German Court Rules Adblock Plus Is Legal

An anonymous reader writes: Following a four-month trial, a German court in Hamburg has ruled that the practice of blocking advertising is perfectly legitimate. Germany-based Eyeo, the company that owns Adblock Plus, has won a case against German publishers Zeit Online and Handelsblatt. These companies operate Zeit.de, Handelsblatt.com, and Wiwo.de. Their lawsuit, filed on December 3, charged that Adblock Plus should not be allowed to block ads on their websites. While the decision is undoubtedly a big win for users today, it could also set a precedent for future lawsuits against Adblock Plus and any other tool that offers similar functions. The German court has essentially declared that users are legally allowed to control what happens on their screens and on their computers while they browse the Web.

Comments

They needed a freakin lawsuite !

[invictusvoyd]

To understand that !

Re:They needed a freakin lawsuite !

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, that's how the law works. Science also doesn't go by, "It's obvious so we don't need to test it," and we're better off for it.

The only problem is - at least in the US - the cost of such actions to the smaller party. In this case it doesn't matter so much as you have one bunch of scrounging old media cunts in one corner and a bunch of dishonest pricks who take money from Google to whitelist their ads in the other. But the judgment is valuable nevertheless.

Re:They needed a freakin lawsuite !

[MPBoulton]

Yup, that's how the law works. Science also doesn't go by, "It's obvious so we don't need to test it," and we're better off for it.

The only problem is - at least in the US - the cost of such actions to the smaller party. In this case it doesn't matter so much as you have one bunch of scrounging old media cunts in one corner and a bunch of dishonest pricks who take money from Google to whitelist their ads in the other. But the judgment is valuable nevertheless.

I have only recently become aware of the risks advertising poses through injected malware etc. and so am a very new user of Ad Block Plus, but you can just turn off their white listed adverts as well can't you? (or did I misunderstand that option when I installed?).

Do you object that the default is to allow these whitelisted Google adverts?

Re:They needed a freakin lawsuite !

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course I object to something advertised as an "ad blocker" by default excepting ads from brokers who pay the author/publisher for that exception. It goes against the principles of: always disclose conflicts of interest; always switch off unnecessary features which could lead to vulnerabilities by default; provide commercial advertising always on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis.

If it were off by default and the commercial relationship had been disclosed from the start, I would not have much of a problem. As it is, ABP is a way for Google to cement its monopoly on Internet advertising - deliberately disabling competitors - in ways it could never get away with if not employing a third party.

Re:They needed a freakin lawsuite !

[nevermore94]

Apparently, and the other thing that they don't seem to understand is that if I am the type of person who would take the time and effort to install an ad blocker, I am probably not going to look at or click on their ads anyway even if I could not block them, so in essence I am doing them a favor and saving them bandwidth.
If they don't want me seeing their content without also seeing their ads, then they can just block my ad blocking browser and I will go elsewhere.

Re:They needed a freakin lawsuite !

[gweihir]

Indeed. It is fascinating how incapable of dealing with reality and how generally devoid of common sense the law has gotten. For example, if this had been declared not legal, would any user browsing with a text-only browser like Lynx have done something illegal? Or would what I do for the worst offenders (dedicated firewall rule) have been illegal?

These are my pixels on my screen and I can damn well put into the screen frame-buffer what I like!

Re:They needed a freakin lawsuite !

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem is - at least in the US - the cost of such actions to the smaller party.

No, the big problem in the US (at least for civil suits) is that the weight given any particular piece of evidence is directly proportional to the bank account of the side presenting it.

Re:They needed a freakin lawsuite !

[MPBoulton]

You make a fair point - are you a uBlock user instead?

Re:They needed a freakin lawsuite !

[lsatenstein]

If adblock becomes illegal in the USA, just go to a German website and get it from there. Yes, I wish to control what I see on my terminal.

question

[Anonymous Coward]

This from a country where Nazi propaganda/speech is illegal, right? (free speech issue)

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks are free not to listen to what others have been pre-authorized to say.

Re:question

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should take some basic history lessons to understand why Germany has such laws.

Re:question

[alex67500]

And France, the UK,... Spreading racial/religious hatred is forbidden in most places in Europe.

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of things are forbidden in Europe and we're better off for it. One day you stupid americans will learn that civilization is defined but what we forbid and not by what we allow. The more bans, the more civilized a country is. It's as simple as that.

Re: question

[xenobyte]

A lot of things are forbidden in Europe and we're better off for it. One day you stupid americans will learn that civilization is defined but what we forbid and not by what we allow. The more bans, the more civilized a country is. It's as simple as that.

You're kidding, right? Irony?

In my opinion we would be better off with absolutely no limits on free speech.

Re: question

[thaylin]

That is true to a point, until you ban so much the people who are wanting to do such things decide to take back what they believe they have a right to.

There is a happy medium, the US is too lose and Europe is too tight.

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

Adolf and Benito would be really proud of what you said! :)

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

Too loose? I hope you are joking. We have lost so many rights in the name of "security" and "for your own good" lately.

People are allowing fear to give up freedom at an alarming rate these days.

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

"They" (a small and Insignificant minority) can try as much as they like: they don't have the means to succeed. You know what's great about having a populace of 800 milions? That the minority of malcontents becomes so small that they can't pose any problem. :)

Re: question

[murkwood7]

So says AC! Wisest of all rodents!

Re: question

[Xiaran]

So it's cool if I go around telling people you are a pedophile?

Re: question

[Jason Levine]

I wouldn't go that far. Even in the US, we have limits on free speech. However, I'd say that our limits are pretty sane. You can't spread lies about someone and expect to be able to claim "free speech" when you are sued. You can't threaten to hurt/kill people, claim "free speech", and expect to get off scot-free.

However, if you say something bad about someone ("X is a crook") and you can back it up with evidence/facts ("here's a photo of X taking a bribe"), then you can't be successfully sued for libel/slander. You can also express a wide range of political opinions so long as you stop short of advocating killing fellow citizens. (You would be fine to say "Those LIBERALS/CONSERVATIVES/DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS/CHRISTIANS/ATHEISTS/PASTAFARIANS [pick one or more] are ruining America. We would be better off without them." You just can't continue with "... and that's why I want to round them all up and shoot them to death.")

Re: question

[dunkindave]

In my opinion we would be better off with absolutely no limits on free speech.

Slandering some, threatening someone, revealing people's private information like their SSN and credit card info, committing fraud, committing treason. Just a few things I can think of off the top of my head that can happen through speech that I think are valid limits on free speech. Or would you not mind if any or all of these were committed against you (minus treason since that is done against a state)?

Re: question

[Cytotoxic]

So it's cool if I go around telling people you are a pedophile?

Unless you are correct, that would be fraud in the form of slander. Although speech is used to commit slander, it is not the speech that is illegal, it is the fraudulent nature of the information conveyed and the harm caused that are illegal.

Similarly, free speech doesn't allow you to threaten someone in order to coerce them into giving you all the money in the cash register. It is the theft and threats that are illegal, not the speech.

"Christianity is the root of much evil in the world" might be specious (or not), and it might be delivered in a hateful manner, but it isn't in the same category. It is a statement of purely subjective opinion and as such should be protected. Substitute any group you like for 'Christianity' and the answer is the same.

Re:question

[tompaulco]

And France, the UK,... Spreading racial/religious hatred is forbidden in most places in Europe.

Well, that kind of depends on which religion doesn't it? I mean we have to be tolerant of those who hate us, even if they want to kill us, or even if they do kill us. It would be wrong to stifle their spreading of hatred throughout the world.

Re: question

[Xiaran]

Yes. Those things are limits on free speech. The OP want's "absolutely no limits" on it.

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately you can not separate speech from the content like that. If you could, then the First Amendment's "freedom of speech" would mean nothing since you could just make any content you disliked illegal rather than the actual act of speaking it.

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't go that far. Even in the US, we have limits on free speech. However, I'd say that our limits are pretty sane. You can't spread lies about someone and expect to be able to claim "free speech" when you are sued. You can't threaten to hurt/kill people, claim "free speech", and expect to get off scot-free.

However, if you say something bad about someone ("X is a crook") and you can back it up with evidence/facts ("here's a photo of X taking a bribe"), then you can't be successfully sued for libel/slander. You can also express a wide range of political opinions so long as you stop short of advocating killing fellow citizens. (You would be fine to say "Those LIBERALS/CONSERVATIVES/DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS/CHRISTIANS/ATHEISTS/PASTAFARIANS [pick one or more] are ruining America. We would be better off without them." You just can't continue with "... and that's why I want to round them all up and shoot them to death.")

It is pretty much the same in Europe too , baring UK which is a special case. There are a few more restriction on some speech, but basically even the hate speech law many American decry are basically only when there is threat to kill or wound not the general case IOW you can still say stupid stuff like "I hate martian because they stink" what you cannot say is "we should round up martian and execute them or lapidate them etc...". Another exception is germany were allied imposed anti nazi law which were never repelled, so when when you hear germany forbidding the swastika in a game, you gotta thank england/france/America for that, one among which a supposedely free speech champion.

Re: question

[angel'o'sphere]

FTFY:

In my experience we would be far worse off with absolutely no limits on free speech.

See: the third Reich.

Re: question

[angel'o'sphere]

"Christianity is the root of much evil in the world" might be specious (or not), and it might be delivered in a hateful manner, but it isn't in the same category. It is a statement of purely subjective opinion and as such should be protected. Substitute any group you like for 'Christianity' and the answer is the same.

As we talked about "anti hate speech" laws n Europe, you will be surprised that your example is protected

Hint: read up what hate speech is.

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you just said is also true of the UK, whose libel laws are anything but sane.

The difference is in the burden of proof. In the UK, if you say something bad about someone and they sue you, it's up to you to prove that $BAD_THING is in fact true. (Things that are clearly statements of opinion, such as "David Cameron is a cunt", or highly generalised as in "All Christians are retarded child-molesters", are not actionable in the first place.)

In the US, if you say something bad about someone and they sue you, it's up to them to prove that $BAD_THING is in fact false.

There's good arguments for both systems in my opinion. The main problem with the British one is that it costs an enormous amount of money to sue for libel, so only the very wealthy are protected.

Re: question

[Cytotoxic]

Now you are just being intentionally obtuse. My explanation might be brief, and it might not be the most stellar writing in history, but it clearly is not a limit on speech to outlaw fraud or theft or any other aggression against another person that happens to involve conveyance of information. Just because I use the written word to commit identity theft doesn't mean that I'm protected by "absolutely no limits on free speech". The same could be said about the right to keep and bear arms - just because you have a right to a weapon doesn't mean you get to shoot anyone you like. Possessing a weapon and using it to harm someone else are different things.

These are obvious distinctions between words expressing ideas and actions. Pretending that you can't comprehend such distinctions is not a cogent argument.

Re: question

[Cytotoxic]

Replace the word 'Christian' with some other group. Try jews, homosexuals, Palestinians, women, transgendered..... you get the point. Substitute an insulting synonym and you get the point even more directly.

This is exactly the kind of language targeted by hate speech laws. Your knowledge of what "hate speech" laws consist of must be severely limited. The demarcation of hate speech vs protected speech is mostly subjective, and as such is subject to the whims of those doing the prosecuting.

People have been convicted of hate speech violations in France for calling islam "stupid" and "dangerous", or for criticizing ritual slaughter of animals, The runner up for the presidency was fined for this statement:

The day that we have in France not just 5 million but 25 million Muslims, it will be them in charge. The French will hug their walls [in fear], step down from the sidewalks [to the street], and lower their eyes. If they don't, they'll be told, "Why are you looking at me like that, buddy, you searching for a fight?"

In England it is a hate crime to use "abusive or insulting words" in the presence of someone who might be caused "alarm or distress". Really. British hate speech laws have been used to prosecute atheists for displaying drawings that satirize christianity.

The european court of human rights explicitly says:

...as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance

i.e. statements like "Christianity is the root of evil".

Re: question

[Cytotoxic]

In anticipation of the "nuh-uh, no they don't" counter-argument, here is a direct parallel, taken directly from the European Court of Human Rights

Pavel Ivanov v. Russia
20 February 2007 (decision on the admissibility)
The applicant, owner and editor of a newspaper, was convicted of public incitement to
ethnic, racial and religious hatred through the use of mass-media. He authored and
published a series of articles portraying the Jews as the source of evil in Russia

So publishing articles that say "jews are the source of evil" rather than christians, this guy got convicted of hate speech violations and this was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights as not being protected speech. Pretty much word for word the example I gave - not protected speech.

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretending that you can't comprehend such distinctions is not a cogent argument.

Perhaps if you didn't use phrases like "In my opinion we would be better off with absolutely no limits on free speech." with no additional qualifiers, then later claim that you meant "free speech" should have limits, people wouldn't misunderstand your cogent argument and believe you are the one being obtuse.

it clearly is not a limit on speech to outlaw fraud or theft or any other aggression against another person that happens to involve conveyance of information

Nice after-the-fact backpeddling. Too bad you didn't mention any of that in your original statement that listed no exceptions.

Re: question

[david_thornley]

Sorry, but it isn't clear what limits there should be on free speech.

You say it isn't a limit to outlaw any aggression against another person, but there's lots of things I might want to say that could count as aggression. Heck, you want to outlaw fraud, but how do you want to set the limits in libel actions? You probably want to make truth an absolute defense against libel, but where does the burden of evidence fall? If I libel you, does one of us have to prove the truth or untruth of what I write beyond a reasonable doubt, or do we go with the preponderance of the evidence? If I write something that turns out to be true but I thought was false, is that libel?

