Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
The businesses it jeopardizes are flawed in that they depend on advertising. When that business model doesn't work, they deserve to die.
Internet -> Adblock -> Router -> Ad-free internet. These devices already exist, it's only a matter of time before a major router manufacturer builds in black/whitelist support for ad blocking. AdBlock Plus is great, but if they want to escalate, we are prepared to go full out.
A legal attack on what grounds? That "we're not getting the profits we have a God-given right to"?
Because legal attacks have worked really, really well against anything that happens on the Internet. Taking down MegaUpload and The Pirate Bay eliminated piracy altogether, never to resurface again. Gone, dead, finished. Burying ad blocking services under lawsuits will totally never make them even more resilient and hard to pin down. No way that'd happen.
Now's your time to shine!
Google ads are always completely irrelevant and annoying. It is about time businesses start thinking about a real business model instead of annoying people with ads.
I've run across a few sites here and there that won't display any content unless I disable ad-blocking. I'm surprised this isn't more prevalent. Surely it's cheaper to pay a programmer to write some code than paying lawyers to do their thing.
"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
I'd love.. well.. no. I'd tolerate more ads on sites if they were safe. Here in the Netherlands, we've recently had infections go via nu.nl and nrc.nl. Both very respectable news websites and perfectly safe. If it wasn't for the trojans served via the ads.
Nowadays all ads are the enemy. Flash, Java and Adobe reader seem perma-broken, coming with new 0-day attacks every time.
So adblockers aren't just a convenient way of stopping the more shady sites from popping a million blinking commercials in your face, they're part of regiment to keep your PC as healthy as possible.
(Certainly with the current trend of commercialized trojan kits, which means every noob can whip up something that nestles itself in your MBR, stays invisible and undetectable to everything you can through at, can steal your passwords and inject any banking site with redirecting iframes. No sir, the internet is a wild an dangerous place.)
It's Bill Hicks. Worth watching.
--
BMO
Slashdot's anti-ad rhetoric aside, content creators or rights holders have a right to monetize if they want to -- just as content consumers have a right to bypass that content. Everyone has a choice and everyone has other options.
Right now, the easiest path for those who want to skip ads is also the best-of-both-worlds path: You can consume the content you want *and* avoid the ads. Eventually, some (maybe a few, maybe many) content creators will simply not serve content unless they have confirmation that their monetization vehicle was served as well. Some sites will die because it turns out there are other options -- and many will thrive because people need what they've got.
If it *does* become a legal battleground, it'll be less about the macro and more about the micro. No one gives a fuck if there's one less or one more eyeball on some half-baked 9gag clone serving up commoditized CPM advertising. But a social-media ad that's relevant to maybe 100 people in the whole country? Advertisers -- and their attorneys -- damned well care if they're losing significant percentages on those hyper-targeted buys, which often carry a premium.
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
Anyone can file a lawsuit over just about anything..... So could advertisers decide to sue developers who made tools like Ad-Block? Of course!
I think the reason you haven't seen this happen so far (and why it may not happen in the future) is the relatively poor odds of winning such a case. First of all, you have to ask if users normally have the legal right to avoid viewing advertising that's presented to them. Clearly, there's vast evidence that they do, including the ability to change the channel on the TV when commercials come on.
One would have to successfully argue that somehow, contrary to all advertising ever created in the past, advertisers placing their ads on web sites enjoy a special legal protection where they can force viewers to view their ads.
IMO, such a suggestion borders on insanity .....
Maybe not such a crazy idea. Maybe it's time to start laying criminal charges against the sites that deliver malware
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
No. 99 percent of people don't bother blocking ads and 90 percent don't even know that you can block ads. This is a ridiculous question to ask, especially since ad blocking has been around for so many years with solutions ranging from a custom hosts file to browser plugins and built-in adblock (opera).
Bingo.
I'm very computer literate, I could block ads, but I don't. Why not?
a) I can't be bothered to invest the time in downloading the software, deploying it and doing whatever else is required.
b) I'm just not that bothered by ads. I know some Slashdotters go ape-shit bananas if even one ad for Capital One or Ford slips in, but I'm like 'meh' - I just tune them out - And from time to time I'm even served up an ad for something I'm interested in.
c) I accept that ads are the price for nifty free content online.
