Comments on: Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal

As Web browser add-ons that let people erase ads proliferate, legal experts to wonder when the first lawsuit will be filed.

[dvthex]

Websites need my clicks more than I need their ads

There is no common sense in any of these arguements. If a person wants the ads blocked, they aren't going to click on them anyway. If a person wants the ads, they aren't going to block them.

I don't mind most ads in spite of the fact that the chances I'll click on one are about 100,000:1. The ones that I would, and do, block in a heartbeat are pop-ups and animations. Use a pop-up ad or an animated one and I won't buy your product even if I'm in the market for it. Sorry guys; live with it.

[inachu]

HOW DARE YOU!

How dare you show me over 5 pop up ads under 20 seconds!

I have 5 computers in my house now.
4 for gaming and one just for browsing that has flash uninstalled and edited host file banning intellitext and its evil kins. Also banned by IP address other sites as well and the list keep growing.

the browsing pc is so fast with no ads and popups!
sites load up so quick!
Destroying the quily of browsing by slowing the site down with laggy ads will not make me return.

Do you hear that Matt Drudge?

[jeromatron]

First guilt trip, now weird legal case

I think web advertising people, including the people at cnet, are reacting poorly to technology in this instance. So now, in order to get people to stop blocking ads, you are giving them a guilt trip, as in a previous article and now as some odd legal case.

I believe you can either take this odd approach or do something constructive like see this as an opportunity to listen to what your customers are saying. This is a new way to receive feedback.

Personally, I don't mind static image ads or text ads. The reason why I typically block ads is because they have gone too far - a la so distracting I can't focus on and read the content. There was the video commercials cnet recently tried. There are "win an ipod", "hit the gnome", "pick your state for mortgage rates", or even very distracting IT ads. All typically flash different colors, use movement, and other things to distract attention away from the things that the user came for in the first place.

I would think that intelligent site owners would advertise the fact that their site uses non-distracting and non-obtrusive ads. I would actually consider white-listing a site that I knew wasn't obnoxious about ads.

[steve alvis]

ABP is great

illegal to block ads?
The only decent clean ads are the google ads. They are text, off to the side, and usually relate to something you're looking for anyway.

I love Adblock Plus. It gets rid of all the annoying and vulgar ads that most other companies insist on making. Do I really want to see some trashy-looking scantily clad woman advertising something that promotes immoral living? No, I think not. (Matthew 5:28) (Let's not even start talking about the annoying video ads, and the low interest loans.)

I'll keep using my ABP to keep these and other ridiculous ads OFF MY SCREEN.

[247mark]

And?

The last two paragraphs were the most relevant to the whole article. The source code is open and legal action is a losing proposition. The media companies are losing millions in revenues and legal fees with no end in sight. Under US law, P2P is illegal but that hasn't slowed down P2P. By many estimates, P2P has increased. Browser ad-blocking is a non-issue as about 70%-80% of internet usage is still through IE, which cannot easily block ads. Most importantly, a content provider can never be certain that a web page is going to render exactly the way that it was designed to render when it reaches a person's computer. No legal wrangling will change that. Of course, if you're looking to make the lawyers rich, I'm fine with that too.

[dfrank_robinson]

Not reading junk mail illegal?

Perhaps direct mail vendors would want to intervene in such law suits because it would give online ads an advantage over junk snail mail. Besides, when I am interested it is no longer junk.

All advertising is a gamble. If anybody wants to disable my pop up blockers,I will boycott them. The First Amendment gives one right to speak, it does not give one the right to be heard, seen, or other wise NOT ignored.

[BurlJ]

Your point is mistaken. The direct mail vendors have no say in if you actually read the material. What we are objecting to is that your mailman isn't delivering them to you so that you have the choice to read them or not. When a webpage is reconfigured not by the end user, not allowing the end user to make that decision, that should be illegal, much like stealing the mail from your mailbox would be.

[sysopdr]

hosts file

What is so different about adding in an ad blocker then just adding the doubleclick.com to my hosts file pointing to localhost? I don't see any ads from there and don't need to install an ad blocker. Am I going to be sued for that as well?

[WJeansonne]

Software Should be Developed to Counter This

If I were a Web site operator I would test for this type of software and simply deny access to the inidividual seeking a free ride. Now, any software developers out there jumping on this? You should and it would definitely be profitable! Go for it!!

[DarkPhoenixFF4]

Reaction...

As Danny Carlton is finding out, the standard reaction to attempts to block people who don't want to see ads is a combination of DOS attacks and simple ignoring. People tend to get angry when their basic rights are trampled on, especially for the sake of something as stupid as advertising banners.

[Phillep_H]

Easy

Firefox can be set to identify it's self as IE when queried by a website. Do you think a firewall cannot be designed to identify it's self as IE, without any ad blocking software? How is anyone going to find out what is on the other side of the firewall?