At what point does an advertisement or political speech become fraud? How do we tell?

I've probably been programming computers longer than you've been alive, and I've been observing things longer than that, and I've learned that you can't just make a short flat statement and expect it to be understood the way you want.

Re: question

[david_thornley]

Okay, what exactly did he write and publish? You're leaving out all the details. If I say that jocks are the source of evil in the world, that's OK. If I start planning attacks on jocks, and inciting other people to kill them, that may well be different. You can't say that, because one person was convicted of doing one general action, that that general action is illegal.

Re: question

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes, because that was hate speech. And you perhaps should quote more of the verdict. Because I'm pretty sure that the real hate speech comes a bit later, and that this "cause of all evil" is only the introduction.

The example you gave 3 posts back was not hate speech :D

No, it is not word for word the example you gave. Your example was first of all: right. And this "jews are the root of all evil" can't be upheld by any historical evidence, so minimum it is a lie.

Here you can read the whole case: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/site...{"itemid":["001-79619"]}

I suggest to try to understand what is going on instead of cherry picking random quotes with the attempt to support your standpoint.

Re: question

[Cytotoxic]

The text is directly from the European Court of Human Rights...not mine, not some summary article, it is directly their very first example of what is not protected speech - because he was advocating that jews are the root of evil in Russia. The thing that makes it hate speech in their eyes is that he was saying it about jews. The fact that he does so in long form is not the salient point.

There is nothing cherry picked about it. It is specifically what they are targeting. They don't mince any words, they are extremely explicit about their intentions.

On their own website they say that even the most heinous speech must be protected..... unless it incites hatred against certain groups in certain regions, or it causes some people to feel threatened, or it offends certain people,

That is the entire point of the objection. They protect offensive and heinous speech.... except if they don't want to. So you can't possibly know what speech is protected until after you are prosecuted and acquitted. Saying something perfectly true about muslims might not be protected. Saying a slanderous lie about atheists might be protected. But you don't know, because there is no standard to let you know in advance.

In other words, the protections on free speech are not really protections at all. This whole thing about hate speech is just a circular argument. All speech is protected except hate speech. Hate speech is the speech that isn't protected.

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate speech? Maybe we have different definitions of hate speech.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/free-speech-primer-what-can-you-say

Incitement to crime: Speech that spurs another to commit a crime.

I think there's also something about it having to be immediate too, for the above.

When I think hate speech, I think saying racist things for example. Not necessarily to incite someone to commit a crime.

Re: question

[angel'o'sphere]

As I said before: you only picked the introduction sentence of that guy. He got not punished for "The jews are the root of all Evil in russia", but for all the rest he put on top of that.

For me as an European it is pretty clear where hate speech starts and free speech ends.

If that is not the case for you, that is unfortunate.

Re: question

[alex67500]

Here is a Godwin point. Just for you.
Have a nice day.

Re: question

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool discussion. Here is a blog post listing a fairly extensive set of cases from Britain that say otherwise - at least insofar as England is almost a part of Europe.

      http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/26/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-in-britain

Including a guy pursued by the government for the single word "disgrace" describing a photo ofmuslims praying at a football pitch.

And when capped internet comes then people will

[Anonymous Coward]

And when capped internet comes then people will us that to say I need control over what comes down the pipe.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Wild_dog!]

Capped internet?
When is this allegedly happening?
Bandwidth keeps going up.
Internet speed keeps going up.
New tech is always making it bigger.
I still remember my Atari 300/1200 baud modem.
Those were the slow old days.
Nothing but up since.... unless we allow gatekeepers, which isn't going to happen.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Trepidity]

Caps are getting more common in the US. One of the biggest national ISPs, Comcast, has been rolling them out city by city. So far still not in most of the country, but they've been rolled out as a "trial" in Atlanta, Memphis, Tucson, etc., and will probably be extended nationally. Here's their FAQ about it.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Wild_dog!]

Ending the monopoly could fix this silliness.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Registered Coward v2]

Caps are getting more common in the US. One of the biggest national ISPs, Comcast, has been rolling them out city by city. So far still not in most of the country, but they've been rolled out as a "trial" in Atlanta, Memphis, Tucson, etc., and will probably be extended nationally. Here's their FAQ about it.

Caps are important to them because they see their cable monopoly slipping away as Netflix, HBO, et. al. offer a la carte purchase options that bypass their subscription based model. They realize they will eventually become a dumb pipe and need to find ways to extract extra money out of that pipe, be it by caps or trying to limit other entrants such as municipalities or Google. That's also why they want to own content providers so they can also sell content separate from cable.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[CastrTroy]

Not sure about the US, but in Canada, here's how it has been since the advent of the internet

1. Dial-Up limited by hours connected
2. Dial-Up unlimited
3. Cable/DSL unlimited time, unlimited throughput
4. Cable/DSL with limited throughput
5. Currently: Cable/DSL are slowly ramping up, offering more speed and throughput as time goes on.

Really, there was a period when everybody was just switching over to broadband where they could essentially give everybody unlimited because there just wasn't that much content out there to saturate the network with. Now, with the amount of stuff delivered online, it's quite easy to go through quite a lot of bandwidth. My kids were eating up a ton of bandwidth watching YouTube videos on their iPods. I set a speed limit on those devices in my router, to about 1 mbit/s and was able to cut their usage to 1/3 of what it was. If there was no limits, people would end up using a lot more bandwidth than they currently do. I have my Netflix set to low quality most of the time because if I don't, it eats bandwidth, and I don't really care most of the time when I'm watching on my tablet. If I had unlimited internet I would probably just leave it on HD all the time, and not set any limits on my kids YouTube, and we could probably easily get to 500 GB per month of usage. Having a limit forces people to think about how they utiilize the resources they are paying for.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[linebackn]

Capped internet?
When is this allegedly happening?
Bandwidth keeps going up.
Internet speed keeps going up.
New tech is always making it bigger.

You must not live in the US. With a few exceptions, most ISPs have just let their infrastructure rot and gouge their customers who have no choice. All while newer cell phone internet happily charges $$$ by the megabyte.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Montezumaa]

That's "funny", seeing as I, and many others in the county I live in, still don't have any internet access. Save for either a supreme ripoff from Verizon Wireless(when there is coverage, which not everyone has), AT&T has even less wireless coverage, with neither AT&T and whatever company supposedly offer cable services(TV and some internet, though most aren't sure if our provider is Comcast or Charter) offering wireline internet access to the vast majority of the county residents within which I reside. Satellite is equally as useless, expensive, even less useful, and there are still waiting list for a super "late 1990-style internet connection". Yeah, fun times.

Did I mention that I live in the rather meaningless "Metro Atlanta Area"? One irony being that there is probably many areas around some actual "middle of nowhere, far past "BFE"" places in Africa that not only have internet access, but rather fast internet access. Though, those same areas probably don't have much, if any of the far more important services and utilities.

At this point, the house my wife and I built, own(outright; we don't owe a cent to a bank, and never have. We built our house with our own money), and have lived in for 10 years(the house was finished at the end of July 2005) will probably never see internet access. There are probably some loading coils still on our POTS lines that will soon be protected as "important national artifacts".

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[PopeRatzo]

My kids were eating up a ton of bandwidth watching YouTube videos on their iPods.

I know, right? With their long hair and hippy-hop music. They don't know what it was like in our day, when we had 1 baud modems. We'd start downloading a topless picture of Adrienne Barbeau in April, and if you were really lucky, maybe you got to the nipples by October.

Playing Pong Online was like playing chess by mail. I tell ya, kids just don't know how good they got it.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Neil Boekend]

Caps are getting more common in the US. One of the biggest national ISPs, Comcast, has been rolling them out city by city. So far still not in most of the country, but they've been rolled out as a "trial" in Atlanta, Memphis, Tucson, etc., and will probably be extended nationally. Here's their FAQ about it.

5 GB? Please tell me that that is a mobile account!

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Trepidity]

That's a new ultra-low-usage cheaper tier that you can opt into. The tier that people are getting their plans converted to by default is 300 GB/mo.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Wild_dog!]

I do... but where I live doesn't have any tiering and where I lived before (comcast zone) didn't have tiering at the time.
Recently, I reduced my cell phone cost by $100/month and I never come close to using my data. My wife and I only pay ~32/line on our big family plan instead of the 80+/month for each line before.

The only tiers I was aware of were consumer plan vs business plan in the US. This has been the basic breakdown since broadband first became available. Now I understand the monopolies are testing the waters and attempting to gouge people in specific areas with their "better" service.

I was the second person on Comcast High speed internet back in the 90's in my area.

The amount of data consistently went up over time. The last time I was on Comcast I was paying for their internet alone and the service was for 3Mbps. One day it just went to 6Mbps. I didn't pay more for the upgrade in speed/bandwidth.

We moved and I was surprised that the consumer plan where I now live was 15Mbps. Over the last 5 years it has gone to 20, then 40 and now 60Mbps.

Our town voted to put fiber throughout the city on its own broadband system, but was blocked by the state when new legislation was passed. But with the net neutrality thing moving along, perhaps our town can finally get the fiber it wants. But even so, our service still is getting faster with each passing year.

I know the popular narrative in the US is one of crumbling Broadband infrastructure, but I think that is inaccurate if one looks at actual numbers.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Wild_dog!]

My parents live in a rural area and yet they have decent DSL for internet and Satellite TV. There are options in quite a few areas.

My neighbors dad lives in Lowman Idaho in the middle of nowhere Idaho. You can't get more rural and mountainous than that and yet he still has internet and TV. We even Face Time him over his wifi connection in his log cabin.

I guess some areas are just behind the times.
That would be very frustrating. I can live anywhere as long as there is an internet connection. Don't think I could say the same if there isn't.
Can't you get DSL? That is what most folks in the country get around here.... and usually you can get it from a smaller local company. Grandma and grandpa have a DSL connection for like $16 bucks a month. Not the fastest, but it meets their web browsing needs. They can even do Netflix on their apple TV.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[thedonger]

Caps are important to them because they see their cable monopoly slipping away as Netflix, HBO, et. al. offer a la carte purchase options that bypass their subscription based model.

If only content creators truly were providing a la carte content. HBO Go requires a subscription to a traditional service provider. Hulu is artificially restricted, and has ads. Netflix is marginalized by content providers striking deals with Amazon, Apple, and others, making their best content Korean action films and their original series. In the sports world, ESPN streaming requires subscription to a traditional service provider, and Fox Sports, the only one that offers their service separate from a traditional service provider (at $20 per month), was priced out of the Premier League market by NBC -- whose sports service requires subscription to a traditional service provider.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Jason Levine]

They realize they will eventually become a dumb pipe and need to find ways to extract extra money out of that pipe, be it by caps or trying to limit other entrants such as municipalities or Google.

Also, caps with overage fees help to raise the price of streaming videos online. If you hit your cap and use another $10 worth of bandwidth every month due to using Netflix, then it will be as if Netflix costs you $10 more a month (albeit with that money going to Comcast). Then, the cable company can claim that their video option (which doesn't get impacted by the caps) is cheaper.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Anonymous Coward]

My ISP, Sonic.net, is the best in the US. Good speeds, no caps and no throttling. It's just a raw internet connection.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, because I currently pay T-Mobile $30/month on a no-contract, pay-as-you-go, bring your own device plan for unlimited data. The first 5GB are at 4G, after that it's 2G, except for music streaming, which is always available at high speed.

My ISP is also really good.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Anonymous Coward]

'I know the popular narrative in the US is one of crumbling Broadband infrastructure, but my one specific anecdote about my experience does not fit the narrative is wrong.'

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[rjstanford]

HBO Now doesn't require a cable subscription either. That was the whole point of its creation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[bughunter]

I need control over what comes down the pipe.

I don't need a court ruling to justify that. It's my browser, my computer, my request. You're not *entitled* to send me extra shit I don't want. And I'm not *obligated* to load anything you might put on your page.

Sorry. Deal with it advertisers and click sellers. As long as I pay for an ISP subscription, that's my right: Flat rate or metered; capped or unlimited; dial-up trickle or Tier 3 deluge. It's *my* option and I'm going to exercise it.

If you want to make money or defer your costs, charge a fee or request a donation. That's your option.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[fafaforza]

My rotting infrastructure gets me 20Mbps download. And that can more than double for "turbo" and other such services I don't need. Quite good for a rotted infra.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[fafaforza]

Does any company have some sort of a moral obligation to provide anyone with internet access? I understand it's becoming more important to living, but at the same time, lack of connectivity is just one of many aspects that would affect whether you live in one spot. So if no internet, then you would move, no? Not lambast a company for not seeing a business case to extending their service to your area.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Dragonslicer]

Ending the monopoly could fix this silliness.

And that's why we need to allow the merger of Time Warner Cable and Comcast.

Er, wait...

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[turbidostato]

"They [ISPs] realize they will eventually become a dumb pipe"

They ARE "dumb pipes" and that's exactly the way they should remain.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[turbidostato]

"Does any company have some sort of a moral obligation to provide anyone with internet access?"

No, they don't.

That's why the should have a contractual obligation to be considered an utility and provide everyone with Internet access when granted license to serve a given area.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[fluffernutter]

And then when you got past the nipples you stopped the download because there wasn't a point any longer.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't need a court ruling to justify that. It's my browser, my computer, my request. You're not *entitled* to send me extra shit I don't want. And I'm not *obligated* to load anything you might put on your page.