...I'll be happy to look at whatever they send to me.
And vice versa.
They probably can kill AdBlock Plus (legally). As they tried to kill libdvbcss, at least. When this happens, people will find other ways to block. And advertisers will find new ways to attack blockers, and to pass their ads through. And so on.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
If ad blocking was a sufficiently large problem, there are far easier solution like embedding the ads harder in the content. For example transitional ads between pages, DOM pop-over ads, click-throughs that open a pop-up and whatnot. Imagine someone went through dead-tree newspapers and noted the ad locations, then gave/sold you that list to feed into your magic black marker ad remover machine. What possible grounds would you have to call that illegal? It's a legal battle they're sure to lose.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ad makers should actually ask themselves - why have we created a need for ad blocking software? When they have the answer and acted upon it then the ad blocking software is no longer needed.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It does, its even happened to major sites like the NYT in the past.
How about an ad blocker that downloard the damn ad, but the browser just doesn't put it on the screen.
That would be useless for people who rely on ad blocking software to make efficient use of a slow or capped connection, such as users of dial-up or wireless (satellite or cellular) ISPs.
I do not think so. A web page is protected by copyright law and the owner can decide about the terms under which he allows you to use page. You either agree to the terms or skip the page.
That's pretty much how I see it as well. The other day my girlfriend said "hey you still have ads on gmail" and I responded "really? where?" I really don't noticed them any more. Not to say that every one should just man up and not care but it doesn't (in most cases) hurt you to have ads on your screen and the people putting them up make a few bucks at the same time, why go out of your way to pinch their pennies?
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
The whole point of HTML's markup language is to separate structure from content so that client side devices can render the HTML (and XML/SGML) in a matter most appropriate for the user. It was planned from the onset that many different devices could render a page differently. For example, there used to be completely text based browsers and clearly they rendered pages differently than graphics based browsers. While I'm not sure if they were ever built, there were even discussions of audio based browsers for those who are sight impaired. The ability to modify how a page is displayed is central to the entire concept of HTML. Using an Adblock add-on is simply utilizing HTML in the way it was intended. If the publishers do not like it then there are many less flexible formats that render a page exactly how they want it -- most notably PDF files -- that they can use to publish their content.
A forum where every post needs to be prefixed with "IANAL".
So is Groklaw, which is run by a paralegal.
No, I am a software developer from the EU, who happens to work on a somewhat popular web site, and I value both my work and the work of other people who create content which proves to be useful or at least entertaining for me. This is the reason for example why I never click on the disable ads checkbox here on Slashdot, buy all the games are rarely play nowdays, etc.
and im paying it not the advertiser
until they pay me then they can fuck off
everybody has the right to speak.
and everybody has the right to NOT LISTEN.
3 million servicefolk have died for that right. don't make me open a new case of whoop-ass over it.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Haven't the makers of certain DVR units been successfully sued or otherwise forced to stop providing devices that automatically skip ads in DVR'd content?
Sued yes, successfully no.
The latest is Dish's "Auto-Hop" feature which -- the day after it was aired -- programs ad skips into stuff recorded as part of their Hopper's "Prime-Time-Anytime" feature (which records all prime time shows on the big four using only one tuner). Of course FOX and everyone else filed suit at the first mention of it, even before all the details were out. The suit is till pending but based on preliminary motions it's probable the judge doesn't think they (FOX, et al) will succeed.
The more-savvy advertisers are getting together with TV content providers to do more product placement anyway. (Although that doesn't work for all products/services.)
-- Alastair
If the site you are talking to is, say, having your client make asynchronous javascript requests to the server and fill in assorted requisite fields in your visible web page, then there's not really any way, programatically, to tell on the client side whether any given content you receive will be useful content from the site or if it will be advertisements. If you have javascript disabled, you won't be able to view the content at all.
