Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Ad Blocking Doubles
Dotnaught writes to tell us about an InformationWeek article reporting that, according to a Forrester Research report, consumers are fed up with ads. From the article: "In the past two years, the number of consumers using pop-up blockers and spam filters has more than doubled.. More than half of all American households now report using these ad blocking technologies to block unwanted pitches... Today, 15% of consumers acknowledge using their digital video recorders to skip ads, more than three times as many as in 2004." The study would have been more meaningful if it hadn't conflated spam blocking with ad blocking.
"If someone sees this shopowner's product and that someone decides to make his or her own, its not stealing the physical property, but it IS stealing the intellectual property."
Nope. It is however, infringment on the owner's monopoly. I have invented several things for my use around the home. One of these things was a jewelry clasp opener and closer that I created 15 years ago. My mom loved it, and it did the job wonderfully. Now, this same device is found on QVC, HSN, and most likely in many stores. If I were to start selling my product, would you call me a thief for "stealing their ideas?" If you don't, the court system will if I am sued for doing this. I invented this thing, yet I would have no case in court (or the funds to pursue such a case if I did). You see, I happen to agree with you in the fact that if you violate someone's monopoly in such regards that you will be called a "thief." In order to change the law to something that is more reasonable, one must quit allowing the multinationals to define the language used, how the battle is fought, or otherwise set the rules. It is those with the gold that make the rules. It is time that we stop letting them do so.
The current copyright and patent system favors multinational billionair companies over the original purpose of promoting useful arts and sciences. The system actually stifles innovation rather than encourages it. When I worked for a large company's IT department, I wrote several programs on my own that speeded up my work tremendously. Was I rewarded for my work? No I was not! I was told to quit using the programs I written because of possible legal concernes. The programs I wrote were not copycat programs or ideas taken from a website, they were not viruses or peer to peer filesharing programs. They were programs that parsed company-generated log files and refoprmatted them into a fopr that management could use. They were the product of my own mind and imagination. Has someone else patented a similar procedure I use or have they copyrighted a similar program? I don't know. All I know is that I had a very time-consuming task, and I wrote a small program that would allow me to complete that task in a few seconds rather than 45 minutes. Unfortunately, legal concernes over "intellectual property" stifled my innovative solution, and I was forced to carry out the task the hard and time consuming way.
Like the moonshiners and home producers of alcohol that forced the U.S. government to do away with prohibition, filesharing and other forms of copyright infringement will force governments to enact a more reasonable copyright and patent system. When that happens, we will see a huge leap in technical progress and the standard of living. I absolutely agree with the industry when it says that copyright infringement deprives them of sales. The question is really what percentage of sales is affected. However, copyright infringment (not stealing) is a form of civil disobedience that I encourage. I encourage it because the media and software cartel has effectively purchased legislation that gives it a stranglehold on the cultures and functioning of many nations. The current copyright and patent system is broken and nees to be fixed. It will not be fixed if its rules are obeyed by the masses simply because it is not in the immediate financial interests of those who hold the money and power. I will be fixed when people forces governments to fix it. As far as the law or government is concerned, I respect them ONLY when they are in the interests or protects the people. When the l;aw or government no longer speaks for the people, then it is time to change such laws or governemnts.
"A person who buys a plant from a nursery and then makes a cutting of the plant for his friend didn't steal the plant from the nursery - but, you are considered to be 'depriving of potential profit' - which, for a nursery, isn't illegal. It is, for software and software companies."
Actually, it is in many areas. If companies like
I respect laws that are lawful. Laws that are lawful fall in the catagory that they are beneficial to the entire population of the nation. Just because a governmental or court body legislates something, it does not mean that something is right or good. By saying that you should respect and obey every law that a your government makes means that you are making the governmeent your god or highest authority. For an example, the Nurenberg laws were legislated by a goivernment, but that did not make them right or for the benefit of the people.
The highest (manmade) law of the land in my nation is the Constitution. Any law that contradicts the Constitution is in fact no law at all. Yes, I respect laws that are for the good of the people. For example, I do not steal, I do not murder, I do not rape, I do not drive drunk, and I obey many other laws as well. In fact, I even try to respect and obey copyrights, unless said copyrights are over 7 years old. I want the creator of a work to benefit from his or her discovery or invention so that the sciences and arts are promoted.
My respect for the law ends when the law is a product of corrupt corporations, corrupt legislators, and other corrupt public offical. Our nation's founding fatheres intended for the laws of the land to work for the benefit of the people. In fact, they also stated that when a government no longer works for the benefit of the people, then it is the DUTY of the people to REPLACE the government. I believe that by not buying corporate product, one depletes the the resources that are available to bribe officials (I mean giving political action campaign contributions, etc). I as well as millions of other believe that governments no longer serve the people. As such, these governemtns need replacing. Since I am not a man of violence, I believe that one must use other means of achieving this end. One of these means is by shutting out the the (multinational, multibillion-dollar) corporations and restoring the free market. The average working person does not have the money necessary to get laws passed that benefit the people. The only voice we have in our government is how we spend our money.