That's how the internet was started and visualized. That has nothing to do with a moral right.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[PopeRatzo]

And then when you got past the nipples you stopped the download because there wasn't a point any longer.

By then, I'd usually lost patience and just turned to my vast collection of ASCII porn stored on a tape drive.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[fafaforza]

Well, so you *do* think they have a moral obligation then.

Is there anything stopping more than one provider from serving an area? If so, this might be an issue you would take up with your local legislature.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[thedonger]

I didn't realize they had that. It is a start. What I would really like is a la carte channel packages instead of bundles. But I know that isn't likely to happen any time soon because so many channels would be free-marketed into oblivion when ad revenue plummets because only a tiny fraction of the consumers want them.

On the other hand, maybe the lack of cheap accessibility is good. If the bar of media consumption is lowered too much, we may see a generation of people completely give themselves over to leisure.

The further removed we are from having to work hard, the more we forget what was sacrificed for the free time we enjoy.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[turbidostato]

"Well, so you *do* think they have a moral obligation then."

No. I explicitly said they do *not* have any moral obligation.

And exactly because they don't have any 'a priori' kind of obligation, either moral or otherwise, but since I *want* them to forcefully cover any area they are granted a license to serve to, they *should* have a contractual obligation to do so, as any other utility should.

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[bughunter]

That's how the internet was started and visualized.

Yeah. I know. I was there.

That has nothing to do with a moral right.

Try explaining that to some of my contemporaries...

Re:And when capped internet comes then people will

[gmhowell]

And then when you got past the nipples you stopped the download because there wasn't a point any longer.

By then, I'd usually lost patience and just turned to my vast collection of ASCII porn stored on a tape drive.

Those were the days......

And the vendor response will be...

[geekmux]

...to change the definition of "own".

If you the consumer currently control your screen today, then tomorrow you won't own the screen.

They will, and they'll advertise what they damn well please.

And you will accept this behavior with a smile on your face because you paid only $99 instead of $999 for that screen.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Binky The Oracle]

I suspect the vendor response will be more along the lines of, "We've detected Ad Block on your computer. You will be unable to view content on this site while this is active." The legal decision is, IMO, the correct one. We're not in Oceania (yet) and we're still allowed to turn off our TVs or change the channel. That doesn't mean, though, that the provider of the content is required to show it to us if we choose not to pay for it in some way. Ad Block is probably going to have to get a little craftier about running in stealth mode in the future.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[bmo]

I suspect the vendor response will be more along the lines of, "We've detected Ad Block on your computer. You will be unable to view content on this site while this is active."

Some already do this.

My response is always "fuck you, I'll go elsewhere then."

And the "elsewhere" where they don't do that is typically better.

I also run the EFF's Privacy Badger.

--
BMO

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[beelsebob]

My response is right-click -> inspect element -> backspace.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[gstoddart]

I suspect the vendor response will be more along the lines of, "We've detected Ad Block on your computer. You will be unable to view content on this site while this is active."

Fine. And the last thing they'll see of me is the back button.

Companies have two choices ... paywall the heck out of it, or accept that some fraction of people will block your ads. If you want to reach a broader audience, go with the latter. Otherwise, go with the former.

But don't expect us to go all "boo hoo" because you think we should be participating in your ads. I'll continue to block anything which isn't the actual site I visited -- everything else is just parasites.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

If all they lose are childish NEET self-entitled millennials like you, it's probably a win for them anyway.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

no, there are good options in the middle, like the NY Times, which has a soft paywall.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[BVis]

That's a lot of users to lose. Perhaps they shouldn't be engaging in behavior that drives people away. My eyeballs, my rules, if I don't like what a site does, I don't go back. This is the free market in action. If I don't like how one site presents their content, I go somewhere else.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[linebackn]

Same here, except after a point I'd go further and discourage others from visiting advertisement abusive sites. If they already do scummy things like that, then the site can not be trusted to not serve up malware or similar in the future.

Case in point, the other day I happened to notice that the old Dilbert.com web site is now serving up abusive pop-under window advertisements. Yes, the current Adblock catches this, but this tells me that this site can no longer be trusted. So I have removed various links to that web site, I won't visit it again, and I encourage others to avoid it.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect the vendor response will be more along the lines of, "We've detected Ad Block on your computer. You will be unable to view content on this site while this is active."

Some web sites do employ this technique, which gloriously fail against Opera 12.

If there was any software that needs open sourcing, it is Opera 12.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[AmiMoJo]

Media companies don't give a shit about "reaching a broader audience" if they can't show that audience ads. They don't care if you leave, in fact they welcome it. Why would they want to provide you with content for free that they normally "charge" for by including ads?

Funny you should call ads "parasites", because that's basically what you are. You want the content, you don't want to pay. That's a fair position to take, but don't get all upset when they decline to agree to your terms.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it though? It is a common problem of slashdotters to feel that everyone thinks they same way they do.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Falos]

AHHHHHAHHAHAHAH. You are SOOOO wrong.

....about how big the discount will be.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay what, a query packet? That's the asking price on a public server waving a "visit me" sign.

You want the pay, you don't want to say. That's fine, but don't get all upset when everyone pays exactly what's on the tin.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[jbmartin6]

I wonder if the ad blockers could be set up to provide the scripts in the ads with convincing feedback without exposing the end user to the risk or the content. After all, this is just another form of self-reporting.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[gstoddart]

Funny you should call ads "parasites", because that's basically what you are. You want the content, you don't want to pay. That's a fair position to take, but don't get all upset when they decline to agree to your terms.

I don't actually give a flying fuck if they "agree to my terms" or not.

They can either paywall themselves so far that I can't get in, or they can find a way to block me, or they can live with it. No individual websites content is so important to me that I care if they put it behind a firewall.

But if they think I'll allow trackers to monitor everything I do, or to run arbitrary code on my machine ... they're sadly mistaken.

As long as their website responds to HTTP requests, the parts that I exclude from my browser are not in their control.

But, by way of example, just to read TFA, the following domains all got blocked by my browser:

amazon-adsystem.com, bizographics.com, gigya.com, googleapis.com, googletagservices.com, livefyre.com, madisonlogic.com, netdna.com, optimizely.com, outbrain.com, umanoapp.com, vbstatic.co, wp.com, wpengine.com

That's 14 domains beside the website I visited who all feel entitled to track me ... and both they and the site which uses them can kiss my ass.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[pr0fessor]

I've been to websites likes CBS and CWTV that detect the advertising is blocked and tell me I can't use their services unless I turn off my adblocker. At this point I have a choice and so do they, since they have chosen not to let me use the service with adblocker, then my choices are I can turn of my adblocker to watch the latest episode of Flash or I can go away. This is a far better arrangement then trying to make an ad blocker illegal.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay attention (to the ad)

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Jesus_666]

Some sites go a reasonable middle ground: They replace the ad space with a message like this: "You're running Adblock. Please consider whitelisting us so we can pay for this website. Thank you." And I'm perfectly fine with that. Treating your visitors like human beings and politely asking them to help you out makes a good impression.

Also, Reddit's "You're not blocking ads on our site and we think you're awesome because of it" ads. If you want people to see your ads a bit of appreciation can go a lot further than a technological arms race. It's cheaper, too.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any site that tries that be replaced, die off, and not be missed, in that order, and they know it. This is why advertisers are complaining so much about adblocking - they abused us for years and now they're lying in the bed they made for themselves. No sympathy.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, if you really need the content.. patch the ABP rules, so the ABP detection script is whitelisted. Usually works. Got me around those nasty anti ABP detectors a few times.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[kimvette]

I don't mind ads, except when they start overlaying the content, or auto-play video and audio, or try to push popups or popunders (those are surprisingly still a thing even though browsers now block most by default!)

Google and Amazon ads are great- noticeable but not intrusive. They get my attention, are usually relevant and are very effective because they are so targeted that it's usually stuff in which I am interested.

But, obnoxious floating ads, autoplaying audio and video ads... screw that. They are vendors whom I take note of and will not buy from.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

>You want the content, you don't want to pay.

But this is the issue. They all want me to pay separately, and separately, their prices add up to my entire salary. Almost all the newspapaers in Canada went paywalled a couple of years back. With some small effort, it's been easy to bypass the paywall. They all want at least 99 cents a month to access their individual papers. I don't have that kind of money, because I don't want to be locked into the opinions of just one newspaper, I'd like the option to read them all.

Since they can't come to an agreement between all of them (and the international newspapers that are of interest as well) I also can't pay them all. Since I can't pay them all, I have chose to pay none of them (due to the "locked into one opinion" problem). 99 cents, or maybe even $2.99 should give me access to all the news I want from all the sources. They can then take that money and distribute it amongst themselves however they want (I would suggest tracking which articles are read from which papers and divvying it up accordingly, but honestly, I don't give a damn how they end up doing it).

Does that make me a parasite? Whatever language you want to use, feel free. I don't care. The newspapers are the ones who want my money, and they're too dumb to figure out how to get at it. If every single one goes out of business, so be it. At that point I can start up my own and rake in all the cash they left on the table.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on! Web sites that require that they be whitelisted or require that adblockers be turned off will be committing suicide! Just as I don't have to read the junk mail the post office delivers, and I don't have to read the spam emails that I get, I do not have to put up with ads that I don't want to see wasting my time and the bandwidth that I PAY FOR!

Oh, and I really don't give a crap that corporations like Sony think that they own the products that I PAY FOR, I own what I legally buy and pay for, and that will not change as far as I am concerned. I vote with my wallet and boycott Sony, and other companies whose practices I do not like.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[BlackPignouf]

Pardon my ignorance. What does it do?

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[bmo]

They replace the ad space with a message like this: "You're running Adblock. Please consider whitelisting us so we can pay for this website. Thank you."

Fark does this. I wish more sites did. Fark also has subscriptions for the private side (TotalFark 5 bux/mo). Value added selling works when there is actual value added.

--
BMO

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone else manages to post without copying their username into the body of their post every single time they post. So why am I so ignorant? Even I don't know.

--
BMO

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

>You want the content, you don't want to pay.

But this is the issue. They all want me to pay separately, and separately, their prices add up to my entire salary. Almost all the newspapaers in Canada went paywalled a couple of years back. With some small effort, it's been easy to bypass the paywall. They all want at least 99 cents a month to access their individual papers. I don't have that kind of money, because I don't want to be locked into the opinions of just one newspaper, I'd like the option to read them all.

I too am entitled to stuff for free because gimme.

Since they can't come to an agreement between all of them (and the international newspapers that are of interest as well) I also can't pay them all. Since I can't pay them all, I have chose to pay none of them (due to the "locked into one opinion" problem). 99 cents, or maybe even $2.99 should give me access to all the news I want from all the sources. They can then take that money and distribute it amongst themselves however they want (I would suggest tracking which articles are read from which papers and divvying it up accordingly, but honestly, I don't give a damn how they end up doing it).

Does that make me a parasite? Whatever language you want to use, feel free. I don't care. The newspapers are the ones who want my money, and they're too dumb to figure out how to get at it. If every single one goes out of business, so be it. At that point I can start up my own and rake in all the cash they left on the table.

What cash is there to rake in? Your new business would just have a bunch of readers like yourself who wouldn't want to pay you lest they be "locked into one opinion".

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Binky The Oracle]

I think some subsequent commenters may have thought I was condoning the described behavior, which I was not. IMO, the hard line is not the right approach, and I enthusiastically agree with the comments about sites that politely ask to be whitelisted. If the site is one that I value (primarily because of the specific writers or the community), I enable advertising or contribute directly. Sites that take the hard line, sites that use the pop-up overlay tactic, Outbrain links, paywalls, etc, I ignore and largely don't visit again. I used to be a lot more aggressive about it with local DNS redirects for trackers, etc., but I no longer have the energy for that. I just delete history and cookies every few weeks. Web content is easily substitutable. There are hundreds of sources for news. There are millions of sources for opinions. I'm glad the court ruled as it did. It's sad (and a little bit worrying) that they had to.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Mandrel]

Ad Block is probably going to have to get a little craftier about running in stealth mode in the future.

Yes, I'd say what will happen is that ad blockers will end up making page scripts see an unaltered shadow DOM, but display the page with ads removed.

But this won't work with (closed) apps, which are increasingly squeezing out the (open) Web.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[mjwx]

IANAWD,

But this simply removed the overlay they use to bug you about adblock.

Sites that are serious about it re-direct you to a completely different page, for these sites my response is the same as the GGP, go elsewhere. However if this kind of thing becomes common, there will be adblock detector detectors we can use to get around it. its an arms race where the advertisers will always be playing catch up.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

If one wishes to not see huge ugly billboards along some interstates or public roads, but one wishes to travel efficiently (the "content" provided by those roads), is one a parasite?

Huge billboards (in the localities that still permit this abhorrent practice) interfere with the right to enjoy the scenic beauty of the landscape, and sometimes are dangerously distracting when animated electronics are used.

Purveyors of many online ads are very similar to those people who put up these billboards, or try to sell goods or religion door to door (infringing people's privacy and wasting their time), or send advertisements in the mail (wasting people's time, and harming the environment in multiple ways), or try to sell goods or political agendas by calling people up in their homes (stealing a portion of their lives, and being very annoying).

In all these cases, there is a sociopathic mindset on the part of those selling (goods, services, political viewpoints, religion) that they can harm the community as long as they make a buck (or advance their cause). Not all that different from punching someone in the stomach and stealing their wallet, when one thinks about it. All of these things are harmful to society.