[Penguinisto]

Good luck...

...it's trivially easy to /dev/null inbound bits of HTML that are identifiable as adverts, replacing them with whitespace.

Good luck crawling into my computer and looking for such things (which is what AdBlock and etc. basically do - you never see it).

'course, concerning your ignorance of such a simple thing, I wouldn't expect any more than that from a MSFT shill ;)

[unknown unknown]

RE

Suggesting the development of such software is one thing, doing it is quite another. Detection of ad-block software would either be dependent on scripts being allowed to run on the users machine or looking to make sure certain content was downloaded. Scripts can be blocked, and just because something is downloaded doesn't mean it will be displayed. It's not inconceivable that a script could be written to allow the ad to download but be prevent it from displayed. I can block third party ad providers with entries in a host file.

Take Danny Carlton's site, just by using No Script I can render his blocks ineffective and access his page (not that I really want to) despite having Ad-Block Plus and Firefox.

[The_Decider]

Once again

You show you know nothing about how computer systems work.

For your insane idea to work, some program would need to be downloaded and run on the client, javascript or whatever.

Those can be easily blocked. Hence you can't test for this.

What is this stupidity about a "free ride"? I have never clicked on an ad, and never will. So what harm is it in me blocking that BS?

Do you buy at least one thing from advertisers supporting web pages you go to or TV shows you watch?

No?

Hypocrite

[WJeansonne]

To Heck with the Lawyers - Develop Anti-Freeloader Software

And call it "Anti-Freeloader"! That would fix the freeloaders in society and you wouldn't need an expensive lawyer to fix the problem.

[The_Decider]

Stupidity

Unless you make a point of buying something from an advertiser that is supporting a website, you are an ignorant hypocrite.

[littlepinkt]

Pop-ups - I never intended to go there!

I am curious about two things:

1) The surprise element - Watching TV there is an understanding. I know if I turn on the TV there will be commercials. I know these commercials will be moderiated by a board and that if I want to avoid offensive advertising I shouldn't tune in past 10 PM. On the net I know no such thing. I don't know when I will be accousted with a new window, or an XXX ad, or something else I might find unappealing. I don't even know where the ad will come from...perhaps it's flashing and I am prone to strokes (okay, a bit far fetched...but possible). When there are no controls in place to tell me what I am signing up for, then I should have the option of blocking it!

2) Has to do with pop-ups which I consider now a seperate site. I mean, I have to navigate to close it...it requires action on my end. A TV commercial does not. So you've now directed me to a site I had no intention of visiting, and you are nforcing me into an action I did not wish to take and your telling me I can't block it? TV advertising makes no such demands on me! It does not launch into a new show, while I am trying to watch the one I selected...

[ElMartino1]

if I get to beat the hell out of the flash people

who did the spastic happy guy in the mortgage ads, I'll be more open to having my ad-block taken away.

[Phillep_H]

YES!

Dibs on kneecaps!

Why has no one looked up the spammers and virus writers and put them in the hospital?

[Claire Gaeta]

Lawsuits

With the President of the United States under fire for attempts to track phone conversations of known terrorists, this is idiotic. If we can declare keeping the country safe illegal, why not declaire tracking the every move of a private citizen by large advertisers illegal?

The ads are not a problem...it is rather, the fact that every spyware program downloaded with these ads is a violation of privacy.

I think consumers should be filing the lawsuit!

[alegr]

Rhetoric

"known terrorists" should then be those thousands under blanket survelliance. Declared "terrorists" without being convicted by court? Sounds so stalinist. Welcome to KGB state.

[Penguinisto]

Bad Premises:

...proven by the following questions:

1) If I tape two pieces of paper on my television screen, right over the annoying (and distracting) persistent TV channel pop-up adverts in the lower two corners, is that illegal?

2) Since when does any site owner dictate which browser I read his/her website with, and how it should be configured?

3) I am the one paying for the bandwidth used between their site and my computer, even that which is used by flash banners and animated JavaScript-launched adverts, not the site owners. If site owners demand that I view their ads no matter what, can I now invoice the site owner for the bandwidth consumed by their adverts?

4) Why is a given site owner's lack of a viable business model suddenly my problem?

It's real simple: If the site has discreet ads and non-annoying banners, cool... they don;t get blocked and I'll even click on the relevant ones if the mood strikes.

If the site has a bucket-load of garish animated ads, pop-ups, and a bazillion different advertising means that get in my way (e.g. multi-page articles with one or two paras of content on each page, but a bazillion adverts)? I'll avoid the sites unless otherwise necessary, at which times they get blocked - hard.

