Slashdot Mirror
Livejournal Bans Ad-Blocking Software
Anonymous Emo writes "The community/blogging site LiveJournal recently introduced ads on some pages for free users. More interestingly, they also added a new restriction to their TOS (XVI 17 b.) banning users from using or providing ad-blocking software. The new TOS also permits them to immediately terminate the account of anyone they catch doing this."
I've been expecting this... Now we'll have to modify our ad blocking software to download and discard the ads that are currently ignored altogether.
A first reading of the ToS suggests that it is just journal *owners* who are banned from using styles etc to hide the ads from everyone. There's nothing to say that people *reading* the journal can't be running ad-blocking.
The relevant clause:
17. Employ tactics and/or technologies to prevent the full and complete delivery or display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Making journal style changes, customizations, or overrides that effectively block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on a Sponsored+ account's Content or other pages within the Service.
2. Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages.
Well livejournal does need to pay for their bandwidth and running costs right?
With ad blockers getting more and more prevalent and sometimes getting installed by default with some firewall software, it might get problematic for websites depending on ad revenue.
Although I guess peopl installing ad blockers on their own, probably would just ignore the ads anyway.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
It is clear one thing this rule is aimed at is people changing their journal to block the ads on livejournal. This is perfectly reasonable and even slashdot doesn't let you foil their ads by posting cleverly formated comments on a story (not technically possible here I presume).
What is less clear is if this is intended to apply to people VIEWING livejournal content. After all you aren't even really acting as a livejournal user when you do this you are just reading someone's blog.
I think we just need to wait and see if this actually amounts to any changes or is just overbroad legal wording to cover their ass in unforseen circumstances. Remember there are all sorts of crazy conditions in some EULAs/TOS that don't necessarily amount to anything.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Actually, Ive always provided free community hosting for anyone without ad's.. Its my way of giving back to the internet...Though I THOUGHT About it.. but then I also thought of how annoying ads are in the first place, so I disregarded the idea all together... I was also thinking of having something like Live Journal for my Network, but I never could find a good one.. But in the mean time, I have all the free hosting in the world Praeon Network (Gotta throw in a cheap plug in for that : ) In regards to Live Journal, and the topic at hand, I can understand where they are coming from, but you would think they would be a little bit more understanding, and realise that not everyone on the internet are as smart as us Slashdot members. : )
Just me
Good job, Slashdot, with your bullshit disinformative article blurb. Let's go over this like intelligent human beings and show why it's a non-issue:
Livejournal just recently added opt-in ads for users that would let them have pretty much all of the benefits of a paid user for the cost of having ads on their journals. After you opt-in to ads you can opt-out at any time and return to your ad-free cost-free journal. Free users viewing another free user's page, their own friends page, or a paid user's page will see no ads but they will see ads when viewing the journal page of someone who's opted for ads. Paid users will see no ads at all. Even so, all I've seen of these ads so far are Google ads. This is article is total FUD and should be tagged as such.
No, the TOS does *not* say that you can't use "ad blocking software". It says that if you have ads on your live journal page, you're not allowed to mess with the layout so that the ads can't be seen by people LOOKING at your page. Not quite the same thing.
........ this is a story?
Geeze
you wind up with these regions where the browser displays the error message "unable to contact host"
Geocities has had this as far back as I can remember, this rule just means journal writers can't try and circumvent the displaying of ads on their journal, whether readers block them via say, Adblock Plus and the Filterset.G updater (look for the "Plus", not the original, and filterset is just below it, it is a set of filters maintained by people for Adblock) is another story
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
No one's forcing you to view the ads. You're agreeing to see them to get more features on your (free!) account. You can also pay $20 for an entire year and get even more features and no ads.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
I count two hours until a Greasemonkey script comes out to just set the CSS "display" of all the ads to "none". Now we can load the ads, and hide them from view.
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
Bandwidth costs money, money comes from users or ads.
Or idiot VC's who give millions to people with essentially ZERO business plan.
If you don't pay, you get the ads, if you don't get the ads, you're basically stealing their bandwidth.
