- Related Stories
-
Philips device could force TV viewers to watch ads
April 19, 2006 -
Supreme Court rules against file swapping
June 27, 2005 -
Firefox improves pop-up ad blocking
April 4, 2005 -
Firefox users ignore online ads, report says
December 6, 2004 -
Ad filters may spring leaks
October 10, 2001 -
Gator rushes to court over ad technology
August 28, 2001 -
Firm pulls ad blocking software
December 4, 1998 - Related Blogs
-
Who blocks the (ad) blockers?
September 11, 2007
Tomorrow's legal fight may be over Web browser add-ons that let people avoid advertisements. These add-ons are growing in functionality and popularity, which has led legal experts surveyed this week by CNET News.com to speculate about when the first lawsuit will be filed.
If ad-blockers become so common that they slice away at publishers' revenues, "I absolutely would expect to see litigation in this area," said John Palfrey, executive director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
Firefox's Adblock plug-in is probably the most prominent way to configure Web browsers not to display advertisements. It lets people block ads from individual Web sites such as Doubleclick.net or through configurable directories, like "/banner". Similar plug-ins are available for Opera, Safari and Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
The Interactive Advertising Bureau, the lobbying arm for the online ad industry, says it isn't preparing a legal offensive at this point. Mike Zaneis, the organization's vice president of public policy, said he wants to work with software developers and consumers to come up with a middle ground on what he describes as an "issue that is just now ripening."
"We don't want to go down a route that would seem adversarial at all," Zaneis said. "People are free to ignore ads, and they often do that, but when you have a third party blocking those ads, that's the real problem." He said the IAB is "looking at all the options."
Ad-blocking tools have been around for years, of course, albeit not without controversy. Nearly a decade ago, a Web software firm called ClearWay Technologies released a beta version of its AdScreen blocking software to threats of boycott from Macintosh-oriented publishers that feared the product would kill their ad-supported Web sites. The company responded by killing the project. Before that, security firm PGP Corp. discontinued an ad-blocking program called Internet Fast Forward because its creator said he had been threatened with copyright lawsuits for modifying publishers' pages without their permission.
Ad-blocking recently hit the spotlight again when an obscure blogger named Danny Carlton--who expounds fringe political views such as AIDS being a "mythical disease" invented by the U.S. government--banned Firefox users from his Web site. Claiming that Firefox creator Mozilla Corp. has endorsed the Adblock plug-in, Carlton redirected Firefox browsers to Whyfirefoxisblocked.com.
The New York Times wrote about the Whyfirefoxisblocked.com kerfuffle last week, and the CNET Blog Network expanded on the topic from a technical perspective. On Wednesday, Carlton lifted the ban on all Firefox users, saying he found a way to identify only Firefox browsers outfitted with Adblock Plus.
MySpace, LiveJournal: Don't block our ads
Many Web sites prohibit any kind of ad-blocking in their terms of service agreements. MySpace.com prohibits "covering or obscuring the banner advertisements on your personal profile page, or any MySpace.com page via HTML/CSS or any other means." Six Apart's LiveJournal uses similar language, as do some news organizations including the Chicago Sun-Times and Fox TV's Houston affiliate. CNET News.com does not.
Any lawsuit would likely invoke two arguments--that copyright infringements are taking place (through derivative works), and that the Web site's terms of service agreement is being violated.
"From a pure legal point of view, a Web site can do anything it wants, so to speak," said Michael Krieger, an intellectual property and business lawyer with the firm Willenken Wilson Loh & Lieb in Los Angeles. "That's a little overstating it, obviously, but suppose to get into Google, you first have to click 'I agree, I'm not blocking ads.' I think it's perfectly within their rights to do that."
In the past, entertainment companies have threatened commercial-skipping products on the grounds that they violate copyrights. ReplayTV, which sells digital video recorders, eventually dropped in 2003 a feature called Automatic Commercial Advance after facing a lawsuit from major TV networks and movie studios over that and other issues. (A judge dismissed the suit the following year.)
It's not clear whose side the courts would take, if asked. In the famous lawsuit over the VCR from nearly 30 years ago, the movie studios claimed that Betamax users would fast-forward through commercials.
They lost, of course. The 1979 district court opinion estimated that only 25 percent of VCR owners fast-forward through commercials. But it was based on the technology available at the time: what if it was easier and 95 percent of TV viewers did it? (The judge said: "To avoid commercials during playback, the viewer must fast-forward and, for the most part, guess as to when the commercial has passed. For most recordings, either practice may be too tedious.")