The online version of abusive advertising takes advantage of state-sponsored monopoly that effectively prevents competition. Copyright and patent serve to block people from going elsewhere to get content. Effectively, the online providers are abusing a system set up by government for the benefit of the public in much the same way as the billboard folks are abusing the interstate (or public) highway system.

There is no reason why any rational society should permit any of these things. Movie makers, musicians, and authors can sell their goods directly, without any association with advertisement connected to other goods or services. Religions and political parties can make their agendas available to those who seek them out. Other goods or services can be advertised in trade periodicals or catalogs or email lists or web sites specific to the trade, on an opt-in basis. In all cases, opting out must be easy.

Ad blockers make an easy opt out possible. In a sense, we can think of an ad blocker as a sociopath avoidance mechanism, a tool to defeat the plans of the sociopaths that are always out there, abusing the system for their own personal gain. In general, using such a defense does not make one a parasite. The two are orthogonal.

Freedom of the press and freedom of speech should not and can not imply coercion of the audience (or stealing a portion of people's lives) in a free country.

Re:And the vendor response will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, they can send me HTML, JS and CSS that makes my client respond that way, but I can alter what my client responds to, because they don't own what occurs between their transmission and my rendering of it.

They can try such tricks, and we will find ways around it. It's a fun hobby I think actually :-) Shame for them that they have to waste money on such futile efforts.

They can however control the non-tech sheeple, but I guess that's what you get for now wanting to get geeky

Common sense

[ledow]

If the software is running on the user's computer, at their express request, to do something - at the user's express request, then I can't see how you could rule any other way.

If we were talking about an online-only service that "proxies" the web for you and removes ads, then you may have more of a case, however.

And spyware that does it against or without user's consent (replacing other's adverts with your own, eh, Lenovo?) then that's a huge other matter entirely.

But it's like ruling that if the user WANTS to look at a plain-text version of a particular webpage then that's up to them. So long as the viewer is the one choosing to change the content and knows that, why would you ever think differently.

The alternative just doesn't bear thinking about. Websites DEMANDING that nothing interferes in the process of displaying their page as they intended. Unskippable ads, etc. like on DVD's. DRM for the web, effectively. No thanks.

Re:Common sense

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unfortunately, the general lack of DRM(wouldn't even have to be effective DRM, just going through the motions) is pretty much the only thing that keeps a DVD-like arrangment from enjoying force of law anywhere with a DMCA-style law on the books.

Copyright tends to be a little awkward around computers; because there is so much copying that has to occur internally just to display something; but the analogy between running adblock and taking scissors to a magazine is a pretty easy one, and the right of the end user to mangle up an article, even a copyrighted one, however it amuses them is pretty well established.

If, though, even the most pitiful DRM were on the table, you'd be right were DVDs are: you need an illegal circumvention device to watch them without an authorized CSS decryptor; but you can only get an authorized one by agreeing to certain conditions, which include enforcing the unskippable flags, region codes, etc.

Re:Common sense

[JaredOfEuropa]

Websites DEMANDING that nothing interferes in the process of displaying their page as they intended.

It's those ads that most often interfere with "displaying the page as intended" in the first place. If a page doesn't load or hangs or whatever, it's usually due to a failed ad script.

Re:Common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's assuming the ad is wholesome, and not malicious or broken.

just kill the fucking journalist

[user.aaaaa]

and several publishers scameaters shit

Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[Sooner Boomer]

ABP does not block advertisement on your web site. It blocks advertisements coming FROM your web site onto a computer I own. I own the computer, not the web site. I have the freedom (so far!) to control what I see on my computer when I decide to visit* a web site.

*People misuse the term "log-in" to a web site when they actually mean "visit the URL", but that's another rant...

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[hcs_$reboot]

Can you apply the same reasoning to a Blu ray or DVD you bought and own? I didn't think so.

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I suspect that the language of "visiting a web site" misleads people. You don't visit a web site, your browser communicaties with a web server and requests and receives instructions on how to render a "page".

I like to turn it around: a web page visits you. You invite a web page to come over to your computer to tell you something you're interested in. The first thing the web page does after it arrives is to invite friends. It doesn't ask you if you're ok with that, it just does it. Some of those friends, such as style sheets and some images are good company, others are noisy characters who do everything they can to distract your attention from the original web page, and they also try to find out as much about you as they can while they're there. And occasionally they even damage things in your house (malware).

If you put it like that it is obvious that you can deny those noisy characters acces to your house, you dind't ask for them and you didn't agree to their presence. Someone who claims the right to bring anyone *they* like to *your* house is an arrogant bastard who should be taught some basic manners.

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[Black Diamond]

While you own the physical media, you don't own the data on the media. You only have a license to use that data and part of the license is not skipping ads, etc.

It'd be akin to requiring a login to use a free website, but the agreement for the login to say that you accept the ads in order to use the website.

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[stealth_finger]

Can you apply the same reasoning to a Blu ray or DVD you bought and own? I didn't think so.

No, well yes, well most times. With most dvd players you can hit stop>stop>play to jump straight to the feature, they just don't tell you that. You could also skip adverts from vhs with fast forward. You can skip ads in the cinema by going in ~20 minutes after the time on the ticket. Don't know about Blu-ray, I don't bother with it.

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[UnknownSoldier]

How about some common sense?

* Insert Blu Ray
* Ads / Trailers come up
* Can't skip the ads so I press *mute* on my AVR
* Can't skip the ads so I go to the bathroom until they are done
* 5 minutes later, finally at the main menu. Unmute, and I can do what I originally set out to do. Watch the freaking movie.

There is NO legal obligation that I _must_ watch the ads.

What, are you going to ban closing your eyes next??? /Oblg. DVD pirate experience

* http://farm5.static.flickr.com...

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

In europe, where there is no law similar to the DMCA, yes, you can.

There is no law and it's no offense here to decode and convert content you have paid the rights on for your personal use.

Obviously if you then upload that decoded content to some public web site or sell it you're doing something illegal, but the decoding part itself is never illegal. It's the act of distributing unauthorized copies of the copyrighted material that is illegal.

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you own a thing doesn't mean you should be able to do anything with it. I own a car, I should therefore be able to hit people with it!

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid analogy.

This is more like owning a car and being required to listen to an all-ads radio station.

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[Solandri]

For the pre-Internet generation (probably most of the CEOs at these ad companies), Adblock is equivalent to switching channels or muting the TV when a commercial comes on. It's my house, my TV, I can change channels or mute it if I want.

If the commercial looks or sounds interesting, I'll actually watch it. Except the web advertising companies burned that bridge back in the 1990s when they realized the web gave them a lot more control over how their ads were presented, and they got into a contest with each other to see how annoying they could make their ads to force people to view them. That resulted in people developing tools which blocked all ads. If they'd kept their ads low-key like they are in most magazines, I probably wouldn't be running an ad blocker today.

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I do the same here except replace go to the bathroom with make a giant bowl of popcorn.

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[fustakrakich]

*New* tech, coming soon

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[kimvette]

False; when they advertise a movie they say "own $foo on blu-ray or dvd today."

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid analogy.

This is more like owning a car and being required to listen to an all-ads radio station.

Don't give them ideas!!

Re:Summary, TFA, concept wrong

[david_thornley]

You mean annoying non-skippable ads for stuff that was hot when the DVD/Blu-Ray came out? That's because the people who put those things on use a system that says that these are going to show if you run the disk. Similarly, a website could try to detect the use of ad blockers and refuse to serve content if it detects one, and some do.

Do not avert your eyes....

[Needs2BeSaid]

Ad companies would love to make it illegal for you to get up and go to the bathroom while commercials play. The technology is already here that will tell our televisions when we look away. Just think of the possibilities for advertisers if they could get that data.

Re:Do not avert your eyes....

[swb]

That was covered in a Black Mirror episode where you were punished for not watching advertisements.

Re:Do not avert your eyes....

[injvstice]

I don't think I'd want my TV stopping every time I look away, but I know what you mean. The algorithm could be smarter. but could only take you so far -- it cannot know when you lost focus vs just not interested. Also the thing about the TV watching me doesn't feel very right.

Re:Do not avert your eyes....

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever tried to turn down the volume of your computer while spotify is playing an ad? The bloody thing will just pause the ad.

Re:Do not avert your eyes....

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody stupid enough to connect up a TV (or TV-like device, like a computer monitor) in such a way that it sends data deserves what they get.

On the other hand, if someone wants to adapt that tech so that "focus follows gaze" on my monitor windows, I might take advantage of it.

Re:Do not avert your eyes....

[Anonymous Coward]

Drink a verification can!

Re:Do not avert your eyes....

[penguinoid]

They could just use the (totally non-Orwellian) cameras on the TVs to identify when you go away, and automatically pause the advertizement until you get back. I wonder, if one company did this, would the others immediately follow suit because of higher profits this quarter and nevermind the backlash?

Re:Do not avert your eyes....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad companies would love to make it illegal for you to get up and go to the bathroom while commercials play.

Ad companies need to become responsible. Most 3rd party ads end up being for illegal or scam products, or try to push malware to your system, or assault your eyes/ears with full volume seizure causing flash, or bandwidth sucking streaming videos that assume you have a T1 coming into your house. And the ad companies wonder why people want to block them.

Re:Do not avert your eyes....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad companies would love to make it illegal for you to get up and go to the bathroom while commercials play. The technology is already here that will tell our televisions when we look away. Just think of the possibilities for advertisers if they could get that data.

Even if they get said data, besides being big brother hell, what makes you think they have the power to fine or imprison you for walking away from the TV? We're not in Oceania yet...

I don't even mind ads

[jetkust]

I don't mind ads. But when it gets to the point where the ads start rendering the web unusable what else can you do? And when you're getting charged an excessive amount of money for data on your mobile plan you kinda don't want to be paying for stuff you don't even want to see.

Re:I don't even mind ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate ads.

Idk who the people are that don't mind ads. When I click on a youtube link and first thing that pops up is an ad, I groan, wait for the skip ad button to activate, and get the fucking hell out of my face.

I think I'm not unusual in my generation. We became oblivious to ads. And the more oblivious we become, the more the advertising tries to be in our face, and the more we grow to resent it.

I'm not going to even address Ad executives, they're part of the problem, but please people in charge of BRAND X, Y, or Z, put a fucking banner up. Don't play video, don't play music, and don't get in my face. I don't care about your story anymore. Provide a good product, find a way to get the knowledge out word of mouth, and we're good.

Re:I don't even mind ads

[tpwade]

I've had the same experience. I don't mind tasteful, appropriate ads. I recognize that they are a source of revenue for website operators, and thus potentially lower costs to me. I hadn't even heard of adblock until I started running into websites that would crash and hang at the point of loading the ad and some others were brought to a crawl, and now ABP just blocks everything by default. The advertises burned themselves. A few websites have presented "Please unblock ads on our site" pop-ups, and as long as the ads don't significantly detract from the experience I'm more than happy to do that.

Re:I don't even mind ads

[Anne Thwacks]

Being older than you, when an advert appears instead of the content I requested, I assume it is the wrong URL, and try again. When that does not work, I try another URL.

I do not go there to watch ads, and I do not want to watch ads. If I wanted to buy stuff, I would search for stuff. If they do not want their content to be viewed for free, let them put it behind a paywall where I don't have to see it at all.

There is a precedent: If I don't pay to go to the cinema, I dont get to see the movie. I am happy with that. If they put it on the Internet where it can be seen, then it is supposed to be free - like it is on your front garden/window.

Re:I don't even mind ads

[LVSlushdat]

The problem is that ANY ad, glaring flash-based in-your-face OR a tastefully presented text ad usually come from one of the many ad networks.. These ad networks have a VERY bad reputation for including malware with their supplied ads.. I'm a retired support tech/net admin, and run a small side business fixing borked up Windows systems, plus getting people OFF of XP... One of the first things I put on a rebuilt Windows system, which is only done when I can't talk the user into switching to XUbuntu instead, is Firefox, Ghostery, Adblock.. The bottom line is, even with the improved security model in current Windows versions, a stock Windows install is still wide open for getting owned by malware from these bad ad-networks... This is why I've quit using Windows personally, and even still use the listed addins for Firefox...

Re:I don't even mind ads

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't mind ads? wtf? the web is so fucking unusable without an adblocker.. use firefox with adblock and noscript with a tuned whitelist.. then go back to a plain-jane ie on the same class hardware.. i dare you to.. and to not have to call a suicide hotline in the process.

captcha (firefox with noscript and adblock make the internet...): heavenly

Re:I don't even mind ads

[david_thornley]

Personally, I don't bother blocking ads (although if they hang the page too much I might make an exception). I run NoScript. It's something of a pain, but it seems a lot safer than trusting every piece of Javascript that's in an ad that somebody paid a company for that has something to do with the company that runs ads for the New York Times.

ads

[beefoot]

Pictures ad or text ad on website usually host on different servers than the content provider. If I use my old fashion telnet to get the content, I would have to make an extra effort to download these ads. What I am saying is one would argue ads are not part of the "content" from the content provider.

Everything about this story is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This lawsuit was about allowing "acceptable ads" specifically, not AdBlock as a concept. And that function has been ruled legal.

Blocking AdBlock

[Rik Sweeney]

I've been to a few websites recently that detect AdBlock and redirect me to a page telling me to turn it off. What's really annoying is that we have WebSense at work, which blocks adverts, and then I get redirected to the switch off AdBlock page.

This is further compounded by some websites sticking up a dialog box telling me to register or "Like" them on Facebook if I want to continue browsing their content.

I suspect we'll be seeing more of this in future, meaning that I'll soon have to re-install NoScript just to browse without being nagged.

