Wet dream of advertisers
Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal | CNET News.com — Apparently there is a rumbling about ad blocking and other methods that block or ignore advertising. I suppose these jerks would like to litigate forced viewing.
Advertising-supported companies have long turned to the courts to squelch products that let consumers block or skip ads: it happened in the famous lawsuit against the VCR in 1979 and again with ReplayTV in 2001.
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.
ECA – Exactly!
Pop-up ads cause Global Warming.
I just had a thought – If the Iraqis were forced to read pop-up ads, they’d be too busy to fight back.
Mike,
You make a strong argument and I give you credit for that. The error lies with the point that there were free or non advertisment corporate supported sites long before there were ad supported sites. Guess what !!! There are still are. No, I don’t know how many nor could I begin to list them but they are out there.
You probably see at least one a day and don’t even realize it. My browser home page for example. Google News. Very worth while site. Gives me more than the basic headlines with options to follow the story in more detail. But no advertising.
legal or illegal… I think I speak for many here when I say: “who gives a fuck I’ll adblock anything i want”
“… These add-ons are growing in functionality and popularity, ”
There’s a reason why they’re growing in functionality and popularity. Email is practically useless because we’re completely flooded with spam (with the exception of Dvorak – the Omega man on No Spam Island) and now you want the same experience on regular web sites?
This article begs a question:
Can a web site know if my browser blocks the ads?
If so, how?
Will they block bathroom doors in our homes during TV commercials next?
Comment by Misanthropic Scott
That’ll also boost sales of adult diapers…..
J/P=?
{shiver} just started to imagine what Depends commercials would become like
OK,
WE NEED a terms of service for ALL web sites.
ONLY 1.
Use of internet TOS.
#43
YES!!! You just made my day good fellow! I’m practically in tears thinking about that.
I love how advertisers are “USA centric” in their mindset.
Nothing decided in our court system will affect the internet, that’s why sites like ThePiratesBay keep running.
If courts decide ad-blocking is illegal, what will they do? Ban downloads of browser extensions developed/hosted in Europe or Canada?
For instance, the DMCA makes DVD “cracking” technology illegal but you can buy and download DVD copying software off sites in the U.K.
A US-court litigated case on the legality of ad-blocking will be almost as ineffective as Chinese dreams of somehow stifling borderless communication.
@41 – Sex with dogs and Jeffrey Dahmer and Oprah Winfrey eating hotdogs
/He must have ESP.
#39 – JP,
{shiver} just started to imagine what Depends commercials would become like
With your bathroom door locked on you right now, wouldn’t you like to take a nice dump? (brrraapppp)
With Depends, you can.
Coming up at 8PM, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Watch for our product placement in Ruprecht’s dining room scene!
#12 What if everyone did those little “wrong” things that you could probably get away with but are nonetheless wrong?
You mean “nonetheless wrong” as in defrauding an advertiser by clicking on an ad merely to direct some of their ad budget to the website operator?
Isn’t that the whole point of Google’s Adsense model – advertisers pay more because the ads are tailored to content on a site, and site operators are forbidden from directing visitors to the ads – so that advertisers don’t pay for “sympathy clicks” which are made just to fund the site?
Why is conspicuous/continuous consumption a requirement to browse the web?
If there is something I need to buy, why should I be screwing my local merchants by throwing my money at online merchants?
Why should I perpetuate a system I hate by giving advertisers the false impression that they are “reaching” me as a potential customer?
#12 So block those ads if you want… but think about what would happen if *everyone* did it.
All the bullshit sites would implode, and only the ones we would actually be willing to pay for directly would exist.
Can’t happen soon enough, for me.
Wow, this one got a lot of response. Threatening to take our right to choose, usually does. In this case it would be the right not look at or listen to, something that does not interest us. Unfortunately it’s not a right that was ever specified in the Bill of Rights. Because no one back then ever thought they’d have to protect our senses from intrusive commercial or political adverts. Although some interpretations of the 4th and 9th amendments could probably be sited.
What this basically boils down to are commercial entities presuming that they deserve to survive indefinately, regardless of how fakey their business model is. And when they begin to fail, rather than blame their model, they accuse everyone else us stealing from them. Kind of like O.J. Simpson. So they use their legal muscle to try and restack the deck in their favor. Usually by penalizing the public in some way, like charging fees and duties. Remember how the MPAA got 50 cents tacked onto the sale of every VHS blank tape? And it’s probably the same for DVD-Rs and CD-Rs. So now…. these dinosaurs want to be able to sue anyone who makes software plugins that alter how your browser see the web. That way, only Microsoft will have the deep pockets to weather legal disputes about their browser. Great way to kill innovation, eh? What happen to the principle of “chips fall where they may”? Or IOWs, you take a chance in business as in life, that you’ll fail. Don’t expect some legal maneuver to keep you afloat.
But, unfortunately, our government seems to like providing big businesses financial havens, so that they can’t fail when there time has come. Imagine if the government had passed a law requiring a buggy-whip in every car, just so the buggy-whip makers could stay in business, though their product is all but useless for 21st century transportation. Well the “sue to stay in business” model is how that comes about. And suing anyone who codes for PCes, that might in some way interfere in online commerce, or getting laws passed that require the Feds to kick down your door if you’re suspected of tampering with your or another’s PC, is the slippery-slope we’re headed for with this.