Bullshit. I've paid my ISP for my access. It isn't your bandwidth, and I can't steal what you're handing out for free anyway. Am I stealing "your bandwidth" if I use Lynx? Mentality like this drives me nuts. I loathe ads, they get blocked. I'll never understand how anyone would expect to earn money by using something that myself and most people I know routinely ignore or block. In any format.
hmm, does lynx count as an ad blocker?
Tools->Adblock->Adblock prefcerences and select hide ads at the bottom. Ads will be downloaded, but you won't see them. Presto!
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
"Terms of Service" and EULAs are interesting from a legal perspective. They say:
1) You have a contract with us.
2) You have no control over what the contract says.
3) We can change the contract at any time. You are bound to the new provisions of the contract, even though you became involved after acceptance of the old contract.
4) We throw in some terms of the contract that try to show that the contract is balanced, and that we are contracting to do something for you. However, there is no balance; if we decide we don't like what we have said we will do for you, we will just write a new contract and leave out the provision we don't like.
It is a measure of the corruption in the legal system that the issues surrounding one-sided contracts like this have never been fully considered either in courts or in Congress. The rich and powerful do what they like, even though what they like is definitely against the spirit of contract law.
One of the problems is that, once you are involved with an online service or an operating system, for example, the cost of changing is very high. Typically online services require investing considerable time to be useful. Typically the cost of software is a small part of the total cost of involvement with an operating system.
Another problem is that Terms of Service and EULAs are usually written in extremely tricky language; it would require a legal professional many hours to understand them. So, users "agree" to a contract they cannot understand.
First, the good people at live journal have made another account option, Sponsored+, where members agree to place ads on their journal in order to have more features that paid users usually get. The member gets to decide if they want ads on their journal.
Second, the TOS change means that members cannot sign up for a Sponsored+ account and then attempt to jack with the layout so that the ads don't appear.
Wow.
Back when slashdot first introduced their annoying large square ads in the body of a story (this was around 2002), you could embed javascript in your own customized box to the right. This was used by some as a backdoor to prevent the annoying slashdot ads from loading. Next thing you know, slashdot prevents javascript from going into your own customized box citing security concerns.
It's cool not to be a money-grabbing bastard, but there's nothing against a realistic business plan.
If putting a clause that certain members should view ads is realistic is a different story, though :) I mean, they can easily check if the ads are downloaded, but how are they going to check if the readers actually see them. Maybe they perform a grep on their entries, if the users are not whining about the ads and finding appropriate emo music that so-much describes their anger on this, then something most be wrong ;)
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
To back up this line of though, I browesed the ToS.
I. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
"LiveJournal, blah blah provides the following service to you, subject to these Terms of Service ("TOS") blah blah blah. Failure to comply with these TOS may result in account revocation."
So, when you put that together with their wording about blocking ads, it obviously applies only to those who have an account (and consequently accepted the TOS).
There's always been ways to get around auto-inserted ad code. The guy who runs http://www.cexx.org/ has a selection of simple tricks that you can use to defeat some of the more obvious ad-insertion techniques. Just scroll down to "Free" Webpage Providers.
Mebbe he should update his site to include CSS and other sneaky ways to defeat the current set of 'free' sites.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Does this mean they would ban for using Adblock? or flashblock or if i block their ads via my router? Very ambiguous.
Yes, ambiguity is the point of law. It is ambiguous to allow for technological and societal changes (advances?) to fit within the mold. This is why the constitution is still relevant today (plus/minus some amendments :)
Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages.
Notice that the terms "software programs" and "browser scripts" are not defined. Are these server/client programs? What about the scripts -- are these embedded javascripts or would a ff extension constitute a script? Probably both.
Now a question: it has probably been previously decided what "providing" means in terms of cyberspace. Does anyone know if it means "serving" the scripts (i.e. putting, say, a ff extension on a server, and a link to download) OR can it also mean providing an external link to adblock hosted by mozilla or whoever else? Anyone know? (obligatory IANAL stands of course) -ikChange is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
Wtf is livejournal, you ask? It's the website that separates the women from the flamingly homosexual.