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[Kardos]

> This is further compounded by some websites sticking up a dialog box telling me to register or "Like" them on Facebook if I want to continue browsing their content.

No loss there. It's a safe bet that it's not content of any quality if users have to be coerced into announcing that they "like" it before they see it.

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[armanox]

Careful, or they might start putting all the content in JS....

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[linebackn]

This is further compounded by some websites sticking up a dialog box telling me to register or "Like" them on Facebook if I want to continue browsing their content.

Fuck Facebook with a big splintery wooden dildo. Up the ass both ways until their eyes pop out.

There, had to be said. :)

I suspect we'll be seeing more of this in future, meaning that I'll soon have to re-install NoScript just to browse without being nagged.

Recently I've noticed an increase in the number of sites that use scripting to load their content. Without, you get nothing. You can bet that once they wise up to tools that block certain scripts or parts of scripts, they will intermingle ad loading and content loading in such a way to make it much harder if not impossible to block ads.

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing that search engine crawlers still work with plaintext pages.

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[jbmartin6]

That is interesting. I wonder how the 'you are using ad blocker' detection works? Our proxy doesn't block ads (i.e. does not return a 403 status) but it replaces the content with a blank HTML document. We did this to avoid any ugly block messages and such. But I have never gotten the 'you are using an ad blocker' message. Maybe there is something in the detection that triggers on the 403 status returns from your proxy and not the 200 status returns from mine. (Assuming your proxy returns 403 which could be wrong).

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the ones that I have seen have an element that scolds you that get covered by either by the ad itself or by the actual page content in a div with an ad like class or id. Either way, if the element is blocked then you see the scolding. Of course, that started an arms race where you can now block the elements with the scolding message.

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

The unintended consequence there is that they're effectively forcing you TO INSTALL AdBlock, and use the AdBlock Warning Removal List - https://easylist.adblockplus.o...
and maybe also to install GreaseMonkey (in Firefox) or TamperMonkey (in Chrome) and the Anti-AdBlock Killer script and filterset - https://github.com/reek/anti-a...
in order to get around their obnoxiousness.
I suggest rewarding them by enabling as much ad-filtering as humanly possible once you've done so.

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[Darinbob]

For sites like that I will just go visit a different site instead. No one is forcing me to visit them. If they act irresponsibly, or whine about ad revenue when they're just a hobbyist with a crappy blog, I can go elsewhere.

If it gets worse I could see some groups advertising their boycott of the bad actors, which is going to make a bigger effect than just a few individuals staying away.

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

You might consider installing RefreshBlocker so that you don't get redirected to the page asking you to turn off AdBlock.

Re:Blocking AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones I have encountered usually use Javascript. Usually the code snippet is easilly removed with the DOM Inspector.

If you want me to see ads

[MeNeXT]

Serve them form your own domain. With your own cookies. Do not make them offensive in any way (Pop under, Popup, loud, require click through or interaction, ...) and most of all take responsibility when they contain malware and pay for the damage to my computer and my time.

I understand you need to make money that doesn't mean you have to treat me like dirt.

Re:If you want me to see ads

[jbmartin6]

In other words, go back to the way ads used to work in the paper era. Publishers vetted the ads and printed them themselves. If the sites did this the ad blockers probably wouldn't even work. I wonder why they don't pursue that option instead of trying to use the government to force people to do something they do not want?

Re:If you want me to see ads

[hesiod]

Because newspapers have the resources to get companies to advertise on their pages, it is part of their business model. A small open source project website, for example, can't afford to go out and find people to advertise on their website. But they can get help with hosting costs by using a company whose focus -- and business model -- DOES include finding people to advertise with them.

Most normal website owners are not comparable to newspaper publishers in any meaningful way.

Re:If you want me to see ads

[Darinbob]

I want the owner of the web site to KNOW what ads are being served. I don't want the loser bloggers to whine about losing their precious revenue when they don't even know the crap that their viewers have to put up with. Do they even know about the abusive ads we see, did they personally approve the condom ads on their family friendly site, did they ask the advertiser to put in the malware? They did not. Instead they are lazy people who find a third party advertising service and ask "please screw over my readers at your convenience so that I can get $10 a month from you!". If they can not monitor their own site then they are responsible for all the malware and annoyance that their site serves up.

There is no radio or television station that willingly accepts randomized advertisements, so why should web sites continue being conduits for this crap?

Re:If you want me to see ads

[Darinbob]

If a small open source project can't get funding for their website and they can't pay for it out of pocket, then they should get off of the web! No matter how good the product it in no way justifies abusive ads, annoying their viewers, or serving up malware.

Seriously, if someone has an open source product for email reading, do they really want their hosting company to be popping up "Please Use Outlook!" ads on their page, or paid advertisements for "Open Source Sux!"? That would be really stupid. And yet that's what these sites are doing, they content creators are sticking their heads in the sand.

I had a presentation from a local high school that did robotics competitions. They involved all sorts of students in the club, not just the nerds who did hardware and software. They had students who were responsible for PR, media, fund raising, outreach, and so forth. So maybe this model can work with open source. If someone feels like they must resort to abusive third party ads just to stay afloat, then they should consider adding someone to their team that can manage advertisements so that they are all vetted and approved by a team member, or maybe add people to the team who want to do some fund raising.

But sheesh, if you keep pissing of your viewers then you won't have any viewers at all, no matter how much you whine about needing revenue.

Re:If you want me to see ads

[hesiod]

Nowhere did I say anything about malware, abuse, or severe annoyance: you are taking a simple hypothetical and using an unstated extreme possibility to suit an unyielding position.

If a website uses one or two small, innocuous ads that aren't animated, I'd see no problem with it. You seem to be taking the extreme stance that any advertising at all is a personal affront to you. If that's the case, you are being unreasonable and such an opinion shouldn't matter to most people.

Now, it may be difficult to find an ad host that doesn't push giant, screaming, in-your-face ads, but that wasn't the point.

Re:If you want me to see ads

[Darinbob]

It's because I see too many of these hobbyist people who use sites that do serve up tons of ads and which will not run without letting loose 10 or more scripts, and then there's this annoying pleading on the site when it detects adblock saying that it needs the revenue to keep the site up. So then I actually have disabled adblock for some of these and I see the annoying junk that results, and I know that the content creator has not vetted even one of these ads. So I turn back on adblock and stop going to that web site ever again.

I rarely see sites with one or two small, innocuous ads that aren't animated. All of those who have pleaded to turn off adblock or noscript inevitably turn out to be those who don't vet their own ads.

Re:If you want me to see ads

[Mandrel]

In other words, go back to the way ads used to work in the paper era. Publishers vetted the ads and printed them themselves.

The downside of this is that the publisher then needs to have direct contact with advertisers, which may influence their editorial unless they have old-school Chinese wall policies, not strong in new-media players.

What about control of Google Maps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why won't Google let us control which version of Google Maps we use?

The old one is close enough to perfect - they don't need to make any changes or updates to its UI.

Yes, that might not be good for Googler careers in Google Maps but it is good for users.

Re:What about control of Google Maps?

[armanox]

Are you paying Google for Google Maps? You don't own the product, you don't even lease/rent it. Since it is a web application, they can discontinue it at their discretion.

Re:What about control of Google Maps?

[houghi]

https://maps.google.com/maps?o...

Re:What about control of Google Maps?

[linebackn]

Are you paying Google for Google Maps? You don't own the product, you don't even lease/rent it. Since it is a web application, they can discontinue it at their discretion.

Presumably companies and businesses that appear prominently on there DO pay Google something. And it should be obvious that it is in those businesses' best interests if users can find their businesses quickly, easily, reliably, and in a familiar way, even if it means using an older better version.

Re:What about control of Google Maps?

[dwillden]

Amen, and forget choosing to keep the old UI as a preference. It forgets it every time. Seriously dislike the new UI it is less user friendly and less intuitive than the old one.

As it should be

[CastrTroy]

Even if we ignore the main use of Adblock Plus, which is blocking advertisements, and looking at the broader functionality of "users are legally allowed to control what happens on their screens and on their computers while they browse the Web", then it would be quite detrimental if users were force to render content on web pages. I personally don't use Adblock Plus, as I like to support the sites I visit, and most of the sites I frequent have only a moderate number of ads. However I do use stuff like Flashblock to stop things like autoplaying movies and animations. I also don't like running Flash by default as there are a lot of exploits. Not allowing users to run what they want, and being required by law to run whatever script the webpage sends at them is a recipe for disaster.

Re:As it should be

[Registered Coward v2]

Even if we ignore the main use of Adblock Plus, which is blocking advertisements, and looking at the broader functionality of "users are legally allowed to control what happens on their screens and on their computers while they browse the Web", then it would be quite detrimental if users were force to render content on web pages. I personally don't use Adblock Plus, as I like to support the sites I visit, and most of the sites I frequent have only a moderate number of ads. However I do use stuff like Flashblock to stop things like autoplaying movies and animations. I also don't like running Flash by default as there are a lot of exploits. Not allowing users to run what they want, and being required by law to run whatever script the webpage sends at them is a recipe for disaster.

What we are seeing is a fundamental collision between the old and new concepts of control. It used to be we could not control ads, such as on TV, all we could do is use them to as a break to do something else. Then came the VCR with timeshiftimg and fast forward and control switched from the content provider to the end user; which set off a fight over that ability. We are seeing that in the online world now as technology allows users more control over how content is presented and delivered; and the content providers are seeking ways, either via technology or courts, to limit the transfer of control. Some try to use the old model digitally, such as magazines that provide an online edition via a "reader" that flips pages and shows add pages just as you would with the print edition. I suspect we'll see new ways of delivering adds, especially as the box in our home gets more adept at recognizing who, and how many, are in the room and paying attention. Content providers will move from the, in the US at least, model of Intro, Add, Title, add, 8 minutes of action, ad, etc. to a way to more fluidly place commercials. Who knows, maybe part of the show will have a blue screen so adds could be individually tailored during the show, much as MLB does with ads behind home plate.

Re:As it should be

[Sloppy]

it would be quite detrimental if users were force to render content on web pages.

Not to mention: Difficult!

Think about what all is involved in creating a new "modern" browser, especially if you have to start from scratch instead of basing it on Webkit or Gecko. "Oops, I have a bug in how word-break works, and it just got me fined. Worse, someone found out that I hadn't really disabled the load-images option, and that I had simply removed it from the preferences page. I'm still working on my court case over that one."

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows, maybe part of the show will have a blue screen so adds could be individually tailored during the show,

It's called product-placement and it already happens, and not just in TV shows. The first Bond movie under Sony ownership (Casino Royale) was rife with close-up shots on various electronics (phones, video recorders, laptops) showing the Sony (or Vaio) logo.

This was blatantly obvious in a recent episode of Castle, with ads for Kimmel TV show and Buick (quickly skipped with DVR) bracketing in-show mentions of Kimmel and close-ups of the Buick insignia on Castle's car (which is totally out of character for him).

Re:As it should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if we ignore the main use of Adblock Plus, which is blocking advertisements, and looking at the broader functionality of "users are legally allowed to control what happens on their screens and on their computers while they browse the Web", then it would be quite detrimental if users were force to render content on web pages. I personally don't use Adblock Plus, as I like to support the sites I visit, and most of the sites I frequent have only a moderate number of ads. However I do use stuff like Flashblock to stop things like autoplaying movies and animations. I also don't like running Flash by default as there are a lot of exploits. Not allowing users to run what they want, and being required by law to run whatever script the webpage sends at them is a recipe for disaster.

What we are seeing is a fundamental collision between the old and new concepts of control. It used to be we could not control ads, such as on TV, all we could do is use them to as a break to do something else. Then came the VCR with timeshiftimg and fast forward and control switched from the content provider to the end user; which set off a fight over that ability. We are seeing that in the online world now as technology allows users more control over how content is presented and delivered; and the content providers are seeking ways, either via technology or courts, to limit the transfer of control. Some try to use the old model digitally, such as magazines that provide an online edition via a "reader" that flips pages and shows add pages just as you would with the print edition. I suspect we'll see new ways of delivering adds, especially as the box in our home gets more adept at recognizing who, and how many, are in the room and paying attention. Content providers will move from the, in the US at least, model of Intro, Add, Title, add, 8 minutes of action, ad, etc. to a way to more fluidly place commercials. Who knows, maybe part of the show will have a blue screen so adds could be individually tailored during the show, much as MLB does with ads behind home plate.

When will we be able to get rid of CI+ & Co. .. I'd like to use a normal Recorder again separately from my TV with some form of external Data Storage. Perhaps a Tape or something like a ZIP-Disk. Without giving them the Ability to block functions of my Recorder and/or force me to pay for a second card just to use a Recorder separately from the TV.

Good ...

[gstoddart]

It's my damned screen, and my damned internet connection.

To rule that I have some legal obligation to load and view your ads would be idiotic.

Of course, this was idiotic from the beginning and just some asshole publishers trying to entrench their ad revenue in law.

Since ad companies violate both my privacy and potentially my security, I simply do not care about your ads. Unless you paywall your site, in which case I'll ignore you, don't bloody act like I am required to see your ads.

Not my problem.

Re:Good ...

[Neil Boekend]

It's either paywall, adds or a mostly empty internet.

Having said that: I block adds to block malware, because add networks seem to be too stupid to check what they serve for malware.

Re:Good ...

[Anne Thwacks]

It's my damned screen, and my damned internet connection.

