Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Annoying in many ways:
1 - I asked for a firewall not a web filter when I downloaded the product - and yet they presumptiously seek to interfere with my web experience.
2 - how do these companies expect free content to remain on the web when they filter even unobtrusive context sensitive ads.
3 - are they not breaking copyright? - they have altered the content of the website without permission in an attempt at financial gain. Can't be right.
Anyway - I've seen these points argued in the Norton blocks adsense threads - just wanted to give a heads up on this product as well.
2: What do the proxy firewall makers care? They're making money off of a product that blocks ads.
3: Doubtful. If I buy a book and decide that I'm going to physically cut out every instance of the letter "e" in it, I'm free to do that.
I could probably even sell the book in this modified form (the author has already realized revenue for the purchase).
I probably could not sell a book reprint where I removed all the letter "e"s (this denies the author revenue they may have otherwise realized).
Copyright gives you the ability to control who copies your work, not what they may do with it if you sell/give them a copy. If you want control over what they may/may not do with a copy, you license a work.
No you're not allowed to redistribute it, it breaks copyright and it is not Fair Use [fairuse.stanford.edu] - you could do this if it was in the public domain only. A book is a bad example - most sites are much more like a magazine - a free one - the ads are where the revenue comes from.
Otherwise - agree broadly on the other 2 points, of course the firewall manufactures couldn't caree if a site loses revenue, and if content filtering sells their product then yes there going to try it. But - if to do this they are breaking copyright - then it's illegal.
But - if to do this they are breaking copyright - then it's illegal.
The argument doesn't stand up. If you don't want the stupidity that personal (software) firewalls provide, don't install the damned thing. You (via client side software residing on YOUR computer) are manipulating the copyrighted page for your own use. The comptuer is acting on your behalf. Just like if you were to take the page, save it, kill the AdSense ad, and print it out to read.
That's fair use.
2. Your asking this of a company that gives away a comprehensive packet filter, for free?
3. What is their software copying? It would have to copy something to be able to infringe on someone's copyrights.
It is a waste of bandwidth, time, and money serving me ads - I won't buy anything from them. Save your bandwidth for serving ads to people who want them. The same logic that applies to the Do Not Call lists and Telephone Preference Service applies here.
Ok - a firewall is a necessity on windows with broadband, so everyone everywhere says to Joe user "download a free personal firewall and stop hackers". Joe user installs xyz free personal firewall and gets a bonus of ad filtering regardless of whether he's aware of it or not.
Your example of print out is probably fair use - I think grey area. The analogy that works for me is:
A company that makes it's money out of cutting the adverts out of a free magazine and then redistributing the ad free version of the magazine - whether the company gives away free coffee with the service is irrelevant. This is clear cut copyright infringement - why is it considered the differently just because it's online?
One argument - it's displayed on my PC, well adverts on TV are displayed using my equipment - but a company stripping ad's and re-broadcasting would also be considered clearcut copyright infringers. I just don't understand why it is considered differently.
Ok - so people don't want to see ad's - reality, but to pretend stripping the ad's is fair use doesn't make sense.
* - personally only have windows for testing - this is not what I'm interested in.
> It is a waste of bandwidth, time, and money serving me ads - I won't buy anything from them.
a) The bandwidth is already used, blocked at the client.
b) Time is irrelevant
c) Money - didn't cost anything extra to send it to you
d) You're telling me you never ever clicked an ad? Your not influenced by branding? Not even .001% of ad's? - I don't believe you ;)
> 2. Your asking this of a company that gives away a comprehensive packet filter, for free?
Yes - they're making money from offering a product that stops others making money from theirs.
re-broadcasting
Bingo, mate. That's the cutoff. IANAL, but Webwork is. Webwork, where are ya man?
Using a TiVO to ignore ads at your house is not infringement. It's acting on your behalf, for your personal viewing.
Same thing with a software ad-stripper. It's acting on your behalf, for your personal viewing. It's running locally on your machine.