Install COX in your backend today!
People who block ads need to be prepared for subscription fees. Any content provider that relies on advertising for revenue will have to resort to subscriptions if viewers block or skip over their ads. In my opinion, if you choose to block ads, that is your choice. It's your hardware and you should be able to decide what your computer downloads and displays. But once you've made the choice to block ads, don't complain when you have to fork up a couple bucks a month for everything you once got for free.
Sure you could do that in a few lines of PHP, but Did you think about the fact that not everyone is in the IT field. How many LJ users do you think know how to use PHP? Not a heck of a lot I'm sure. Next thing you'll be complaining that people can't build their own cars or bake a cake from scratch.
You have to 'get' Livejournal. It doesn't have the buzz that Facebook and Myspace do, but it really needs more credit. It has a huge community of bloggers, but unlike Blogger/Wordpress/MovableType/etc. bloggers, the LJ community is inward facing (like Myspace and Facebook). Unlike Myspace and Facebook, LiveJournal had very early support for APIs and RSS/Atom syndication and they make it possible for even free journals to cleanly insert their custom CSS inside the HEAD where it belongs. In other words, they're pretty unique.
... And neither do I, so carry on.
Most important about that uniqueness was the contempt Brad Fitzpatrick (founder) had/has for advertising. See his post here. So Livejournal adding ads, even if they are opt-in (the free / no-ads option is still available; the ads just get you the features that were previously for Paid accounts only) - is a big deal for LiveJournal.
Now, finally my point - the B. part of that ackward ToS means this for LJ users: "Don't post scripts to LJ-nifty," a community on LiveJournal where quasi-crafty scripts are frequently posted. That's what they're talking about without talking about it. Lawyers just don't know how to get to the point.
"Hey kids! How would you like to be the first person on your block to have a Myspace account? You can post photos, and music, and communicate with your friends, and --possibly win a PSP by clicking on the scarry clown-click here now!-- and write messages. It even has a blog and a photo gallery where --you could possibly win a free pink RAZR if you can save the hostage-- MySpace: An online community for everyone --to click here now and have bigger breast overnight!--"
/MySpace.com -- A News Corporation -- Visit Bill O'Rielly's Myspace! Fox Owns Your SOUL!!!!!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The real issue here is not whether such TOS terms are valid, acceptable or moral.
It is whether companies are allowed to one-sidedly change their TOS in such drastic ways.
It's not like they're clarifying some previously enforced term or merely extending it a bit in the spirit of the original intent; they're making a U-turn in service.
I know companies can insert clauses in their TOS that allow such changes, but surely there must be a limit to how far they can go.
What if they suddenly insert a term that forces all their users to pay $100 a day or leave without even a change of retaining their data.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I'm having a hard time believing anyone actually read the article. They are introducting ads as an OPTIONAL feature of the site for people that want added features (more user icons, a personal photo album with 1gb of space). On peoples journals who DECIDE to participate in this, ads will be seen. But for regular free users and paid users there are still NO ADS. So if you don't want ads, don't sign up for their Sponsored+ service!
since you have the choice of less features or ads, I've already informed all my LJ friends that I'll instantly de-friend them if they switch to ads.
Have you actually gone to livejournal today?
They're adding a new level. They used to have a free and rather limited account, and a paid account with fewer restrictions. They're now adding a "sponsored" account. You get more of the "paid" features, but instead of paying, you agree to have ads placed on your site.
This whole change in TOS is about you not signing up for the sponsored account and then turning around and trying to use code in your site to block the ads or keep site visitors from seeing them.
The "free" account is still without ads.
From their site:
For Free account holders: You don't have to display ads on your journal or Friends page or view ads in the LiveJournal site pages. We're committed to keeping the Free account level available to you, and it's your choice if you'd like to opt in to the Sponsored+ level or purchase a Paid account.
A friend of mine was checking out some of her friends pages of LJ and saw an ad for an Ad blocker for Firefox! Seems they may be contravening there own policies...