See more CNET content tagged:
lawsuit, online advertising, LiveJournal, terms of service, Firefox
%20legal%20-%20CNET%20News&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030-6207936.html){kind=small}
As for the web site own terms and conditions, that would be a contractual matter - i.e. Breach of Contract. A site could potentially request users to stop blocking, and pay damages. What damages would be due from someone who would never have click the ads anyway is an interesting question.
As for copyright infringment. I dont buy that. The copyrighted material is the HTML documents and images etc. Ad-blocking software does not additionally copy, modify or distribute this HTML, it only chooses render it differently. Your choice of rendering is surely covered by fair use.
Personally, I think the next step is to modify the bill of right to add an amendments about our internet freedoms.
... if the flash they used didn't slow some aspects of my workstation class computer down.
... if random ads didn't contain annoying sound bites.
... etc etc.
Stop making them annoying and intrusive and I will stop blocking them.
I didn't install AdBlocker Plus bacause I didn't want to see the ads, I installed it because the ads were getting to the point of annoying.
What if I make those changes in my DNS? Or point my computer to use such a DNS?
To find such things would be incredibly intrusive, and just to make sure advertising is delivered? That's going to take quite a bit of excellent lawyering to get passed. That in itself could be claimed to be malware or spyware.
If they really can succeed on suing based on unauthorized copyright derivation, what about virus and malware scanning? Would I be forced to take their damaging software as well?
The problem as I see it is that this is MY machine, and I WILL control what goes in and out of MY machine.
If publishers had not made the advertising so obnoxious (pop-up, pop-down ads, interactive ads that *demand* we pay attention to them before we get what we are looking for, I remember an Intel ad that used flash that immediately suck way too much processor time, and I didn't have that fast a processor to begin with - Maybe that was the point?) the means that are out there wouldn't be as sophisticated as they are now.
If it turns illegal, then I guess I'll just remain to be a criminal then.
The snooping and downloading can also be used to remove the ad blocking software, very easily, and remove entries on the hosts file, and how difficult would it be for MS to stick a second "sites permitted even if prohibited by hosts" file in there? Wasn't there something about MS re-enabling certificates the user wanted revoked?
The only ads I tolerate are the Google text ads that are short, less intrusive, and typically more relevant.
Historically people have been willing to accept TV, radio, billboards, and traditional print media ads, but when advertising tries to get in my face every where I turn from Internet access, online applications, cell phones, flyers, t-shirts, email, sport events, cars windows, sky writing, lawns, tattoos, and what ever else they can think of, I start to see it as polluting my personal visual and audio space, much like light pollution hides the night sky or white noise masks the sounds of nature. The desire for profit at all costs has diminished the experience of life.
To say ad-blocking is theft is a complete lie and one sided distortion of facts: yes, servers have bandwidth and host costs, BUT so to do office workstations and home computers; we (the end user) pay for our bandwidth, we pay for our computer equipment, we pay for our time online, and so we have the right to chose what we will allow to cross our local networks and computer screens. Internet culture has an old saying "my computer, my rules".
Last I checked, I had signed no contracts with ad agencies. They do not have a right to purchase ad space wherever they want. The entities need a contract and nobody needs to agree with advertisements. Advertisers have no right that I know of to force me to watch advertisements; they only have the right to try to do fair business, and fairness includes not harassing a consumer. I change radio stations when they advertise too much. Nobody complaining there! Commercial time on TV? Let in or let out the dog, make popcorn, switch the laundry.... nobody complains there! Post in my blog, visit an online forum, research a product at a manufacturer website, buy a product from an online merchant... nobody complaining there! I don't let telemarketers into my home phone nor into my cellphone. THEY complained about that and they lost. How ironic!
The lesson here is really about moderation. Google ads use only ASCII text, tiny tiny tiny amounts of it. Key word: tiny. Google makes sure the ads are relevant to my interests, not random popups, not jiggeldy 'millionth visitor' fluff, Google posts only one ad here or there, my screen is not littered with 40 ads. I chose to block advertisements as a reaction to avertisers choices to put up big, trashy, flashy, wiggely, swoopy spewage filled with marginal claims. The ads clearly got out of hand, and that is where the internet users drew the line. They lost, they need to get over it.
Advertisers do not have a guaranteed audience. They simply have to make smarter decisions about advertising; demanding laws to force people to suffer advertisements is whining, pure and simple.
