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.

[czmyt]

Doesn't Matter What Publishers Do

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what publishers do. When this trend reaches its logical conclusion, a small group of people will be ignoring all Web-based ads but it will appear to publishers and advertisers as if we are actually viewing their ads. We will be wasting bandwidth retrieving their ads so they will not see any difference between us and everyone else, but we will not actually have to look at their ads displayed on our screens.

[tashman]

Government for Business Sake

This is just another example of the sad state of our government. The fact that ad companies may be thinking about trying to outlaw adblockers just tells me that our government is not trying to help the common man but is simply there for big business, revenues and the like.

Here is my take. Enjoy the internet while you can, because in the near future most of the fun and empower of using the internet will be gone. I hate to say it but if the government wants to outlaw adblocker they can, maybe the person who created adblocker will fight, maybe the next guy will but in the end the entity with the most money will win, and that won't be some opensource group. Once they have won they will again look to the government for enforcement which will again clamp down. Even if you had an adblocker underground you will have to surf the government controlled internet, period. They could simply have the ISP's sniff for illegal surfing and cut your connection until you fix the "problem"

[budeverett]

Boycott annoying ads

Many people are not annoyed by static ads that just sit there, like those in magazines. I have my choice of reading ads in magazines or just reading the article and turning the page without even glancing at the ad. The same is true with web sites. Advertisers are aware that people often just ignore these ads. So, they are trying to get our attention by flashing, blinking, animated ads or ads that block what you are reading. They try to put the ads "in your face" by pop ups and pop unders. All these ads just annoy people and the advertisers are creating a backlash from consumers by using these annoying ads. I refuse to do business with some companies that have annoyed me too much with their ads. One is a travel web site which annoyed me too many times with their pop up and pop under ads. I decided never to use their services. I have purchased airline tickets from competing web sites that don't annoy me with ads.

Unfortunately, too many people seem to enjoy being annoyed by ads and spam. I wish that millions of people would just boycott companies that use annoying ads or spam. Companies will then stop trying to annoy their customers and the annoying ad problem will be solved without litigation or new laws.

[mtrump2007]

Let's see how they respond to this method...

... Stick 3M Post-it Notes over my monitor screen where the ad appears.

Now, how are ad companies going to respond to this? Are the ad companies going to force 3M to have consumers sign contracts when they buy Post-it Notes, such that they will not use them for "ad-blocking purposes"? :-)

[markofkane]

what about host files??

You can block ads with a host file, too, or are they going to sue Microsoft next?? I don't mind ads, as long as they are not distracting. (like gif and flash ads)

[shanedr]

Only if the judge is a fool

I don't see how blocking pop-ups would ever be illegal. Visiting a webpage does not give the owner of that page a right to subject its visitors to pop-ups.

True ads are placed on that page just like articles. Frankly, I don't see how any ads that grab control of your computer against your will can be legal. Just because someone wants to get your attention doesn't mean they have the right to do so against your wishes.

I like and accept display ads on any CNET pages or anyone else's. They are informative as to what products or services are available. But anyone who thinks they have the right to wrest control of my computer for the purpose of subjecting me to an ad they need to see a psychiatrist. That includes any judge who thinks people don't have any rights.

[Renegade Knight]

My Personal Terms of Service

"By My viewing your site, you agree..."

In a one sided lopsided world I wonder why it is we are never allowed to negotiate our own terms, or have our own terms of use.

"No you may not electronicly cash my check."
"No you may not use my likeness for your promotion, even if I win".
"No you may not copyright the photograph of my family or use it to enter a photography contest"
"No you may not annoy me with pop up ads".
"I don't own your software, so you only get to use my money, not own it either".
"I'm going to use this software on every computer in my house".
"No, you can't have my email just to register the software".
"No, your can't assume that your program can suck up my bandwidth and phone home via my internet connection".

And so on.

[markofkane]

IN YOUR FACE!!!!!