Right on - If I watch their ads, can I bill them for the bandwidth and my time at <Going rate for legal advice>?. I am quite willing to forward them said legal advice for an additional fee. (But for those of you unwilling to pay, here is the secret legal advice on our hidden laser screen, spoken by a mystery voice: sod off.

Re:Good ...

[AmiMoJo]

don't bloody act like I am required to see your ads.

That wasn't their argument. Their argument was that a commercial company, the one that makes ABP, was altering their content and providing it to their users for profit, thus violating their copyright. Their argument was that it was akin to them taking a (free) magazine, cutting out all the adverts and then giving it to users, while accepting fees from advertisers to avoid being cut.

The court didn't buy it, which is good, but don't mis-characterise their position just to make the look foolish. Their case has a strong basis in law, which is why it took so long to resolve.

Re:Good ...

[gnupun]

It's my damned screen, and my damned internet connection.

To rule that I have some legal obligation to load and view your ads would be idiotic.

False argument... That's like saying it's your cable box and your TV and you have every right to control what's on the screen, including stripping ads automatically (without changing channels or muting)

Also, you paid for your computer, and also for your internet connection and you think that's okay. But somehow it's not okay for the vendor providing you web content to charge you money (indirectly through ads)? Are website owners creating websites for charity? Do you belong to the entitlement generation?

Re:Good ...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was plenty on the Internet before ads became so ubiquitous.

Re:Good ...

[gstoddart]

. But somehow it's not okay for the vendor providing you web content to charge you money (indirectly through ads)? Are website owners creating websites for charity? Do you belong to the entitlement generation?

Honestly, if a web site wants to charge, they are free to do so. But I won't be paying them, and I'll immediately stop using their website. And that's fair if they want to block me.

I don't care if they're running it for charity or vanity. They server HTTP requests, they either respond or they don't.

But that doesn't change that I'm still free to block the parts of their website which I am not interested in, am not willing to pay for the bandwidth, and inherently do not trust because it wants to violate my privacy and might be a vector for malware. It's not like these companies bear any responsibility for the shit their ad partners serve.

No, I'm Gen X, actually ... which means I have read magazines in libraries and not paid the advertisers, and do not give a crap about the finances of a corporation. I'm even wacky enough to still buy CDs and play music while I have friends visiting. I even walk away from the TV during commercials, because I don't care.

I don't feel entitled to anything. But that doesn't mean I'll consent to being tracked by 10-20 external sites for every damned website I go to. I can also guarantee you I've never bought a damned thing due to an internet advertisement, and never will.

If a site wants to serve their own ads, I probably won't block them. But the dozen or so external entities are all going to get blocked.

Re:Good ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's either paywall, adds or a mostly empty internet.

In which case I'll take a mostly empty internet. In fact there'd still be plenty of content (e.g. Wikipedia), and I don't generally have a problem with a few, non-obnoxious ads for products from the web-site owner (e.g., ads for the author's books on an author's blog). The content on those tends to be higher quality anyway.

Re:Good ...

[gnupun]

I even walk away from the TV during commercials, because I don't care.

Walking away from the TV is not the same as stripping out ads from the video content.

The issue isn't whether you care, because adblock users obviously don't care how the person giving them content gets paid... it's just not their problem... they just don't care. The issue is what's fair. It's fair you make money for the content creators by intentionally/accidentally watching ads in exchange for viewing their content for free.

Sorry, but if you wish to access content on a commercial website, you must at least download their ads so they get paid. If you don't agree to that, you should simply not visit the website.

Re:Good ...

[gstoddart]

Sorry, but if you wish to access content on a commercial website, you must at least download their ads so they get paid. If you don't agree to that, you should simply not visit the website.

Horseshit.

Advertisers on the internet do things which if they tried in real life would either be illegal or get someone physically assaulted.

There is no other media in which advertising can uniquely identify me, record that I've seen the ad, and correlate that with other information about me. And I'm not allowing some website to do it to me.

If I was in a brick and mortar store and they said "oh, sorry sir, we just need to put this tracking tag on your ear", or "this is my associate Vinnie, he just needs to photograph you and get your thumb print" ... someone would get punched in the face. Because there is no way in hell people would consent to this in the real world. If someone asks me for my information a store I tell them to piss off, same as on the internet.

Somehow the assholes who advertise on the internet feel entitled to track and record everything about me. Fuck that.

If a commercial website wants to prevent me from viewing their site without viewing their ads, they may deploy all technical means that their disposal.

But the internet isn't some magical place where I'm willing to give up information I'd tell you to go fuck yourself if you asked in person.

You want to know who feels entitled here? The asshole advertisers who consistently demonstrate themselves to be not trustworthy.

If a commercial website wants me to download their ads, they can try to make me, or fuck off. Their inability to keep me from blocking their ads doesn't confer an obligation to me, and it never will.

Oh noes, teh poor website can't show me teh ads. Not my fucking problem. Especially when those ads are being served by entities which collectively are slimy players who consider information about me to be a commodity.

Re:Good ...

[gnupun]

There is no other media in which advertising can uniquely identify me, record that I've seen the ad, and correlate that with other information about me. And I'm not allowing some website to do it to me.

Have you thought about disabling 3rd party cookies (such as cookies from ad networks) in your browser? If your IP address were to change, and since you have disabled ad cookies, there is no way the ad network can obtain an accurate browsing profile.

Oh noes, teh poor website can't show me teh ads. Not my fucking problem. Especially when those ads are being served by entities which collectively are slimy players who consider information about me to be a commodity.

What about the good chunk of websites that care for their users? You wanna stick it them too?

Re:Good ...

[Neil Boekend]

Hardly. What you wanted may have been there, but add revenue has allowed the internet to expand to many times that size. It now includes more stuff most people want to see.
The sites that don't have ads are running at a loss (sometimes that's worth it), have other means of revenue and/or have low traffic.

Most of the stuff that would be there without ad revenue doesn't have ad revenue now either. For example Open Source stuff, info sites by manufacturers and programmers and webshops.
However if you want a reliable review site then that site needs to pay for their datacenter space & electricity & food for the reviewers. That costs money. No ads, no paywall? How are they going to raise that money? Bribes from companies for good reviews? Do you really want to go there?
No real reviewers but user generated reviews? Easy to get fake reviews.

Round 1 to the consumer, in Germany...

[Stolpskott]

This is a plus for the consumer, definitely.
Personally, I install some kind of ad blocking software on every computer I build for friends and family. This is mainly because, while I might trust a particular web site I most certainly do not extend that trust to whatever 3rd party ad host is used, and there have been enough instances of ad servers hosting malware for me to block the whole lot on principle.
However, the next step from the advertisement-laden internet sites is going to be to refuse access to any browsers running ad blockers, so the ad blockers' most salient feature is going to be their ability to run in a stealth mode that gets around such restrictions.

There is no free lunch

[Trachman]

Ad money is how many of the websites finance themselves, pay their bills. From that point of view the AdBlock hating sites only want to show you the contents ONLY if you see the advertisements.

Expect further development of Ad pushing technologies, because the websites will need to get paid or they will go out of business.

I think industry should consider the example of Netflix: for a cost of one movie one can watch dozens a movies at the convenience of their homes. Last time I have heard Netflix is not a loss making company.

Re:There is no free lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if you require me to download the ads to get you your content, expect me to refuse to display said ads, even if I download them.

If people start doing the first, expect 'add blockers" to start just downloading the ad, but not displaying it... Problem solved, for now.

Re:There is no free lunch

[BVis]

Ad money is how many of the websites finance themselves, pay their bills.

Tough shit. The user has indicated that they do not want to see ads. Give the user what they want or go out of business. Find a different business model.

From that point of view the AdBlock hating sites only want to show you the contents ONLY if you see the advertisements.

Tough shit. I don't care what they want. If they don't give me what I want, I go somewhere else. That's the free market.

Expect further development of Ad pushing technologies, because the websites will need to get paid or they will go out of business.

Tough shit. Expect further development of ad blocking technologies to keep up. Eventually the arms race will lead to the abandonment of ad revenue as a source of support. The advertisers and site owners did this to themselves by ratcheting up the obnoxiousness of their ads to the point where people start blocking them or staying away from their site. No sympathy.

Advertising is a blight on society. I can hardly go anywhere without someone trying to sell me car insurance, or legal assistance, or boner pills, or something else I don't want or already have. What the advertisers need to understand is that they do not have an inalienable right to shove ads in my eyeballs. If I want to ignore or block advertising, I have the right to do that. If that drives people out of business, that's fine, because other businesses that don't employ such an obnoxious business model will take up their business.

I hate advertising in all its forms. Don't like that? Go fuck yourself, I don't care what you think.

Re:There is no free lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that some websites manage to survive with few ads, while others that are even less popular, don't have much content and shouldn't cost that much to host are filling their pages with shit?

Re:There is no free lunch

[simplypeachy]

There's a place for obscenities and your reply was exactly that place. To reply appropriately: Fuckin' A!

Re:There is no free lunch

[amicusNYCL]

Expect further development of Ad pushing technologies, because the websites will need to get paid or they will go out of business.

That's OK, ad-pushing technologies will inevitably be met with ad-blocking technologies. Maybe that will lead to an internet business model that does not rely on advertising. There's no law chiseled in stone which proclaims that advertising is the only way to make money from publishing content, there's only a lack of creativity when the largest, lowest-hanging fruit involves irritating your "customers" for a quick cent or two.

Re:There is no free lunch

[SeaFox]

Ad money is how many of the websites finance themselves, pay their bills. From that point of view the AdBlock hating sites only want to show you the contents ONLY if you see the advertisements.

Expect further development of Ad pushing technologies, because the websites will need to get paid or they will go out of business.

Cry me a river.

I'm willing to pay for ad-free access to certain sites I frequent often, the problem is inevitably that every single site thinks they should get Netflix-level pricing for that access. $6-10/mo per site soon becomes much more expensive than my actual ISP bill. Paywall creators need to get real with their how much they think their content is worth.

Re:There is no free lunch

[Darinbob]

Then the web sites should serve up their own advertisements, not rely upon a third party that just shoves out ads and malware indiscriminately. If web sites had responsible and reasonable ads then there would never have been the need for things like adblock.

Adblock is a self defense mechanism. The purpose of adblock is not to piss off the hypothetical innocent content creators, but to protect the viewers from malware, to protect their bandwidth, to stop popups, to double or triple the speed of using the web (just try going to one of these sites on dialup and see how happy you are while yet another cialis picture downloads), and so forth.

The people who complain that web sites need this for revenue should understand that we're not intentionally against them making money for nothing, but we're stick and tired of being abused by those web sites. If I go into a store and they shout abuse at me then I will take my business elsewhere, no matter how much that abuser claims he needs the money for his starving kids. It would be better for that store to go out of business; and likewise if a web site can't operate without abusive ads then it also deserves to go out of business forever.

If you want to have viewers to your web site then stop screwing with them.

There's a simple solution for the websites

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to write your web site so you can tell if the browser is asking for the ads to be downloaded or not. If not, you can put up a message saying that this web site can't be viewed unless ad blocking is turned back off. I have a right to control what I download to my computer, but the web site also has a right to decide they don't want to send me content. Everyone's happy.

Re:There's a simple solution for the websites

[Anonymous Coward]

But there's nothing stopping "add blockers" from simply downloading the ads anyway and then not showing them. How's a website operator going to know if that happens? Only if there is some kind of "human interaction" required to catch the software which will quickly be defeated or will be so bothersome as to make the website traffic go down because it's too difficult to get to the content in the first place... This really is just a competition that will never end between getting ads in front of you and trying to avoid the distractions they cause using add blocking.

Some ad driven pages can crash / slow down your

[Anonymous Coward]

Some ad driven pages can crash / slow down your system as well.

AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Futurepower(R)]

"dishonest *** who take money from Google to whitelist their ads"

CEOs should accept that I use an ad blocker. If I didn't have an ad blocker, I would be more aware of their ads and would probably be successful in getting some of the CEOs fired for dishonesty and incompetence.

Adblock Edge is a fork of the Adblock Plus(R) version 2.1.2 extension for blocking advertisements on the web. Adblock Edge was primarily branched off from Adblock Plus(R) 2.1.2 source code package "https://adblockplus.org/downloads/adblockplus-2.1.2-source.tgz" created by Wladimir Palant.

Adblock Edge will be discontinued in June 2015 in favor of uBlock , a general purpose blocker that not only outperforms Adblock Edge but is also available on other browsers and, of course, without "Acceptable Ads Whitelist".***

Pale Moon x64 is Firefox with adult supervision. With Pale Moon, use AdBlock Latitude.

Firefox is becoming less and less stable. It's so unstable that it often doesn't report crashes, so the crash reports aren't reliable, they show far fewer crashes than actually occurred. The underlying problem is that Mozilla Foundation needs better management. At present, Mozilla Foundation management is sometimes excellent and sometimes very unreliable.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does AdBlock Latitude have the "Open Blockable Items" feature? That is a must for me.

Using AdBlock Plus (or any other ad blocker I found) on Pale Moon, the "Open Blockable Items" feature doesn't work. That is the only reason I have stayed with Firefox.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Grishnakh]

Firefox is becoming less and less stable.

What the hell are you talking about? Firefox has become more stable; I abandoned FF several years ago because it crashed so often, and switched to Chromium; in the last year, I've switched back because Chromium is such a memory hog and crashes so much, and Firefox isn't and doesn't. FF is better with memory, and rarely crashes (esp. compared to Chromium). It's not perfect by any means, but it's a lot better than it used to be.

When was the last time you used Firefox?

