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...
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
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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!
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
If they want to start charging you for the service, I imagine they would at minimum have to provide you with a reasonable amount of time to become aware of the change and accept/consent. More likely, they'd have to get a positive indication of your acceptance in order to begin billing you.
However, unless they'd made an explicit commitment to allow you access to get your files off their servers, I don't see any reason why they couldn't just cut off your access entirely until you agree to pay for the service. Unless you're paying for the service already, it's unlikely they have any contractual obligations toward you.
Ordinarily, contracts must be two-sided -- it's assumed that no one would enter into a contract if they don't receive some sort of consideration. If you're not paying, the service provider is hoping that your content will attract business through some other channel. I doubt that this very indirect "payment" would be seen as consideration unless there were an explicit agreement in place. I can't imagine any rational free service provider writing their contract to make that the case, either. In the eyes of the law, you're probably receiving a gift -- and the courts won't require a gift giver to keep giving a gift (barring some extremely bizarre circumstances, I imagine).
Of course, IANAL... but I always assume any free service I use on the web (or anywhere else) is a fleeting thing that may vanish without notice. It generally seems fair to me, given that I'm getting something for nothing.
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
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.
Its parent post is better, but equates this TOS change with "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."
Crazy!
This is SO far off base from the reality of Livejournal.
If they want to start charging you for the service, I imagine they would at minimum have to provide you with a reasonable amount of time to become aware of the change and accept/consent. More likely, they'd have to get a positive indication of your acceptance in order to begin billing you.
Livejournal has offered both free and paid accounts for years.
Livejournal has a long history of giving advanced notice about planned changes, and inviting discussion, and keeping things compatible
On top of all that, the addition of ads is on an entirely new class of account. Yes, that's the truth. Rather than force ads onto everyone who has traditionally had ad-free accounts, they're leaving all those free accounts as they were, and adding a new class of account with a level of service above the free acct but below the paid acct, which is "paid" by the ads.
That is the real truth here, which is easily verified by reading the news over on Livejournal.
They're not suddenly forcing people to pay. They're not even changing the free accounts. And they DID talk about this for some time, in public, and invited discussion.
My point is, the Livejournal folks are pretty good people, trying to do their best. You wouldn't know if from all this ranting here, but it's pretty easy to see if you go check out the site and read what they're doing.
However, unless they'd made an explicit commitment to allow you access to get your files off their servers, I don't see any reason why they couldn't just cut off your access entirely until you agree to pay for the service. Unless you're paying for the service already, it's unlikely they have any contractual obligations toward you.
What if, what if, what if, and so on.
Livejournal has a very long history of great service. They have a great reputation, and it's a well deserved one.
Back here in the real world, what matters is not so much what theoretically would or wouldn't matter in a court. Livejournal is one of many free/inexpensive services, which are almost universally used by individuals for personal communication. This just isn't the sort of thing that goes to court over a dispute. Any "mission critical" blog is going to be hosted using its own domain name.
In reality, what matters is Livejournal's reputation, and that reputation depends mostly on how they treat their users, both free and paid. All this ranting is just nit picking about the TOS. What truly matters is what they actually DO. And I highly doubt it will be evil, given their very long history.
There's just one last bit of profound-lack-of-perspective to comment on,
Of course, IANAL... but I always assume any free service I use on the web (or anywhere else) is a fleeting thing that may vanish without notice. It generally seems fair to me, given that I'm getting something for nothing.
Certainly a business would want to use its own domain name.
But for individuals looking for a free service, Lifejournal has been operating for 7 years, and they have a successful business model based on maintaining free and paid accounts.
Yeah, in theory they could vanish tomorrow. But that's about an unlikely as slashdot, yahoo, google, and every other MAJOR successful website offering free services suddenly doing dark.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
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.