FWIW, cNet terms of usage for 'comment reply' says "posting of advertisements... is prohibited". Hmmmmm. Why? How can they enforce that? Hmmmm.
Remember, it's the WORLD wide web and programs that are illegal in the US can be downloaded from offshore servers.
Here's an idea. Don't make your ads so big and so obnoctious and maybe we won't block them.
Does this mean that when I rip the obnoxious perfume laden ads
out of magazines, I am creating a derivative work and violating
copyright law? What about the blow in cards? Do I have to leave
them in there too? Do I have to leave the volume at the same
level when the loud commercials come on TV? Do they get to
lock our TV and radio channel changers during commercials?
Copyright law is being abused here. I'm not publishing or
redistributing the "modified" web page. If they get this through,
Greasemonkey becomes illegal, after all, it modifies the CSS of
the page. As do page readers for sight impaired people,
changing the font size, setting high contrast color schemes, the
list goes on.
I think the key here is that I am blocking ads, FOR MY USE. I'm
not redistributing, publishing, or claiming it as my work. I also
block spyware, phishing, viruses, spam and malware. Am I
modifying their works too?
As others have said, stop being annoying and we won't want to
block the ads. Unfortunately, (advertising people believe) that
annoying and repetitive ads work. If they didn't, we wouldn't be
assaulted with them. I have given up listening to commercial
radio because of the ads. I rarely watch TV during the initial
broadcast, when I do, I find the ads annoying. Its not that I don't
want to see any advertising, but when I hear the same annoying
ad for the same product five times over a half hour, it grates on
me.
As for the loony that blocks Adblock users, I don't want to read
your delusional ramblings anyway.
Moreover, if Posner is correct, then any technology that alters a web page creates a derivative product. How about browsers that change type font, color, or size? Is that actionable?
Give me a break.
The only ads I tolerate are the Google text ads that are short, less intrusive, and typically more relevant.
Historically people have been willing to accept TV, radio, billboards, and traditional print media ads, but when advertising tries to get in my face every where I turn from Internet access, online applications, cell phones, flyers, t-shirts, email, sport events, cars windows, sky writing, lawns, tattoos, and what ever else they can think of, I start to see it as polluting my personal visual and audio space, much like light pollution hides the night sky or white noise masks the sounds of nature. The desire for profit at all costs has diminished the experience of life.
Most ad schemes typically use a pay-per-click scheme. If a user goes to the trouble to block ads, then it is almost a given they will never click on an online-ad anyway. Also by blocking ads, the user will never click on, they well save the ad supported web site money spent on bandwidth by not downloading additional ad images.
It has been commented else where too that users could chose to use text-only non-javascript capable browsers, such as Lynx or Links, and so would never see ads. Web browsers like Firefox, even without Adblock or Bork extensions, have an option to disable the automatic loading of images, javascript, and other HTML objects, which would also prevent ads from being displayed.
To say ad-blocking is theft or illegal is a complete lie and one sided distortion of facts: yes, servers have bandwidth and hosting costs, BUT so too do office workstations and home computers; we (the end user) pay for our bandwidth, we pay for our computer equipment, we pay for our time online, and so we have the right to chose what we will allow to cross our local networks and computer screens. The Internet culture has an old saying "my computer, my rules".
The answer is not to go after Ad block (cause there will be a million replacements), its to control the amount and quality of ads you display on your site.
I think thats wrong, but thats the argument.
In my mind, the work in question is HTML, and requires (unless your really hardcore) to be rendered to something more readable. This is exactly the same as a CD (or the pulse code modulated representation of the audio) requiring a CD-play for it to me useful to you.
Now, if we want to tinker with the exact rendering, for me, that's fair use. If I want to sell an CD player that pitch-shifts everying up a minor third, and you want to buy it and use it, there is no breach of copyright going on here.
I suspect there are many examples of perfectly legal devices that provide alternate renderings of copyrighted material. Various devices for people with visual and hearing impairments, for example.
An ad blocker service, acting as a proxy site, would be most vulnerable. Then the people who supply proprietory software that they retain the title to, just allowing others a license to use.
Open source, under a license that allows the user title to the software, is least vulnerable, IMO.
Slightly different subject: I've gone to web sites looking for specific items to purchase, and been unable to tell what they heck they were selling because they had too much advertising and too little "what is it and what can it do". So, I bought somewhere else.