That said, I also switched from AdBlock Plus to uBlock, and that's helped a lot too. ABP is a hog. (But I switched back to FF well before I dumped ABP.)

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[jbssm]

He is right though. Firefox crashes frequently lately. Try to open the GitHub pages of the Atom editor packages and you see what I mean.

Kind of sad the mess that Firefox has become.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[twocows]

Yes.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[vyvepe]

Firefox is becoming less and less stable.

I do not even remember when my Firefox crashed the last time. As far as I can tell, it is extremely stable.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[vyvepe]

He is right though. Firefox crashes frequently lately. Try to open the GitHub pages of the Atom editor packages and you see what I mean.

Is that limited to windows version? Because I did not noticed any crashes in linux version lately.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[dannydawg5]

I've been waiting for uBlock to be fully published before installing. I've been waiting a long time. It seems forever stuck in "preliminarily reviewed".

Is there any particular reason Mozilla has not fully released it?

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never had Firefox crash in my entire life.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn dude, your UI theme looks terrible, like it was made by an amateur.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never had Firefox crash in my entire life.

It doesn't count if you've never used FireFox.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Coren22]

APK, did you finally create an account?

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[jbssm]

I only use it in Mac OSX, don't know if it also happens in Windows. Never even thought it could be a platform issue but you might be right.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[davester666]

Or worse, an Amazon web page. It will peg one CPU at 100% constantly refreshing itself in an effort to better track itself, even when it's not the visible tab.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[jbssm]

Ah true that, forgot that one but I'm glad to see I'm not alone in the Amazon issues as well. Truth be told, it doesn't crash Firefox, it only makes it crawl like a snail. Seriously, Firefox needs a very big overhaul, they keep adding features that only an handful of people cares about instead of fixing what's really wrong with it.

I'm keeping an eye out for Vivaldi. Although to say the truth, I could perfectly go with Chrome... if they had proper tab management and if they had tab lazy loading/unloading.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

When browsing porn. With nine billion tabs and flash and video related crap.

That's about the only time I ever have FF crash.

Chrome, on the other hand, will crash eventually even if I leave a single tab, single window instance open. It'll also start up about three dozen threads to support that single window and consume several GB of RAM.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

The underlying problem is that Mozilla Foundation needs better management.

Almost like they got rid of someone excellent for irrelevant reasons.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should check your extensions or your hardware? It has been years since I had Firefox crash, with the exception of a bad main board (were everything crashed) and a bad driver (were firefox and several games crashed) .

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[smugfunt]

FF crashes on Kubuntu daily for me, usually when it is just sitting in the background. Thunderbird is the only other program I use which is that crash-prone.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[vyvepe]

Interesting. No Firefox crash for me in the last layer in Archlinux. It is running every day for about 10 hours.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[CauseBy]

I want to chime in for uBlock. I used ABP for a long time then switched to uBlock a few months ago. It filters equally well and seems to live up to its promise of being faster/smaller. Recommended.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[CauseBy]

Me too. I don't experience very many browser crashes. I use both FF and Chrome on Mac and Ubuntu. GP might want to review his extensions and see if one of them is causing the problem.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Waccoon]

Firefox has been rock solid stable for me for years, and I also questioned why people were complaining so much about stability.

That changed in (if I remember correctly) version 33 on Windows. I've had nothing but problems with it ever since, regardless of which plugins or extensions are installed. In particular, I've noticed that if the browser is open overnight, opening any menu will cause an instant crash. Frequently, right-clicks that bring up a context menu will also cause a crash, but only if the browser has been open for a while.

I have multiple installs of the browser for development purposes, including a "stock" profile with no plugins or extensions installed. I'm pretty sure the crashing is not because I'm holding it wrong.

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Grishnakh]

Hmm, that's really weird. I'm currently using 36.0.4 on Linux Mint, and everything's mostly fine. It does seem to have a memory leak in it, so I seem to need to kill it and restart it every week or two, but it is normal for me to just leave it open all the time (on a laptop which gets suspended every night) with a couple dozen tabs in two windows. So not perfect, as I had said before, but not any worse than I've had with most browsers over the years. And FF is really good about remembering all my open tabs so I'm always right back where I was when I restart it. (And unlike stupid Chromium, it waits until you actually look at a tab before loading it, instead of trying to reload every single tab all at once when you restart and restore.)

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[fisted]

I like to keep FF running all the time, too, but it (or the javascripts on certain sites) consume just too much CPU. here's my crude cure

#!/bin/sh

if [ -f /tmp/.ffstopped ]; then
pkill -CONT firefox; pkill -CONT npviewer; pkill -CONT plugin-container
rm -f /tmp/.ffstopped
else
pkill -STOP firefox; pkill -STOP npviewer; pkill -STOP plugin-container
touch /tmp/.ffstopped
fi

I.e. it's kind of a toggle. Works best when bound to a key combo of the window manager or so. Process names might also differ on Linux

Re:AdBlock Edge. uBlock. AdBlock Latitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously mentally disturbed.

Your eyeballs or your address book

[Anonymous Coward]

While many sites go out of control with their ads, it's fundamentally true that less money = less quality. Volunteering time and energy for the sake of your art is all well and good, but to get the production values and usability that people want out of their websites takes money. Advertising is one way of allowing people to make money while providing that content "free" to the user, insofar as free means you don't have to pull out your wallet and hand over your credit card details every time you want to make a Google search.

The problem comes when pure advertising becomes a cover for the real money maker: your personal information. Of course, your personal information is supposed to be used to target the ads directly to your tastes like a creepy stalker trying to win your love by being everywhere you go, but then they hand over your personal information to their third party pimps, the psychopaths of the advertising world. When a company's choice is to sacrifice their integrity to make a quick buck or try to stay afloat on the strength of their own product, we can already see how quickly and fervently most companies worship at the altar of the almighty Dollar.

Other than advertising money, companies haven't been too inventive on figuring out alternative payment methods. They just go back to the tried and true subscription/in-app purchasing methods that few people prefer. Crowdfunding is the new thing right now, but something like Patreon or donations supposes that you already have a popular product that people wouldn't want to go away, while Kickstarter and IndieGoGo ask that you invest in vaporware that may eventually become something real.

While advertising certainly shouldn't be enforced, blocking all advertising means less money for companies, giving them more reason to become more aggressive in their money-making tactics.

Under computer crimes laws in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be faced with up to 35 years in prison for using it under the laws to day.

Stupid!

[xenobyte]

How can it not be MY choice to decide what I DON'T want to see on my screen?!?!

I understand that content owners control stuff they create and can require me to pay to view or ban me from viewing, or even from replacing one set of ads with another before passing content to a third party, but they can't prevent me from closing my eyes or looking away so why should they think they can prevent me from removing junk from a webpage?

No "precedent"

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany, like most countries outside the UK and its former colonies, has a civil law system. Courts are *not* bound by "precedents" the way they are in common law countries.

That said, yes, courts are likely to judge the same way if a similar lawsuit comes along. But that's simply because it makes sense, not because of earlier decisions.

Why not a background process requesting ads?

[nightfire-unique]

One thing I never understood is why no one's come up with an ad blocker that still requests ads in the background, but doesn't display them (as an option).

Quite literally, everyone wins in that scenario. Advertisers get to feel like they're changing the world. Web sites are funded. We don't have to deal with advertisements.

And manufacturers/service providers are less likely to deal with the wrath of people like me who go out of our way to avoid products with offensive advertising. We won't know any better.

Re:Why not a background process requesting ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Users don't win since the act of downloading stuff makes them trackable by advertising companies anyway.

Re:Why not a background process requesting ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't win because my shitty connection will still be clogged with ads downloading before any useable content.

Re:Why not a background process requesting ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

that is how adblockers worked in opera or chrome until recently

and it sucked

Re:Why not a background process requesting ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

A big problem is that many adverts also track you or try to exploit security flaws.
Given the current situation, blocking ads outright really is the best option.

Re:Why not a background process requesting ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

It generally isn't done that way because everyone does not win in that scenario. The consumer loses, big time.

Have you actually viewed ads on the web lately? Due to the nature of my job, I have to. From a technological point of view, it's not pretty. Many ads will download full video files (sometimes multiple video files), and your browser will be directed through countless hops for tracking purposes. The mass of javascript loaded for rendering ads is capable of pegging at least one core of the CPU, and sometimes heavy CPU usage does not stop after the ad is loaded. Ads are pigs, and advertisers have no reason to care.

Ads are incredible bandwidth and CPU hogs. You don't want them executing in the background. Keep in mind that mobile devices now account for over half of the traffic on many websites. Web consumption on desktop is becoming the minority. Bandwidth and CPU usage matter now more than ever.

Keep in mind that loading an ad in the background will still expose you to vulnerabilities. I'm mostly considering Flash-based vulnerabilities here, but browser vulnerabilities and attacks that take advantage of XSS vulnerabilities are also very real possibilities. (And protection from vulnerabilities is, and always will be, the primary reason that I block ads.)

Also, loading background ads would further dilute the value of ad views which would cause damage to advertisers, but that's another topic and probably not a topic that would garner much sympathy from our Slashdot peers.

Re:Why not a background process requesting ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because more and more advertisement companies are developing ways to tell if you actually displayed the ad, and are changing payment systems to only pay for viewed ads. So basically, it would still take the bandwidth to load (but not display) the ad, but nobody gets paid and nobody is happy (except for you, but that's a given as long as ads are blocked and not unique to this solution)

Re:Why not a background process requesting ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

This method might work as a form of "stealth" blocking, but it only addresses a tiny part of the current ad problem. Ads are typically linked by off-site javascript, which implies the following:
1. an additional server must be looked up in dns, and a connection established
2. this external server is passed a referrer value, which allows the advertising network to know which sites you visit
3. additional redirects are common to the extent that the total throughput and connections established are often many times the size of what's necessary to view the usable content of the requested page.
4. the previously mentioned javascript code is not typically checked to avoid malicious intent (aside from that already mentioned), so its use as a malware attack vector is common

I think when we consider all the factors the annoyance of some shady marketing material is outweighed by the privacy, security, and performance concerns of the current ad delivery methods.

They can thank adobe

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to not use adblock, but thanks to adobe with crappy security and noisy, obnoxious adds, I did start using AdBlock.

Always consider the opposite perspective...

[EmeraldBot]

There's a lot of people here saying what is essentially, "f*ck you" to the advertisements. But I think a lot of them don't consider what it's like for the creator in this situation. A lot of them don't charge for their content and rely upon the ads, without which they could never keep going. This is especially the case for the smaller guys who run their own channels, and they could never afford to do their hobby otherwise. You have the right to control what's on your screen, yes, but they also have the right to ask you to disable it - you are reading what they spent hours putting together. It would be like if you let a coworker look at your editor configuration, they write down some of the cool tricks you used, and then they refused to let you see theirs.

Look, all I'm saying is that if you have Adblock Plus (and who doesn't? I use it myself on occasion), please consider disabling it most of the time and saving it only for the really egregious websites. A lot of people rely on that ad money, and by not letting them receive it, you are essentially breaking your end of an implicit agreement - a lot like when your neighbor borrows your lawn mower and then refuses to replace the gas he used.

Re:Always consider the opposite perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo hoo

Re:Always consider the opposite perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, all I'm saying is that if you have Adblock Plus (and who doesn't? I use it myself on occasion), please consider disabling it most of the time and saving it only for the really egregious websites.

Well, I did consider it. Unfortunately, there are too many cunts delivering unaudited third-party ads and too many cunts running web sites which encourage them. If they became less cunty and served audited ads from their own site, it would be different.

A lot of people rely on that ad money, and by not letting them receive it, you are essentially breaking your end of an implicit agreement - a lot like when your neighbor borrows your lawn mower and then refuses to replace the gas he used.

My own web server (yup, I own it and it's in my house) has no third-party ads, since I'm not such a cunt. Actually, it does not have any ads at all; not even from the same domain. Curiously, it has served up to 350GB per month, but typically serves closer to 100GB.

Re:Always consider the opposite perspective...

[twocows]

Then offer a solution where I can donate $5 to permanently disable ads. Unless your web service is something where I'm going to be downloading or uploading a whole lot of data, I'll never be using more than $5 of your resources and $5 is a hell of a lot more than you'd ever make off ads from one person over the course of a lifetime anyway. Some sites already offer this kind of thing and I commonly take advantage of it on sites I like. Other sites just get hit by Adblock. And no, I'm not going to pay a monthly subscription fee to disable ads on your site, either.

Re:Always consider the opposite perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ignoring or unaware an extremely important aspect of the argument for ad-blocking: Advertising online is regularly used as a malware delivery mechanism. Ads pass through multiple parties between the artists and developers who actually create the ads, the agencies responsible for creation, the brokers who host them and the sites where they actually run. Anyone at any point in that chain can add malicious code to the overall advertising package and that code could be an effective exploit for multiple platforms (iOS for example is still vulnerable to javascript exploits). The ads being delivered are at best spot-checked for security issues but honestly I doubt even that much is done. The end result is that malicious scripts run on mainstream sites with astonishing regularity and no one knows anything about it until they've already been served to hundreds or thousands of people.

Even if I were sympathetic to content owners and their revenue (I am not. They need to figure out new revenue models because the current system is broken and terrible), I have a far greater responsibility for the safety of my users, their data and the state of their computers. Implicit agreement be damned, I shouldn't have to risk the internet equivalent of herpes because somebody wants to make $.0002 on my HTTP transaction.

My slashdot login is slaker. Posting as AC because I'm on an untrusted terminal.

Re:Always consider the opposite perspective...