The loathsome advertisers think that by putting ads "IN MY FACE" I will buy from them!!! WRONG!!
That would be like a kid putting up a newspaper ad in my face while I was working, saying "Buy This!! Buy This!! Buy this!!" I am not going to buy it for the kid because he interfered in my work/web surfing. Don't the advertisers get it?? I guess not. If you put ads in my face, I will REFUSE to buy from you.

[Scrambled01010]

In regards to ad-blocking

ad blocking should be in the hands of the cosumers to decide and not the advertising companies. if we choose not to view the adverts then that would be our choice. since most of us pay one way or another to gain access to the tangled world wide web, we the consumers should not have to be subjected to constant advertising in either the web, paid cable television or any other means. so this means then that the advertisers will just have to get more creative now.

[lampietheclown]

Stop That! You're Being Silly!

I pay for my bandwidth.
If I chose, I can turn off the loading of images to make browsing
faster. Nobody has ever said that this is copyright infringement.

When I go to a website I chose what pages to visit, and rarely go
to all the pages on any site. I've never been told it was wrong to
skip the pages I don't have any use for. If anyone did, I'd laugh
and put my hand a little closer to my wallet.

Why is it an issue now? It's not. Not really.
Modern Physonomics (physics and economics) teaches us that
with enough capital, you can create a different reality. Sure
enough, some guy is offering lots of money to anyone who will
put his images in front of my face long enough for me to see it,
read it, click on it, whatever. He's actually offering so much
money that there is some left over to spread around Washington
DC. They have not offered to spread any my way. The don't
offer to cut me in on their deal to pay me for the bandwidth and
screen real estate they need, they take, (and I own). It would be
nice, but I suppose I can't make them, because I don't have
enough money to spread around ... well, anywhere. I have to
live in this reality. No changes.

So their money flows, and some of it goes to DC, and in order to
keep the money flowing, and to perhaps increase the flow a
little, some guy in DC gets the idea that maybe they can MAKE
me look at the ads. With some money in his pocket (to help him
think), he starts spinning the idea that to interfere would be
immoral, unlawful, and un-American. A new but not true reality,
created in the minds of anyone who buys the spin.

The argument that irritating obnoxious ads are at the heart of
this is a red herring. Trying to define it and draw a line will
never happen. We need to stick with arguments we can win.

It's my bandwidth. Forcing me to use it downloading
information I didn't ask for, don't want, and have no use for, so
that someone can collect money for putting it there is lunacy. If
the information I want costs money? I'll buy it. Don't steal my
bandwidth and hijack my computer because you think it's a
better business model than selling me the information.

I have not yet given up on the idea that I own MY computer. I
control my computer. This new "reality" would give control of
my computer to the people who make those endless pop up
window traps, and make it against the law to stop them! Don't
say there would be limits. Either I control my computer or I
don't. It's not a place for grey areas.
Look at the situation with flash and pop up windows now. do
you think it will get better or worse if there is a law saying we
have to put up with it?

There is so much money flowing to DC on this that push
marketing is being spun as a feature. The data mining that
drives it is being spun as a way to keep us all safe from terror.
Opt-out is being spun as better for us than opt-In. Nobody
notices.

It used to be called junk mail. Now it's "target marketing".
It used to be spam. Now it's "interactive".
It used to be called a pop up window. Pretty soon it's gonna be
called a law.
(Unless we stop buying into the "physonomic spin theory")


Lampie The Clown

[Jim Harmon]

Ad blocker

IMO, the best ad blocker is built right into Windows - the generous use of the HOSTS file. Get yours now while it's still legal:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

[NoVista]

Escalation

a.k.a. the Ballad of WJeansonnet

I'm a control freak
Only I decide what you can
and cannot do, so there!

With kids like this thinking they are masters of the universe, and smarmy ambulance chasers looking for another quick buck -- and advertisers who still think it's 1950, no matter the technology their minions use -- they should know they're shooting themself in the foot.

And if they need an object lesson, no doubt someone controlling a botnet can give them a nice demonstration ...

Maybe we need an "Internet Advertising Hall of Shame" site! Yeah. Possibly with a section to complain about cable and satellite TV ads.