/P

[albertsoler]

The problem isn't with advertising

The problem isn't with advertising, per se. The problem is whether the advertising technology or its implementation interferes with the visitor's experience. The reason people download ad blocking plug-ins isn't because of idealogical, anti-capitalist sentiment (vast majority, anyway). It's because they are hindered by pop-ups and CPU hogging flash banners or, (Yikes!), auto-run flash movies!

Consider, also, that too often, people may have adware secretly installed that have nothing to do with the sites they are visiting. That's a separate issue. But most people don't make that distinction and may place the blame on the wrong site or all sites.

They may start litigating, and maybe, they'll win. But in the end, they will have fewer people visiting sites that interfere with the browsing experience. How long, then, would it be before advertisers realize they're wasting their money?

The real winners will be websites that find that fine balance between content and advertisement and how the ads are implemented.

[TBolt]

Webmasters: Go ahead and block me!

I love the fact that AdBlock Plus and Firefox improves my experience as a user by preventing your web site from flashing another erectile dysfunction ad in my face.

Go ahead and block me from your site! I'm sure there will be dozens of similar web sites out there that will appreciate my visit.

To hell with all the attorneys out there that are hoping to profit or gain publicity from this (non-)problem.

[t8]

Yeah right

Come to our site for free. We just want you to visit and we aren't interested in revenue whatsoever because we really love to spend money and make websites so you really nice freeloaders get a free ride.

Anyway, think about it for 1 sec, advertising replaced subscription. Which model do you think is best?

Wake up.

[janedoe100]

When Can We Make Our Own Choice ?

I am glad I can block advertisers, and if in the future we are no longer able to block simple ads (that often take up the whole page or require you to sit through some lengthy ad before continuing to your site), advertisers may find themselves the target or a new spamming program which would allow users to contact these forced ads and let them know what they think of them.

I also disagree with the fact that one has to sign up (like c/net news) and give out one's email address just to leave a message - huge waste of time !

[Phillep_H]

LOL

Do you think I used my "real" email addy? Oh, I keep this one active, but there's hardly ever anything of use there, and cleaning out that inbox takes a heck of a lot less time than cleaning out my "real" inbox.

[The_Decider]

This is why Hotmail exists

Hotmail is worthless, except when using it to set up accounts on websites. All the spam gets funneled to a worthy recipient(MS) and I get none of the hassles.

This is why I average less then 1 piece of spam per week from my real email address.

[kehandley]

Sell your stock in the University of Kansas

Because it looks like Lynx has been illegal for over a decade.

[GraffixDesigner]

A Freedom Of Choice and Expression Issue

Conversely, a legal point could be made that it is the viewer him/herself that chooses if, when, and what types of ads he/she wants to see, as well as the mathod of delivery he/she prefers. By making the personal choice of installing an ad-blocker, and by choosing the degree of aggressivity such an ad-blocker makes, the viewer's freedom of choice, let alone his or her right to express his or her interest, should prevail. I doubt that any individual who's opted to have an ad-blocker has agreed to allow ads to slow page load times on the internet access he/she is paying for.

[Remo_Williams]

Legal doesn't mean right.

I think we're confusing legal with just.

It might be illegal to block ads, but it's a just action. You can't force me to read ads, and likewise, can't force me to download them either. I file this under GFY and ESAD.

-Remo

[jon62]

No copyright claim

It is unlikely that using an ad-blocking program results in a derivative work the is prohibited under the Copyright Act. If the web page and included ads are considered the "work", using a ad blocker doesn't alter the work (i.e., the page,ad tags, etc.) of the website, only the display of this page on the user's screen. So for example, if you stick a post it note on your monitor at work reminding yourself to pick up dinner on your way home, you have altered what display is visiable, but have you created a "derivative work?" Unlikely. No more so than when you read a magazine and your hand obscures text or advertising on the magazine page. Using an ad blocking software program doesn't alter the underlying copyrighted work, it merely places an electronic post-it note on your screen that obscures the ad. Obviously advertisers don't like it, but it's not illegal. If ad-blocking software amounts to a violation of the copyright act because it alters that display of the web page on the user's screen, then think of the consequences. I can (as well as everyone else) minimize my web browser on my computer screen so only a portion of the page is displayed. In doing so, I am "blocking" my view of a portion of the page, including the island, tile, leaderboard or other ads that are running on the blocked portion. Clearly, I have altered the "display" of the page. Is that a copyright violation? I can adjust the brightness and contrast on my monitor so that the screen is illigible. Have I violated the copyright act? You might say, true, you have altered the display in those instances, but they are "different" since you can maximize the web browser or turn up the brightness. True, but cannot I just as easily turn of the ad blocker? I could go on, but I think you get the point. On the other hand, if it turns out that I'm wrong and altering the display is a copyright violation, I'll have a valuable tool next time I'm at a movie and someone sits down in front of me blocking my view of the screen ....