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.

[ragnarok7575]

And?

This means nothing. Even if made illegal, ill continue to use ad-blocking software and i can guarentee that most people in the US will continue to do the same.

[whammyster]

Derivate works that include malware

While I understand the desire for web authors to defend their mechanism of revenue generation, I don't think they fully understand the liability that they are assuming. Using third party advertising is not uncommon, and it is also not uncommon for those third party advertisers not to be vetted well. There are several types of malware that have been distributed through banner and popup ads. By claiming that the entire page including advertising is a derivitave work, they open themselves to the argument that they, as publishers, endorse and are the actual distributors of said malware. That liability might cost a lot more than any revenue generated.

[Phillep_H]

re: Derivate works that include malware

Ahhh, I had not thought of that one. You are probably right, and the website author is probably the only person who can be tracked down, too.

[willwillywilson]

Why we block.

Has it ever occurred to all these sites that are complaining about their ads being blocked that maybe it's their own fault? Give me a banner and I'll deal with it. But pop-ups, splash pages, flashing graphics, annoying flash animations, obnoxious sounds, movie clips, and last but not least after I actually click the ad 9 times out of 10 I have to register???!!? And that's just if the company is legit. Let's not forget the ones that want to put programs on your computer to deliver you ad-crap while you're not even on the internet. I say no. I say just like the movie and music industries you over value your content. Millions of users are putting up with it. I block to keep the balance.

[Leria]

I block to save myself bandwidth

Personally, I block ads because they take up bandwidth like a hog. I loaded one page in IE7 without any ad-blockers, and it took 5 seconds to load. Same page with ad-blockers - almost instantaneous it loaded.

[Khast]

Copyrights and media?

I think this whole fiasco is total and complete crap. If the advertisers want to sue users for not allowing their ads to be displayed....calling it modification of the media.

I read a comment about CDs. This argument is much like CDs and other Audio. While copying CDs may be illegal (Backups are not however.)....

What if the music industry decided to make a lawsuit banning the use of equalizers? Because they alter the way the music was supposed to sound like. Same thing goes for the internet. I am just using a data equalizer, and fading out the ads, because they make the webpage sound like crap.

I personally say enough is enough. As many other comments have stated, I pay for internet, not advertising. The average hourly commercials on TV is about 15-20 minutes per channel. The stations which advertise a commercial free experience for "X" movie...often do have commercials now. (Which is pure crap.

Cell phones are now starting to get advertisements ...which if you use a prepaid service like I do. I HAVE TO PAY FOR RECEIVING THE ADS! (Another thing which I despise advertisers for.)

ad ad ad ad ad....That is all this media age has come to. I say it needs to come to an end. Instead of making it illegal to stop ads...I say it should be fair game.

C'mon advertisers, I won't use my credit card over the internet, so therefore I won't buy your crap, even if it interests me. (Start an "As Seen on the Internet" store, I often bought things at the "As Seen on TV" store, because you got to see what you were really getting before you paid.

[mattumanu]

Depends on the ad...

If it's one of these damnable flash popover ads, I think there should be a class action lawsuit against sites that do that. I've made it a point to stop frequenting sites that have those kinds of ads. Off the top of my head is comingsoon.net.

And by the way, what about popup blockers? Aren't they subject to the same legal issues?

[unigamer69]

Treatise on Scripting-Based User Software Profiling

I've written a good-sized treatise on this issue, and its relation not only to user privacy, but information security, as well.

Unfortunately, it's much too long to fit here; so I have little choice but to try to post a link to it:
http://fenrisfox.livejournal.com/73234.html

[unigamer69]

Wow, spam-bomb...

Holy Jebus, that's some serious pill-posting! =xoD

[Jart351]

Biased news! ? Check out Zango Court Decision

Zango failed in a lawsuit challenging Kaspersky's blocking of Zango malware. Similar to a ruling in a similar suit Zango filed against PC Tools, the ruling upheld the antivirus maker's right to block software it considers malware. Zango, last year agreed to pay the Federal Trade Commission $3m to settle charges of deceptive software downloads.

So until the industry comes clean on its use of malware then users have every right to block what they choose. As a webmaster I choose not to pass malware to my clients, luckily some of us have ethics.

[nrgdude]

Never happen because Adblock concept is different

The concept behind the VCR ad blocking was ALL ads were blocked when the ad signal was detected. However, with Adblock, you must manually select an ads you don't want to view. The ads being blocked are different for each user. This is no different than you fast-forwarding your VCR tape.

I tend block all annoying, unpleasant, or obnoxious ads (flashing borders or "you may already have won!" slogans) and items I do not personally believe in. This is no different than getting up during the commercials to go to the bathroom or get a drink from the fridge. The ads are still there and people who are interested in them can see them.

I am in favor of ad-supported sites and am looking forward to finally being able to download any music off the Internet because of such sites (since pay sites are too limited). I also click ads regularly on search pages and my favorite sites. But it is my choice; not the courts. I decide what I want to see and what I want to skip. That is a little thing we call "freedom" here in America.

If this concept gets through the courts, be prepared to have your cell phone ringing 24/7 with telemarketers. The next step then would be a switch that you have to press to confirm you saw a TV ad before you can continue watching the show.

[Lolo Gecko]

nor (entirely) illegal

:)

[mattumanu]

There were a lot of comments here...

I know there was someone spamming this, but a lot of comments got pulled that weren't spam. Mine included :(

[zbrahead91]

Adblock? Illegal? The lawyers would love to rip into the IAB

AdBlock is simply a tool that ignores the ads for me , so I don't have too.

How can ignoring an ad be illegal?

If it is, people need to get a grip on sanity.

We PAY for the internet, why the heck should we have to put up with ads? Especially those new annoying flash ones. *Glares at the buzzy mosqitoe ad*

Anybody contesting this is free to e-mail me.

[LOmotosho]

Advertising makes the world go round...

I work at an advertising agency as an online media planner and buyer, so it's my job to spend my client's money and place on websites the ads you guys are so upset about. (Although I have to say, I have nothing to do with the creative - some other people in my agency make them flashy and annoying!)

Companies advertise to push their product to potential consumers - I'm sure that most people have at one time on another seen an ad, thought "what a great product - I've been looking for one of those" and gone to the shops and bought one? How would you have found out about it if you hadn't seen the ad??

Ad placement is not random - each website, section, even user is carefully selected and targeted with advertising companies think that you will be interested in. The creatives are flashy so you notice them - I've seen some amazing online advertising creative which has actually enhanced my experience on a website - so all you blockers are missing out!

The other side of this is that websites need advertising revenue to survive, so all of this wonderful free content you are reading online every day is only there because the advertisers are paying for it for you. In return, all they ask is that you check out their message, and don't be so rude as to completely block it all out and still use all of the wonderful free content.

People are always moaning about annoying pop ups, but because advertisers have got wise to the fact that their audience do not like them, the actual % of online advertising which is pop ups is now less than 1% so I'm not sure where you are seeing them all!

This legislation to block the blockers is absolutely necessary otherwise the whole online advertising industry will collapse, and all those free websites will have to start charging the users for entering the site in order to raise the money they used to get from advertising elsewhere.

So tell me now, what would you prefer: a few annoying ads; or a charge for entering every website you now use for free? The choice is yours!