Advertisers Escalate Banner Ad War

AnonymousComrade writes: "In today's Newsbytes, there is an article about MediaBEAM GmbH, a German company that say they have developed Web server software that can detect whether a home browser is blocking banner ads or pop-ups. If the Web server detects blocking software, a message appears on the screen advising the 'free-loading' surfer that he has two choices if he wants access to the Web site's content: pay for it or be exposed to the ads. This sounds strange to me. Can they really include something in the download (Java or JS, I assume) that detects whether an ad picture has been downloaded or not? What if you have blocking S/W that not just blocks the download of the ad picture, but also modifies the HTML on-the-fly (a la the Proxomitron). Can they really distinguish this from a remote ad server that just isn't responding? And how long will it take before ad blocking S/W is updated to block this blocking-detection mechanism?"

Comments

There's a third option.

[Basalisk]

Always there is a third option.

In this case, it is to ignore the offensive website. When a company starts to insult the decisions of potential customers, they lose more customers than they gain.

But what if you need something that the website provides? Look elsewhere. When there are enough people requiring the services of one company, but who do not want to go to that company, another can come in. By being freindlier to their customers, all else being equal, they can gobble up market share.

But it's your choice whether the companies force-advertising you will succeed or not, because they depend on you, and not the other way around.

Re:They can just check the access.log

[Tet]

They can just check the access.log - however they will never know if it actually has been displayed.

Yep, or more likely, by the use of a web server module that does the sme thing without having to actually parse the logs. But that's not what they're claiming. In the article, they say that they "make contact" with the user's browser to determine if the ad has actually been displayed. The only way I can think of doing this is by embedding some JavaScript that checks to see if the page has been rewritten en route, and if so, posts something back to the web server, which can then modify its content accordingly. But even that won't be particularly effective, and your favourite blocking proxy should just be able to filter out the offending javascript anyway. And even if it didn't, it still wouldn't catch proxies that just serve a blank image instead of the requested ad. As far as the browser is concerned, it's been given the image it requested. I'm sceptical, but then all of my assumptions are based on having a sane browser. Who knows what MS have put in IE to give content providers control over the browser?

Re:Eventually, the DMCA would apply.

[sfe_software]

I'm not sure if removing adds from a page is legal, even without the DCMA.
The author wrote a page with an add, and a filter app modifies the page and removes the add picture, without a permission from the author.

Most browsers allow you to override fonts and colors, toggle image downloading, disable scripting, and so on; blocking ads is only one more tiny modification to the page. Modifying the page is something that is commonly accepted for other purposes (accessibility, user preference, etc), so I don't think that argument will go far.

But modification is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

I'm not sure if this applies. You certainly can't modify a copyrighted work and distribute it, but if you purchase a book, you're free to scribble notes on the pages. If you listen to a CD, you can EQ it to taste. Thus, if you download a web page, you should be able to modify it as you wish for your own viewing.

Selling an app that's only purpose is to remove adverts from web pages could infringe the authors rights.

That's what some say about Tivo and Replay TV... and so far, I don't think a real big fuss has been raised. The difference of course is that commercial-skipping isn't the only use for the Tivo (nor is it an advertised feature), so ad-blocking software might have a more difficult time... but a general proxy with ad-blocking as an extra feature might be fine.

Re:This is just a case of too little, too late

[cshotton]

Had this been introduced in 2000, the dot-com crash might have been averted.

A charitable view of this product, but a seriously naive view of what caused the dot-com crash. First, not every dot-com had its business model predicated on ad revenue. But the real reason that the dot-coms crashed is a simple one. They weren't creating any value. In an economy that rewards profits, very few of the dot-coms' business plans actually recognized this simple fact. Many were predicated on some Ponzi-like exit strategy (if they had one at all), be it an IPO, acquisition, or the holy grail, viral adoption.

The reality is that there was simply too much venture capital and too few experienced investors. In '98, you could write a business plan on a piece of toilet paper and get it funded by someone. Now, if you don't have a clear path to profitability with 24 months, a shipping product, near break-even revenues, and a seasoned management team, don't even bother wasting the trees to print your plan. The VCs don't want to see it. They're still trying to dig their way out of billions in failed companies and trying to save the companies they still have.

These guys would probably have ruled the dot-com world, if they'd gotten their act together and released this when it might have been useful.

Probably not. Most likely, they'd have gone the same way as all of the other companies who were part of the failed VC food chain. Once the capital dried up, it would have only been a matter of time before companies stopped buying their software. This is the secondary fall-out that killed all the companies with products and sales that were geared towards dot-com infrastructure. These guys would have been no different. As it stands now, this one shouldn't even be let out of the gate.

Oh RIGHT...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, now, according to YOU, the peer-to-peer free flow of information THAT IS THE INTERNET (and had been for 20+ years) is suddenly "leeching" because some loser dot-bomb can't think of a real way to make money? Give me a break.

I don't recall Sunsite or Tsx-11 forcing ascii-ads down our throats in the FTP banner back in '93. I don't recall Tim Berners-Lee pining for an internet full of banner ads and griping about "leeches". I don't recall seeing the official DOD document subsection about preventing "leechers".

The usual mantra that originates from the dot-bombers, which you so aptly seem to parrot here, is that if you somehow block ads you are then "stealing" from the web site.

Excuse me? I pay for MY end of the pipe. I pay for the packets going in and out of MY end of the internet...are the dot-bombers going to pay ME for their use of my bandwidth to broadcast crap? Oh, didn't think so...the shoe is on the other foot now. Most spammers scuttle away like roaches when you say this to them, too.