And they have to pay for theirs -- bandwidth is needed for servers as well as clients. When you pay money to an ISP it only covers your end of the connection, none of the money goes to people running the other end :-P
It isn't your bandwidth
So how are they sending you data?
and I can't steal what you're handing out for free anyway.
Much like things on a shop shelf are "free"; sure you can take them and walk out of the shop, but the business model relies on customers paying, be it cash or ad views.
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
There's gotta be some sort of article moderation system to prevent FUD like this from misleading Slashdot readers. I read the front page blurb of this story and was lead to believe LiveJournal was being evil, and if I hadn't taken the time to read the comments on this article (which I usually don't), I'd have had no idea that the entire article was blown out of proportion and context. It's probably the third or fourth time this has happened in the past six months, which is why I hardly even read Slashdot these days.
# wrote sig.txt, 23 lines, 31337 chars
XII.
# ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS
You understand and agree that some or all of the Service may include advertisements and that these advertisements are necessary for LiveJournal to provide the Service. You also understand and agree that you will not obscure any advertisements from general view via HTML/CSS or any other means. By using the Service, you agree that LiveJournal has the right to run such advertisements with or without prior notice, and without recompense to you or any other user. The manner, mode and extent of advertising by LiveJournal on your Content and throughout the Service are subject to change at LiveJournal's discretion. Your correspondence or business dealings with, or participation in promotions of, advertisers found on or through the Service, including payment and delivery of related goods or services, and any other terms, conditions, warranties or representations associated with such dealings, are solely between you and such advertiser. You agree that LiveJournal shall not be responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as the result of any such dealings or as the result of the presence of such advertisers on the Service.
There have been instances where the advertisers themselves have been compromised and browser exploits come from them.
There are also people with epilepsy who cannot view flashing material so disable flashing and moving images without prior approval.
liqbase
Mod parent up!
The whole concept of somebody paying a website owner on the basis that visitors to the website might have seen an advert {but probably are not going to do anything about it, and almost certainly not buy the product} is just broken on too many levels to be sustainable.
As people get more and more savvy, so they are going to be less inclined to put up with adverts intruding into their internet experience. In a magazine, you can turn the page; on the TV you can change the station or leave the room. We are already used to that. {In future years scientists will no doubt postulate that, just as human stomach fluid became less acidic when we started cooking our food, so the average urine capacity of the human bladder decreased when every TV programme contained advertisements every half-hour}.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Good scare, but I don't think this is really all that bad.
I think GeoCities has had this sort of bit on their ToS for quite a while. Basically, "We're serving ads on your web page. There's nothing you can do about it, and if we find out you've been trying to nuke the ads, we ban you."
They're not going to ban AdBlock users. They're going to ban people who use the ad-supported Sponsored+ things on their own journals, and try to sneak around the ad-displaying code.
If they'd really try to ban AdBlock users, they'd have to open a completely idiotic, uncontrollable, and not to mention bloody and oh-God-does-this-ever-make-us-look-bad can of worms. I mean, ban everyone who browses with elinks, or just turn the JavaScript off. That would be a lot of banhammering and a lot of displeased users and not to even mention lost potential customers.
I personally follow the policy of only starting to block ads on a site when i'm confronted with obnoxious ads.
Until i see moving (flash or gif, makes no difference), sound making or content hidding ads i'll keep the ads from a site visible. As soon as i see one of those obnoxious ads on my browser they (and all ads from the same provider) get blocked.
Popups that manage to go around Firefox's pop-up protection are reason for me to block the whole site of the ad provider plus the one of the company whose advert is on that pop-up.
It's a ballance between helping the sites i like to keep going on (and even make a profit) and enforcing the limits i've set for what are acceptable ads.
To all web-site managers out there i say: Don't use ad providers that (try to) abuse the viewer's good will and you won't have any problems with having a steady revenue stream from advertising.
Bandwidth costs money, money comes from users or ads.
And why do they need all of that bandwidth? To serve ads!