In my opinion, the advertisers got what they deserved. By being loud, obnoxious, and "in your face" the public turned on them. I used to mute the volume on the TV when ads came on because the ads were louder than the program. The problem now is that there is too much advertising. It's much like telemarketing. Back when people only got a few calls, very few complained. When the volume of calls increased to the point where people were getting a dozen calls a day, they complained and a law got passed and now there is almost no telemarketing.
Now for once i'll let it slip, but next time prepare to be fined $5000 per advert, and be thankful i use adblock so most of it doesn't get through.
Because if we aren't allowed to use adblock, then very logically we are entiteled to ask for substantial compensation.
1º)for the loss of time while clicking them off and chasing more when by doing so they maliciously open 3 or 4 other ads!
2º)for more loss of time and posible damage to our OS or browser settings while trying to clean up the ad garbage.
3º)for loss of bandwidth while the programs dropped by the ads sending data about us...
4º)and last for not respecting our individual rights to privacy.
...and last, what would happen if in the real world you'd just get into their home and office and trash every table and desk you can find with stickers with this message written on it!!!
hummm... I'm burning to do it!!!
ja ne
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
(This is the one I DLed and use)
I surf at 4+ pages at the same time doing a shuffle between why others load.
nothing is worse than having to sit through advertisements.
what is next foo
pop-up blocking no longer legal?
subsidize my 35$/month on Internet, and I'll have your stinking ads on my home page.
I recommend a felt marker plugin
next they be telling us it is illegal to deface a newspaper.
Now, as for skipping commercials, I am all for that. We as consumers pay a premium for our television. I pay almost $100 a month for premium programming. I see NO reason that I should be subjected to commercials. Sure, broadcast networks that are freely available over the airwaves, it is acceptable for them to have commercials. But when networks charge customers to watch their content, I do not accept ads. Those networks are simply sticking to an outdated business model and they know it. They believe that the public has gotten used to ads while watching television so they figured they could slip in commercials while no one noticed. Then you have networks like Comedy Central who are now showing an amount of ads that are equal in running time to the content or even worse, the ad time is actually HIGHER than the content. That is pure theft, IMHO. Theft of my money. I already pay them a premium (via my provider) to watch that content. They have no business showing ads.
So, I will not run ad blocking software. If the content I am looking at is free, then I accept it. But for ads to be displayed on a website that I have to pay for? No, that I will not accept. The same goes for television. If I am watching a program on a broadcast network, I won't skip the commercials, but if I am watching Mythbusters, you can be sure that I will not see one single commercial.
If advertisers were going to take legal action at some point against third party creators of ad-blocking plugins, the only thing they would succeed in doing would be to drive plugin developers underground. These plugins might become illegal, but you can bet that you would still be able to find them somewhere on the web.
Go for it! The case will be "free advertising" for the ad blocking software. If anything there would be a spike in use.
In any event, the Copyright Act was recently amended to allow customers to remove objectionable content from dvd's (See Family Movie Act on Wikipedia). While there was some agreement the Act was unnecessary, pressure was put on Congress to pass it because studios got all huffed up about families skipping soft porn parts of movies. While that may not immediately cover Internet Ads, the same logic applies- making non-permanent copies to remove objectionable conduct is not the same as creating a derivative work. If these content providers push it, they may get an Act all of their own.
- The content for advertising model is broken
- by DoughboyNJ September 14, 2007 7:40 AM PDT
- I would estimate that at least 60-80% of the ads that are pushed in my face when I read the Web or watch TV are completely meaningless to me and will never impact my behavior.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Twisted sense of logic...
- by TBolt September 14, 2007 9:56 AM PDT
- That's the problem with a world full of self-serving attorneys. When a mere 2.5 million Internet users worldwide are smart enough to use ADP, the issues isn't nearly large enough to warrant an expensive struggle in the U.S. legal system. Those legal thugs will bang this issue around the court system until they've either made enough cash or received enough publicity to justify their efforts.
- Like this
-
- Ads should die.
- by ethana2 September 14, 2007 6:32 PM PDT
- Take a tax on my internet connection if you must, but if I don't want to see something, I simply will not. Screw any politician that says otherwise.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (113 Comments)I will never buy an IBM server, I will never buy a Chevy pickup, I will never buy Breck hairspray, etc, etc.
So how is anyone being defrauded if I strip out ads for mortgage refinance, erectile dysfunction drugs, credit assistance, etc etc?
What is the material harm done if I <don't> see an ad that is not applicable to me?
If I look away from ads, as I have been for years, am I defrauding also?
It takes a real twisted sense of logic to see this as illegal.