Here's a newsflash: despite the best and worst efforts of dot-bombers, the Internet IS NOT LIKE TELEVISION. This is a peer-to-peer network we all share in. DON'T LIKE IT? THEN CLOSE UP SHOP AND SET UP ON AOL INSTEAD OF GRIPING ABOUT INTERNET "LEECHERS". If you want to force ads down the throats of the clueless in a server-based environment, AOL and MSN are designed for you...but not the Internet.

(We put up with 4 years of dot-bomb hyperbole and BS, and now we have to put up with another 4 of the former dot-bombers griping about how it was everyone else's fault they didn't make any money.)

Re:Eventually, the DMCA would apply.

[DGolden]

> But modification is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

NO. NO. NO. NO.

Modification, followed by subsequent redistribution is restricted by copyright law.

The mainstream media giants have managed to socially engineer this knowledge out of the vast majoirty of the sheep^H^H^H^H^Hpeople.

If I, upon legitimately obtaining copyrighted material, screw around with it, I'm not breaking the law unless I give a copy of it or the modified version to someone else.

Think about it - if I buy a painting from you, I'm free to draw a silly moustache and glasses on it, but, according to societal conventions currently enshrined in our legal system, I can't (a) sell copies of the painting without your permission or (b) sell copies of the modified painting without permsission. (I'm also usually allowed sell the original painting to someone else (this area is much murkier, and the reason behind the legal blurb at the start of european books about "may not be sold on without imposing similar conditions on the buyer" stuff)- that's the freedom that UCITA and software EULAs try to fight)

That's all pretty much a mixture of common sense and courstesy - but what the lawyers and media giants have done, is, via tricky wording and paying for new laws, is destroy all that.

Via assinine laws like the DMCA, and WIPO treaty provisions, our feudal overlords / corporate masters have managed to erode such "fair use" rights of the average person.

Re:And what about text/speaking browsers?

[BadDoggie]

Some browsers don't support JS, and cannot download images...

Correct.

I very much believe that these users have more of a right to keep this off than an advertizer has to force you to look at an ad.

Also correct, but not in the you mean it. The page owners and creators -- as well as the advertisers -- can't force you to do anything. You go to a Web site by choice... most of the time, anyway.

However, you do not have some intrinsic or inalienable right to view the content of any site out there. Some sites you have to pay for (like Westlaw), some you just need to have a free membership, and some sites (like mine) don't care.

It galls me that so many people here piss and moan about having to register to read a NYT article. For fuck's sake, it's free! It takes a minute to do and, if you allow a cookie, you'll never have to bother with it again. In exchange for this, you get access to current stories in what is arguably one of the better US print journals (it's certainly referenced often enough here!).

Is the NYT in cahoots with the CIA, NSA and the Illuminati? Who cares?! As far as the NYT knows, my name is Mr. Potato Salad, I'm an 83 years old labourer and I live at 123 Happy-Go-Lucky Lane in East Timor. All the NYT cares about is being able to show advertisers unique visits/impressions so that the advertisers can pay instead of you and me. How fucking hard is that?

I draw the line when the ads become intrusive. Pop-unders, JavaScript, Flash, new windows, onOpen/onClose, etc., as well as any ad over 30K (if I'm on a dial-up) or more than half the data size of the page I want. This kind of crap has a tendency to crash my browser, disrupt or destroy work in another window. It also costs me a lot of money when I'm using a modem in Europe.

It's because people went ballistic at even the most innocuous of ads and started an arms race that we have the sorts of intrusive ads and methods we're now facing.

If you keep blocking the ads, then the advertisers will give up and you will get to pay for the content. It's that simple.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to hack the binaries and change a couple of spellings so that new instances can't be forced open, scrolling can't be blocked, etc. Now I just need to know how to stop the lame animated GIFs -- can anyone please tell me if there's a way to halt them in Konqueror the way I can by hitting ESC in Mozilla/Opera/IE? Maybe there's a way to display them only as static or disable the LOOP command.

My guess is that soon, content will be served only through the advertising locations, so that blocking the ads will block your receiving the content, as well. There will be a way around it, but it'll be a lot more complicated than adding a couple lines to the hosts file.

woof.

If the ad is condescending or annoying, I avoid the product. If it's informative, I pay attention.

Re:That only works for some sites

[egburr]

Generally the price you pay for a newspaper is for the delivery, whether by hand-delivery or locked in a paper-box. Advertising pays for the paper, press, ink, and employees' salaries. This is just how online sites whould work, too.

The difference is that online advertising is no longer something you can skim past while reading the story. Online advertising is now a very annoying, can't-be-ignored, get-in-your-face irritation. On top of that, much of the onlie advertising also tracks you to see where you saw the ad, how often you saw the ad, who you are, what other sites/ads you may be seeing, etc.

Back when online advertising was just a simple banner ad, I never even thought about trying to block it. When online advertising starting tracking where you went and what you did, I started looking at blocking options and started a half-assed attempt at blocking. When online advertising started getting really annoying and very difficult to just ignore, I got serious about blocking the ads.

The advertisers did it to themselves. They tried to force more upon us than they did with newspapers. They tried to gather much more information about us than they could with newspapers. (They probably are also paying less for the ads than they did with newspapers.) If they had left well enough alone and not gotten greedy, most people probably would never even have thought about blocking their ads.