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
If the ad blocker downloads and then hides the ad, it's impossible to know for sure. Maybe some fancy Javascript might do the trick, but hey, since Javascript is client-based, there's always going to be a way to bypass it.
On the other side, if the ad blocker does not download the ad, then it's a piece of cake for the website to know that something fishy is going on.....
Most people i know use the "remove ad" option in Adblock, not the "hide ad". So they save bandwidth, the page loads faster, but by doing so they hurt the websites by not giving their ads any hits.
I for one use the "hide ad" - so my browser still downloads the ad, the website still makes a little money for "showing" me the ad, and everybody's happy.
Dude, it's only on their actual page - if it bothers you so much, read their blogs from your friends page, or don;t read it. It's not like LJ plastered ads all over your blog or kicked you off because you werent viewing the ads...
They provide the content. No one is forcing you to look at it, if that person chooses to put ads in their content that is their choice and you can choose to stop reading their journal.
In the future, subway companies will demand that passengers stop and read all ads on the platform and in the stairs. Far to often people just "run" by them without reading. We reserve the right to deny anyone travelling with us that has not first read every single ad at the station!! After all, we get paid for this advertisment and if people don't read them, we get less money! This is close to stealing when you don't read all ads!!
The summary is so misleading that it makes me want to cringe.
Livejournal used to have two different account types: free and subscription, both with no ads. Free journals are limiting in what they can offer, such as no place to store pictures, only 6 avatars, etc. Subscriptions give storage space for pictures, 12 avatars, all that fun stuff. If you just want to have a basic place to put your thoughts of the day, then the free account is all you really need. Subscriptions are for the bells and whistles.
This new third account type with advertising strikes a medium between the two. It allows users to have the bells and whistles of the subscription member, but for the price of free + advertisements on the journal. For some people, this is their blogging wish come true!
It has *nothing* to do with switching all free accounts to advertisement accounts. People with free accounts can still have their bare-bones journals sans advertisements. This is just merely making sure that if people opt to have advertisements on their sites in exchange for the goodies, that the advertisements *stay put*. It's the exchange that they make for not paying the subscription.
Did anyone actually read it as it is written? Here, I'll put the header of the section together with the subsection:
You agree to NOT use the Service to employ tactics and/or technologies to prevent the full and complete delivery or display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages, including employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages.
So basically what it says is that you cannot use the LJ service to use or deploy ad-blocking software, but it says nothing about using ad-blocking software which you got someplace else which is not related to LJ.
Bravery is not a function of firepower.
~J.C. Denton (Deus Ex)
I actually have no problem with this. For one thing, the /. headline is, as is often the case, misleading; LJ is actually introducing a new account level, "sponsored", which gives you some more features in exchange for allowing advertising on your LJ. You don't have to view the ads; if you have a free account and don't want ads, nothing will change for you. It's only if you want those extra features that you get ads on your LJ.
So, if you enter into an agreement to allow LJ to deliver advertising to you in exchange for more features, then what's wrong with asking that you follow through on your end of the agreement by not blocking the ads? How is it a violation of my rights to ask that I fulfill my end of an agreement? How is it not a violation of their rights if I take their services and refuse to do anything in exchange for them?
(And yes, I do have AdBlock installed, though primarily because much of the advertising on the web consists of flashy graphics and sounds that interfere with my ability to browse the web, and degrade my computer's performance. There's only so much I'm willing to do for the free stuff.)
"A statesman is a dead politician. Lord knows we need more statesmen." Opus
Nah, MySpace displays more (and more annoying) ads than would fit into LiveJournal's ad policy. And as I understand it, MySpace users don't have a choice. LJ users can still opt for free (no ads except on sponsored blogs) or paid (no ads anywhere) accounts instead of sponsored.
At least according to Brad FitzPatrick. Basically, the lawyers went a bit bonkers, and the people who were supposed to review it didn't.
For those who don't want to click through:
Brad has addressed this in a recent post to the lj_support community.7 .html
http://community.livejournal.com/lj_support/62990