Of course, you can choose to simply not bother to visit websites that do that sort of thing, but I highly doubt they will miss your business, since you weren't going to generate any revenue for them anyways.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Back in the old days there was lots of talk and more than a couple of companies working on micropayment systems. The idea was that you could pay something like half a cent for a webpage. Prices could be adjusted depending on things like demand and target audience. Quality web sites would prosper, crappy ones would die out. All the good stuff you get from a free market.
But somewhere along the line, advertising usurped that role and no micropayment system ever achieved viability. So now we get useless ad-farms filled with seo-bait, articles on web-sites broken down into one paragraph a page to maximize ad-impressions and worst of all a brain-drain focused on spending billions of dollars for tracking systems to (presumably) more effectively target advertisements (never mind the societal cost of using these tracking system for other purposes) rather than creating new and innovative technology that would benefit man-kind in general.
So I welcome a show-down between advertisers and ad-blockers. There will be casualities, maybe even bullshit where adblock authors see some jail-time. But if the end result is that advertising recedes and we come up with another more straight-forward, less socially-destructive way to fund the creation of high-quality content on the internet it will be a huge step forward for society.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Officially, we're not cattle. So when did making a buck off me start to take precedence over everything in the Bill of Rights?
That's not just a figure of speech. As the (great?)grandparent comment says, it's about impressions. There's plenty of evidence (1, 2, 3, for instance) that ads have the most effect on behavior when you're not paying attention. So the only way for me to stop manipulation of my own mind is not to have those ads in the background in the first place.
But advertisers have some sacred "right" to make a buck that's more important than me making my own decisions. Which is even weirder because, I'm told, the free market depends on informed consumers making free choices.
Let's face it. Advertisers are gunning for a world where our eyelids are propped open with matchsticks while we watch whatever we're told to watch.
You do not need to block ads if you have some self-respect. You have to visit ad-free and payment free pages. Good luck for that.
Ok, I will play this game
Dear advertiser,
Do not force me into blocking your ads. I am all for your ability to derive revenue from advertising, but you have forced my hand by:
1). Pop-ups and/or pop-unders
2). Epilepsy-inducing colors flashing in your ads
3). Loud obnoxious voices from your ad that start talking when I am browsing the web (and listening to my music)
4). Flash videos that start playing and take up 99% of my CPU, slowing both the browser and sometimes the computer itself to an utter crawl.
5). Java scripts from about 50 different websites doing the same
I have the option to disable advertising on slashdot, but I wouldn't do that. However, anything that tries to kill my browser performance or induce epilepsy by flashing colors _will_ be blocked. I have a pretty powerful machine, but Firefox literally stops for 20 seconds or more when I open 4-5 tabs from Google news (and I am fine with avoiding websites that do that, but I cannot remember them all)
What I really want is a way to tell the advertisers my advertisement acceptance policy. I want to be able to say, "no flashing text, no moving images, no sound. No click to dismiss an obnoxious add blocking most of the content". It would be great if I can also specify a few keywords for products and services I am currently planning to buy, or topics of interest too.
As long as the ads are unobtrusive, I would not mind. But the advertises seem to be hell bent on being really really obnoxious and thrust their ads in my face.
BTW on what legal grounds can the attack ad-block? Can they force me watch TV ads instead of going to the bathroom? Or mute the TV when the ads or on? Can they stop me from turning over ad pages of the magazine without looking at them? Can they stop me from throwing away the classified section of the newspaper without looking at it? What if there is a company that will offer me the service of taking my magazine and rip out every ad page in it and then giving me a much slimmed down mag to carry on airplanes?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Sue the ad companies for knowingly enabling viruses and trojans to infect citizens computers. Billions of $ in damages and lost income over the decades.
"You could get a phantascopic system planted directly on your retinas, just as Bud's sound system lived on his eardrums. You could even get telaesthetics patched into your spinal column at various key vertebrae. But this was said to have its drawbacks: some concerns about long-term nerve damage, plus it was rumored that hackers for big media companies had figured out a way to get through the defenses that were built into such systems, and run junk advertisements in your peripheral vision (or even spang in the middle) all the time - even when your eyes were closed. Bud knew a guy like that who'd somehow gotten infected with a meme that ran advertisements for roach motels, in Hindi, superimposed on the bottom right-hand corner of his visual field, twenty-four hours a day, until the guy whacked himself."
