system so we can present the ad content ourselves directly, no javascript, no accessing foreign domain names/IP addresses.
activeco, do you feel that user-defined style sheets should be regulated? Are illegal? Are wrong?
activeco, do you feel that browsers should be regulated? Are illegal? Are wrong?
Surely the only way to display your HTML is as it is provided by your server, pure HTML source? I'd hate to think that someone was using software that reads the source, hides some parts of it, and changes the display and formatting of others based upon what it finds.
Your browser might think that
<h1> .... </h1>My browser might think that
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = ... </script>Or perhaps you feel it should be illegal for two browser to render HTML differently? Fancy taking Microsoft, Netscape, Opera, Firefox etc. to court for their differences?
And I can't imagine what you have to say about those terrible terrible people who have javascript disabled due to a dislike of security risks.
And I can't imagine what you have to say about those terrible terrible people who have javascript disabled due to a dislike of security risks.
Is this addressed to me?
If you followed my replies here, you would have noticed that I admit the difficulties in solving copyright issues in this environment.
There is really no easy way to keep the original integrity of your site and due to the current nature of internet, enabling or disabling some features should be indeed the choice of the end user.
However, when I (not so happy) say "regulation", what I mean is in the first place protecting the basic author's rights.
Note that the ad-blocking software is combating ads and not for security reasons. It doesn't matter if they use scripts or pure html, the goal is erasing the ads.
Now, we are not talking about aesthetical issues anymore, in this case the author is financially damaged.
So, there should be some line that determine legal boundaries.
In your relationship with Google, you agreed to some terms and conditions. There is no way Google could impose the appearrance of their ads on your pages. Hell, you could do whatever you want with the script, it's your site. Right?
Scene two:
A piece of software was acted as spyware, stealing and changing adsense code on users' computers and somehow the company wanted to play more "safely".
So, the company provides software which replaces the code with their own and give the users back some money for every click they do on Adsense or other ads. Of course, according to TOS, users should click only if they have a real interest in an ad, so Google OK's it.
After all, users can do whatever they want in rendering and presenting content on their PC's.
Right?
Firewalls are used mostly for protection of internal networks and for traffic regulation, something WE take care of.
Traffic regulation - precisely! And what traffic do I regulate with my firewall? Why, outbound requests to various ad servers.
Why should I bother to buy ad-blocking software when my firewalls and hosts file do a sufficiently good job? I don't have to worry about: Getting the latest extension for my browser; getting the latest update for the blocking software; the software working with all the various browsers (and various versions) installed; software conflicts or unluckily choosing some malware blocking software... I get to sit on the sidelines of the ads/blocking arms race, with an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio.
You can't compare protecting your internal pc/network and blocking ads on any media.
No, I'm not comparing; I'm plainly stating that, for myself, ad-blocking is an integral part of my network's security setup - ads are blocked at the hardware & DNS lookup level. (I will give you the fact ad-blocking may not be a security issue at all, but that is where it's handled in my realm.) The only software involved is Google's toolbar, for blocking pop-ups.
Speaking of their toolbar, here's a quote from mack, in the thread, "I never seem to see Adsense ads [webmasterworld.com]" (#20):
So what makes adsense any different to any other form of advertising. Google bring out the google bar and it cuts of soem advertisers income by blocking certisn types of ad. Now google finds it's own ads being blocked by user choice. So is it wrong to block pop ups? no less so than to block adsense.
Which one is better? "Good for the goose, good for the gander," or "You can't have your cake and eat it, too"?
> [...] you again miss something and that is the meaning of this forum and exchange of opinions and ideas.
Baiting me with a holier-than-thou slap isn't going to work today - I'm just in too far chipper a mood to go off like I did in the aforementioned thread [webmasterworld.com]. Besides, I thought we were exchanging opinions!
However, when I (not so happy) say "regulation", what I mean is in the first place protecting the basic author's rights.
Note that the ad-blocking software is combating ads and not for security reasons. It doesn't matter if they use scripts or pure html, the goal is erasing the ads.
Now, we are not talking about aesthetical issues anymore, in this case the author is financially damaged.
So, there should be some line that determine legal boundaries.
By your analogy, it would be illegal for someone to pick up a free newspaper, take it home and then tear all of the ads out of it.
What exactly are you trying to preserve here? If someone goes to that much trouble to block ads, you're not going to get a click out of them. The advertiser isn't going to get a sale (at least not via you). Why worry about it? Focus on the visitors who want to see the ads.
do you think that those blocker software guys have more PHD's and brains then Google
LOL!
Do you know what PHD stands for?
By your analogy, it would be illegal for someone to pick up a free newspaper, take it home and then tear all of the ads out of it.
It is interesting how people tend to react on snippets, totaly ignoring rest of the story and global picture.
How many times do I have to repeat that the issue is not that simple?
Have you got the impression that I am against basic surfer's rights? Do you think I support pop-ups/unders, hidden scripts...?
Now, look again on "Scene #2" in message 45.
What about that?
Focus on the visitors who want to see the ads.
Copyright, does not provide any protections for the publisher for what the end user does with the work. It only provides protection from those that would distribute the work.
If an end user chooses to install and run software that will block ads, that is perfectly within their rights.
The only place where you might have a case would be ISPs that block ads with a proxy. And even there you aren't in an area with a lot of precident on your side.
It would also depend greatly on how the blocking is done. For example, if JS is off or certain sites or directories simply have access to them blocked, there is no infringment because your HTML page is still being transferred to the user as-is, without modification.
Now, look again on "Scene #2" in message 45.
What about that?
I found the grammar in scene #2 very confusing. If you rephrase, perhaps I'll be able to give a more meaningful comment.
How many of them have no idea they are blocking ads by using such software?
I imagine quite a few realize they are blocking ads. A good deal of the popularity of toolbars was their ability to block popups, for example. As for the others, I don't think you can afford to worry about them. If your business somehow requires that no ad-blockers exist, you should reconsider your options, IMO.
I found the grammar in scene #2 very confusing. If you rephrase, perhaps I'll be able to give a more meaningful comment.
So the grammar prevets you in using common sense to understand the core of the message?
What part exactly makes you confused?
So the grammar prevets you in using common sense to understand the core of the message?
What part exactly makes you confused?
I went back and reread it. Sorry, I still am confused. You lost me when you started describing the company that changes the code and pays the users to click on ads. That's a different type of situation than people just causing the ads not to appear in the browser.
What are you (really) trying to argue here? That it's unethical (if not illegal) to remove ads from the disk and/or memory of the computer that one uses to browse web sites? Practically speaking, if someone is determined to do this, how would you discourage them from doing so?Suppose they print out the pages and then cut the ads out (as if it were a magazine)? Suppose they just ignore the ads altogether?
