Ad Blocking – a Coming Legal Battleground?

An anonymous reader writes "Computerworld asks: What will happen if big advertisers declare AdBlock Plus a clear and present danger to online business models? Hint: it will probably involve lawyers. From the article: 'Could browser ad blocking one day become so prevalent that it jeopardises potentially billions of dollars of online ad revenue, and the primary business models of many online and new media businesses? If so, it will inevitably face legal attack.'"

Comments

Short answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

No. People who block ads do not click ads anyway, and as long as adblock is opt-in, this will never, ever be a problem.

Re:Short answer:

[magic maverick]

It's already sort of possible.

Except that it's more like:
Step 1. User loads page.
Step 2. Page uses JavaScript to display page.
Step 3. I go elsewhere, because frankly, fuck 'em.
Step 4. Anyone else who doesn't have JS enabled does the same.
Step 5. JS can be used to detect whether external ads are loading or not, and block those that don't load external ads.
------

I don't have an ad blocker. I use Request Policy to block external requests (and whitelist and temporary whitelist if I want external content in a web page). This blocks most ads by default, without any extra work on my part. I also use NoScript. This blocks more ads, especially as I'm not about to whitelist the ad domains. I finally use a cookie manager that blocks cookies by default (and I whitelist certain domains).

The only ads I see are the ones that don't use JS, and are served from the same domain as the website I'm viewing. Though I was certainly thinking about blocking a moving graphic ad recently...

-----
So, yeah, websites can detect if you have JS enabled, and use that to detect if ads are being displayed. And I'll say fuck you to the parasites and find my sources of entertainment, news, and community elsewhere. I'd be perfectly happy if all ad supported websites went out of business (I'm not counting those that have ads for their own products though, just those with ads from external sources). Just like if broadcast TV were to go elsewhere because everyone skipped the ads, I wouldn't care at all either.

Re:Short answer:

[innocent_white_lamb]

Advertising is always obnoxious no matter how subtle it's done.
 
Really?
 
I own a small movie theatre and advertise what's playing and what's coming with a webpage and an email mailing list.
 
People actively seek out and view the webpage hundreds of times per day, and I have a fair number of people who have signed up to receive automatic notifications of what's playing when I have a confirmed booking for a new movie.
 
I don't think that my advertising is "obnoxious", since it's information that people are actually searching for and obviously want to receive.

Re:Short answer:

[mrbcs]

Am I the only one that uses a hosts file? Takes care of more than just ads.

It's to the point now that when I see ads, I'm shocked. I've had them blocked for years.

They may be able to stop adblock, but good luck trying to outlaw a hosts file.

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

A legal attack on what grounds? That "we're not getting the profits we have a God-given right to"?

No

[Anonymous Coward]

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

Robert A. Heinlein

Re:It's not the advertiser's right, but ...

[Tom]

It's about whether the author/publisher of the original work containing the link to the ads has the right to demand you view the ads that pay him if you view his work, or whether your right to cut out the ads and only view the remainder takes precedence.

That's easy to answer.

He doesn't.

He does have the right to distribute his work under his own terms. He does not have a right to determine how I consume said work. He can try to force me through technological means, but not through legal means.

If you want to make sure you are paid for your work, there is already a system we have in place for doing so, it's called selling it, aka taking my money before you give me your product. It's really simple, it works, and it is quite common.