-Neil Stephenson
The Diamond Age, or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer
But advertisers have some sacred "right" to make a buck that's more important than me making my own decisions.
It's not some right of the advertisers that's at issue. 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.
Now if the advertisers and the authors really wanted to get you to see the ads, they could literally embed the text of the ad in the text of the work, rather than embedding an easy-to-filter link. (This could be done automagically at the server.) Then you'd need some serious A.I. to do the cutting. But that would also make it harder for the advertiser to track how often the ad was seen (he'd have to trust the server) and eliminate the obnoxious graphic and animated ads.
(And they ARE obnoxious. I just started a new contract and the customer's I.T. department deployed Chrome with substantially less ad protection than the firefox+adblock plus+flashblock I'm used to. Popups/overs/unders are supposedly blocked, but the animated garbage and the mouse-over stuff that pops out and covers the screen I'm trying to read are horribly annoying, and they HAVE to be sucking up a lot of network bandwidth. If advertisers had just stuck to still images scattered around the page it wouldn't have attracted so much work on countermeasures.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
...content providers and the advertisers they partner with are not idiots. They will realize that trying to to legally force ad blockers off the net is not going to happen, no matter how much money they throw at it -- as long as every packet is treated the same way, ads can and will be filtered and their content pirated. They learned their lessons from the recording and motion picture industry, who lost control of their distribution channel thanks to recording and networking technologies. What they will do is take control of the pipe that is carrying the content, so that they can control the distribution channel from end to end, the salient lesson to be learned from the recording and motion picture failures to adapt their business model to the internet. The internet backbone providers want this, so they already have a major ally in making that happen. Eventually, and sooner rather than later, network neutrality will be lost, and the internet will become very much a walled garden for the vast majority of our species, which is terribly, terribly sad.
I remember in the '90s surfing the net on the T1 (1.5Mbps) at work. It was awesome, pages were instant, it quick, responsive, and enjoyable. Now surfing on a T1 isn't fast at all. The HTML on this page is 400KB alone, without compression, and with fast RTT that's still a 3 second download, then all the external calls to ads (which ./ doesn't have too many), the size can easily reach 700KB. It's not hard to find pages that load many MBs of data. If it's all coming off one server with keep-alives, it's not too bad, but the external calls to piles of different servers each with there own TCP and HTTP handshake it's a different story.
Just surf with almost all ads blocked for a while, then go back to no ads blocked. It's like two different internets.
I have several websites which have been up for well over a decade and are highly rated. Last year I was laid off my job and for the first time, started putting Google ads on my pages. I'm making a few hundred dollars per month from them. Yes, people do click on ads that interest them. I use only ads which are related to the subject of the page. I try hard not to annoy my visitors, no pop ups, pop unders, no ads in the text, no flashing obnoxiousness. No tracking.
I am embarrassed to admit that I use an adblock myself. I felt hypocritical so I turned it off for awhile. OMG. I had forgotten how bad it could be out there. I certainly don't blame my visitors for using an adlocker. I try not to punish those who don't.
Generally, the webmaster decides where and what type of ads will display. Blaming the advertisers is off base as they make a variety of ad sizes and types available but the webmaster chooses how far he goes with them. Perhaps try writing an email to the webmaster telling them that you find their site too annoying to visit again.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
Do not be dismissive of your enemies merely because you believe them misguided. They are no less clever, motivated, resourceful, or well trained than you are.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
In a country where Internet Access is metered by usage forcing me to watch advertisements amounts to theft.
ESPECIALLY considering that MOST advertisements are obscenely huge either actual VIDEO or else more often HUGE flash files.
My obviously well documented history of flat out REFUSING to return to a site which either FORCES me to view ads or where I cannot successfully filter the ads shows that I have NO INTENTION of actually defrauding anyone of anything.
Legally, sites do NOT have a leg to stand on.
If your advertisements were NOT huge data-hogs and visually offensive (NB the advertising industry at one point claimed that lack of click-through was due to people not noticing their ads, which quite frankly FAILS THE LAUGH TEST) then I wouldn't be blocking them (eg Google text ads).
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.