I'm about ready to ditch SatTV because of the ads. Which will leave me with nothing. Not much of a loss, as I get more value out of DVDs and find real news on the alternative websites anyway.

I used to save all my old style junk mail, then mix and stuff the reply envelopes.

Probably some clever coder could find a way to generate a form e-complaint to the annoying advertisers. They like feedback, don't they?

:-)

[Millerboy]

Touchy area

Advertisements on DVDs, CDs, and media that I have already bought are unwarranted. These type of ads need to be blocked. However, I do sympathize with Web ad blocking. If you're using a service that would otherwise cost money to run offline, then I would fully agree that ads should NOT be blocked.

However, for subscription web services, it would be better to give the option of paying a higher fee for access to pure content without distractive or time-consuming ads (i.e. pop-ups).

[ayteebee]

Actually, I reckon they should pay me to read their ads

Let me just get this straight. You use the bandwidth that *I pay for*, and use the processor and memory that *belong to me* to display on a screen that *I bought*, an advert that I neither requested no have any desire to view. An advert that I probably find offensive as I object to sexuality being used as an advertising tool, an advert that irritates me with its garish colours, distracting text and ridiculous flashing.

And these are going to become COMPULSORY VIEWING??

So, wait, are they going to start making flash and java installations compulsory? Because I'm perfectly happy without them! What about the fact that I can define my own stylesheet to be used instead of theirs? What about screen readers? Do they violate copyright? What about content control? Many parents use Adblock and similar tools to provide a safer browsing environment for their children. I use it to block questionable content. Are they going to ban this practice as well?

What about the numerous times the advert is badly placed and covers the text that I actually want to read? Do I have any rights then?

Another thing; how many of us on C|Net have as much funding as these advertising companies? Who of us can afford the time and expense to keep these people in place? And yet they can afford to do pretty much whatever they want.

The internet exists to share information, NOT for advertisers to spread their detritus all over the world.

[1ChillyWilly]

Web Ad Blocking

If these ad agencies insist I read what they have to offer, they can pay me to do so. Otherwise it's up to me to decide what I want to view on my personal PC. Lets see them try it!

[pingpong111]

I already pay AT&T for worldwide internet.

Why would I have to pay you again, for a page you created and put online. Are you going to pay to read my blog?

[gggg sssss]

Lawyers

How many at the bottom of the sea will it take?

[gggg sssss]

poker ads

Instead of blocking, I just never go back to a site that displays poker stars ads. Or those stupid smilies. One less CPM for them. With luck, those publisher will just fade away.

[bartszyszka]

MySpace, LiveJournal mentioned out of context

I think the part about MySpace and LiveJournal in this article is misleading (and sounds a little biased with the mention of CNet). Those companies have policies for people who host content on their servers, as it's a requirement of getting the service for free to have ads. Those policies aren't for people who view the sites (unless MySpace has some rule for people who view content they logged in to see?).

That's a big difference. When I go to a website, as a reader, I don't agree to any contract that tells me I have to see the ads in order to have access to the content. Since I didn't make such an agreement, I'm in no obligation to view the sites in any way I don't want to. I can disable ads, I can disable JavaScript, I can disable the CSS, the images, etc. That's my prerogative.

[smqt]

logs

I think usually ads are payed per click, so they aren't actually
paying anything for showing them.
And being seen is their main purpose...
Also, these advertisers don't mention that they are using ads to
gather demographic info, so in my view they are gettings two
things for free.
From me, but also from the content creators and website
owners.

I think website owners and content creators are partly to blame
for accepting these horrible advertising terms.
Why don't they ask money for the stats + just displaying ads?
It seems to me that the main problem is that the industry is
more organised than the website owners and creators.
Maybe a good step could be for them to become organized in a
non-exclusive way, so that more fair and beneficial terms could
be negotiated.

[smqt]

I agree

I agree with your point
it also makes me think back to 1994-5-6 when there were a lot of
companies with free-website-tools.
Among the webdevelopers I hung out with online, it was actually
considered bad form to javascript the ads off.