Forum Moderators: martinibuster
So first, does anyone now if it is true or not. Will phorm replace our ads or just add their own (which is bad enough)?
If they are doing it, is it possible to block it - say with a Javascript that pops up a "your ISP uses Phorm message"? This might fit well with presenting different content to those using ad-blockers.
Any ideas? Am I panicking unnecessarily?
I have read that Phorm will replace Google ads with their own.
How could they do that?
Mind you, this is the EU and not some 3rd world country that does not care about copyright laws.
How could they do that?
Obviously Phorm needs the ISPs to implement it, but given that they have agreements with at least three of the biggest UK ISPs (BT Internet, Virgin and TalkTalk), they have done pretty well on that front.
That said, I find it hard to believe it would be legal, but until the lawyers have had their say we cannot be sure.
One good thing is that Phorm's share price has been plunging and a market cap of £200m suggests that the market does not believe that they are going to steal Google's ad revenues.
With the cooperation of the ISPs.
No ethical ISP would even consider this.
[edited by: BeeDeeDubbleU at 10:26 am (utc) on Mar. 31, 2008]
Did you miss these? One was on the front page of WebmasterWorld ;)
If someone wants to set a nice legal precedent, could they set up a newsstand in which they have carefully cut out the advertisements from newspapers and magazines and inserted their own?
Also, how about adding something like this into a web page?
"Permission to download this page and transfer the contents to a third party is granted to ISPs only on condition that no further content is inserted into the page by aforesaid ISP or its agents."
At present putting a web page implies consent for that page to be downloaded on to a browser. However, once that content is substantially altered or added to en route (and not just reformatted for display) we have a new ball game. Putting content for display does not - or should not - imply consent for it to be modified en route to the user.
No ethical ISP would even consider this.
As I said, three big ISPs are considering adding ads to pages using Phorm's system (although one is backtracking a bit, making it opt in only).
As for whether they will modify pages, the ISPs' comments justifying it mentioned reducing irrelevant ads, which suggests some blocking or alteration. In addition Phorm does want ISPs to insert a tracking Javascript onto pages. They AIM admission document says:
PageSense Javascript can be embedded by a
variety of partners, such as Internet Service Providers, serving pages to those connecting to the
internet through them, web publishers showing content to their user bases, or wireless networks
biscuit, I do have a notice like that.
engine, the other threads (which I did miss) discuss the privacy issues. I am (also) concerned about the possible impact on us as publishers.
So, from the comments above, it looks like my fear of interference with our ads is probably over-blown, but it does look like they may still be adding a Javascript to our pages.
after all I do not hold the copyright on the ads, and if the ads are never shown it cannot be a breach of the copyright on the content of the ads... so who can sue for breach of copyright
Someone would sue them for making a derivative work of your work (they are changing the original content, which was written and is copyright protected by you) for commercial purposes.
The fact that the ads are not being served by your site (but from Google Adsense) is not important.
It's an easy case. Even if they could do it technically, they are not allowed to do that. They won't be so stupid IMO.
This is plain stupid to do. My ISP already redirecting all non resolved domains to their stupid expensive domain and hosting service. There was big thread about same topic when famous online RSS reader started to display ads on user content. I think it was blogline