[future assassin]

Why would I care if someones business model depends on advertising? Ok so they have a public website and allow the public to view the content you generate. Put up an entry page that detects a blocker and send the person using a blocker to a warning page or somewhere else.

Re:Always consider the opposite perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need obnoxious videos playing loud, or random items advertised from some obscure cookie in the browser. We are not your money making monkeys.
You want to make money out of me visiting your website? Fine, then I'll get %50 of what you make and then I'll disable the add blocker.

Re:Always consider the opposite perspective...

[Your.Master]

The reason you'd care about their business model is because you are doing business with them.

Thanks

[Luceo]

Didn't really need their permission, but thanks anyway.

How does this set a precedent for more lawsuits?

[wonkey_monkey]

While the decision is undoubtedly a big win for users today, it could also set a precedent for future lawsuits against Adblock Plus and any other tool that offers similar functions.

How's that? Surely it does the exact opposite.

No wonder. They have no clue.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the site's ads were blocked at the site, that's one thing.

But they're not, they're blocked at the browser.

The lawsuite is in Europe - law is different

[DrYak]

While you own the physical media, you don't own the data on the media. You only have a license to use that data and part of the license is not skipping ads, etc.

In the US maybe... excpet that TFA's lawsuite happened in Germany, EU. European country have their copyright law siding a little bit more toward end users than USA.

Among other, several country have the local DCMA-equivalent law, explicitely granting excetion for fair use. And explicitely consider "fair use" to b0rk the encryption for "technical reasons" such as needing to be able to play your own media because you buy it and want to play it and the manufacturer doesn't support your OS. (e.g.: Switzerland, although it's not *EU*, just geographically in Europe).
deCSS is considered lawful here: you bought the CD, use whatever you need to exercise your fair use rights.
There's no concept of "you're actually just renting the data and thus must follow the license in order to be able to consume it".

It'd be akin to requiring a login to use a free website, but the agreement for the login to say that you accept the ads in order to use the website.

Again, in most european countries, EULA aren't considered binding. You can't sell your soul just because there was a sentence hidden somewhere in the big pile of legalese.
The only things which *are* legally binding are the general provision covered in the law itself (warranties, etc.)

But a website owner CANNOT sue you because you violated the license you were supposed to accept and used Adbock anyway.
On the other hand, nothing forbids the owner to kick you out and ban your account either.

DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were the advertisers I would make the advertisements run some computer code, then circumvention or blocking of the ads would then fall under the DMCA

Real life AdBlock

[mutherhacker]

This afternoon I chased away a guy getting ready to put ad pamphlets in every single mailbox in my building. Real life AdBlock for the win! :)

Re:How does this set a precedent for more lawsuits

[neminem]

Huh? A precedent means that there have been rulings on a subject. Clearly, there have now been rulings on the subject. There being a precedent doesn't say, without further specification, which *way* the precedent went...

Sincerly, it's the advertisers fault

[jbssm]

If they didn't bombard me and everyone with what seems like the skyline of Las Vegas every time I open their site, I would not feel the need to use an adblock.

The web became basically unusable without an adblock lately and the content providers only have themselves to blame. If they kept it to 1 or 2 text advertisements per page, most people wouldn't even want to install an adblocker, but the content providers had to go full retard. Never go full retard.

Re:Sincerly, it's the advertisers fault

[LVSlushdat]

As I see it there are two major issues with website ads.. The annoyance factor, and more importantly, the VERY big risk of getting malware embedded with the ads, from a LOT of the sketchy ad-networks. At least if you're on Windows, I'd find the second issue to be FAR FAR more important than the first.. I have a small business doing Windows cleanup and migrating a lot of XP users over to Ubuntu. I've been looking at a program that appears to be a godsend in keeping the crap OFF of Windows, its called "Sandboxie", it allows you to run pretty much any Windows app (your browser?) in a sandbox. If perchance, you pick up malware from webbrowsing, you simply delete the sandbox. Your base Windows install remains clean since you never browse with a non-sandboxed browser. I'm considering looking this to my repertoire of tools to keep Windows clean....

Doesn't really mean anything

[dunkelfalke]

It is just a regional court decision and precedents aren't binding in Germany. The ruling is somewhat surprising, though, because the Hamburg regional court is known for a, let's say, quite a pro-big-business attitude when it comes to technology.

Fuck you Zeit, Fuck you Handelsblatt

[HnT]

Fuck you Zeit and Fuck you Handelsblatt for having the audacity of bringing this in front of a court in the first place.

Re:How does this set a precedent for more lawsuits

[wonkey_monkey]

Perhaps the wording was bad:

it could also set a precedent for future lawsuits against Adblock Plus

"For" could be read as "in favour of," but perhaps what was meant was "in relation to."

So what?

[AndyKron]

Doesn't matter I'd use it anyway. Fuck the government!

Re:How does this set a precedent for more lawsuits

[neminem]

Oh yeah, that's reasonable. I can see how the sentence could be open to that interpretation - I only saw the "in relation to" parse the first time, but I can see how both would be valid parses (but only one would actually be a true statement :p).

Not my problem

[sjbe]

Walking away from the TV is not the same as stripping out ads from the video content.

True but irrelevant. Either way the company hoping to get revenue from the ads doesn't get paid. They are effectively broadcasting and I can do whatever I want with their signal as long as I don't re-broadcast it. If I want to strip out their ads then that is my prerogative. I pay Comcast a handsome fee each month to have them send a TV signal into my house. What I do with it there is my business an no one else's. If I want to use a TiVo to skip all the ads then I will do so. Their bad business model is not my problem.

Sorry, but if you wish to access content on a commercial website, you must at least download their ads so they get paid.

I don't give a shit if they get paid or not. Not my problem. If I decide their content is worth paying for then I will pay for it. This rarely is the case but I have done it on occasion when I feel it is justified. If they decide ads are the best way to get paid that's their choice but they should have no illusion that I'm going play ball. I'm certainly not going to let a bunch of advertising companies track my every move and serve up advertising spam that I can assure you sight unseen that I have no interest in whatsoever.

The issue is what's fair. It's fair you make money for the content creators by intentionally/accidentally watching ads in exchange for viewing their content for free.

By that argument we should abolish libraries immediately because content creators don't make a dime from them. Sorry but I think it is perfectly fair. The content provider knows (or should know) the deal they are getting into. They don't get to force me to watch anything I'm not willing to watch and they certainly don't get the privilege of tracking my movements (or allowing others to do so) on the internet. If I think their content is worth paying for I will do so but *I* get to decide that, not them.

If you don't agree to that, you should simply not visit the website.

I don't agree to that and I'll visit whatever website I damn well please. They put it out there and the financial risk is theirs. By default I value my privacy more than their content.

Get a better business model

[sjbe]

Ad money is how many of the websites finance themselves, pay their bills.

Sounds like they should get a more clever business model then. Not my problem. Most of the websites on the internet could disappear tomorrow and my life would not be diminished one bit by their absence. I'm willing to pay for content I find valuable but I'm not willing to pay with my privacy by default with no consent from me.

Content in JS

[Anonymous Coward]

They already do that.

Numerous pages are not accessible anymore if you don't give them full control, i.e. no Adblock, no NoScript, no Ghostery, no Stylish.

Content is pushed into JS files to be loaded even from the adfarms, and that is where it gets completely wrong. The German news site "Spiegel Online" (SPON), for instance, is pushing such a model. You block certain external content and their multimedia stuff (like interactive graphics and the likes) stops working.

Which is not particularly bad, as SPON is one of the news sites that are highly biased.

PC Game Free Full Version

[Softwares Lovers]

http://softwaresloverspro.blog...

Plus, uMatrix, RequestPolicy

[CrashNBrn]

Unfortunately, I haven't seen the other fork, uMatrix for FireFox. While RequestPolicy (continued) is good, I don't think enough people are involved in its development which has slowed down quite significantly, since the few months after it's fork from Request Policy 0.5.x. The management of RP rules is a complete mess, and RequestPolicy doesn't give anywhere near the level of control nor information that uMatrix (or uBlock) do. uMatrix is potentially more efficient (less resources; faster) than uBlock.

As much as I hate FF for its Memory issues (refusing to release RAM when tabs and windows are closed). It certainly doesn't crash with any regularity, and FF Nightly (x64, Windows) is the browser I use 75%+ of the time.

Entitled content providers

[sjbe]

That's like saying it's your cable box and your TV and you have every right to control what's on the screen, including stripping ads automatically (without changing channels or muting)

I DO have that right and given the technology to do so I'll exercise that right at every opportunity. They are welcome to try to invade my life to sell me stuff but that doesn't mean I have any obligation to let them do that. Their flimsy business model isn't my concern. If I value it then I will pay for it and I sometimes do. Most times I value my privacy and attention more than I value their advertisements and thus I block them. If this results in TV or other services price adjusting to compensate then so be it.

But somehow it's not okay for the vendor providing you web content to charge you money (indirectly through ads)?

It's ok for them to try but they aren't entitled to any expectation that I should have to support their flimsy business model. I can assure you that I am not interested in their advertisements without having seen them. If they want to subsidize their content via ads that probably means their content isn't especially compelling or valuable.

Are website owners creating websites for charity?

I don't care what their motivations are. Not my concern. I value my privacy, bandwidth and attention. I don't give these away for free, directly or indirectly. I'm not about to provide charity to a website operator just because he threw something up and attached some ads to it.

Do you belong to the entitlement generation?

Apparently you think it is ok for content providers to be entitled but not content consumers. Curious double standard you have there.

And if the court had ruled otherwise?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if the self-appointed filth of this court had ruled in the opposite direction, all you Betas would be happy to bend over and take it up the rear?

I assume you Betas think Human slavery was FINE when the courts of the USA universally supported the practice in the first half of the 19th Century.

You Betas are sheeple BECAUSE you always wait to hear what your masters say. Get a clue, people. The scum above you are NOT better than you or any kind of moral authority. What is right is right- what is wrong is wrong. No matter how many powerful people companies pay off, their evil practises REMAIN evil.

This court has NOT ruled for your 'rights' This court has cynically balanced competing interests of the monsters that rule over you, and decided your pacification in this case takes precedence. To suggest this is a 'victory' couldn't be further from the truth.

West Europe no longer recognises the fundamental rights of the individual citizen. Since Tony Blair rose to power in the UK, the European Court of Human Rights has almost entirely ruled in favour of the state over the individual. It agreed with the government of turkey, for instance, that female students could be BANNED fro education if they wore any token of their faith, including head scarves. Extremists anti-Muslim laws in France were rubber-stamped by Blair's new version of the ECHR.

In the USA, American courts interpreted the Constitution to fully back the practise of Humans slavery, and then 'racial' segregation.

Most of you Betas here are so weak-willed, if your government ruled ad-block to be 'illegal', you'd stop using it. That willingness to be servile is ALL your masters need to justify their ruthless control of you. A 'Man' who lives on his knees is no Man at all, and will be treated like a dog by any self-respecting evil-Alpha.

A Man who says "I don't give a f*ck what you say- I will live by the rules of my GREATER morality" gains the respect of the evil-Alphas who seek to rule over the sheeple.

Re:How does this set a precedent for more lawsuits

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually everyone with more than 3 working brain cells understood the article pretty well.

Your parent is just an idiotic nitpicking moron.

No...

[publiclurker]

we do not have to tolerate hypocritical Christians that like to pretend that they are the victims while demonstrating how un-Christ-like they really are.

Re:No...

[tompaulco]

we do not have to tolerate hypocritical Christians that like to pretend that they are the victims while demonstrating how un-Christ-like they really are.

Exactly my point. We don't have to tolerate Christians, but we do have to tolerate Jihadists and terrorists.

The #1 reason I block ads is malware

[jonwil]

If ad providers did more to keep their networks 100% free of malware, I would have less reason to block their ads.

adblock maybe similar to movie modifier

[Anonymous Coward]

I once heard that there was some kind of parental software that would run against VHS or DVDs and remove all of the unwanted material that parents didn't want their chidlren to see. IIRC, this was ruled illegal because it fundamentally changed the artwork that the artist wanted to display to the viewer. Seems like blocking ads is similar in this regard.

Re:adblock maybe similar to movie modifier

[Anonymous Coward]

chidlren are also known as children. so there's that too.

I don't see anyone tolerating them either.

[publiclurker]

but that doesn't fit into your bigoted attempts at playing the victim, so I guess we shouldn't expect you to admit that.

Right way to do Ads?

[LessThanObvious]

I'm working on a social media project and I do want to allow the site owner to run ads for profit if desired, but I want to protect the users and make advertising as harmless as possible. Do I need to host the ads myself if I want to enforce any protection for my users privacy and security?

Firefox crashes: When many windows and tabs open.

[Futurepower(R)]

I made a mistake. I didn't say that Firefox crashes when there are many windows and tabs open, such as when you are doing extensive research.

Big Win For German Users

[pebear]

In the end it might mean we have to actually pay for content. I put up with adds so I can get free content. Best way to cut down on the adds, block the auto flash on your web browsers and it will speed up page movement and you can choose what you want to engage in. Takes away lots of the ads.

Good decision!

[MoarSauce123]

Otherwise going to the loo during commercial breaks could be deemed illegal as well!

AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

(Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack))

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Ask yourselves these questions... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apk

I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Result? W. Palant RAN after he wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google & Others Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

Wouldn't happen if you use hosts files... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

(Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack))

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Ask yourself these questions... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Can "Almost ALL AdsBlocked" do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apk

Hosts = better by far on many levels

[Anonymous Coward]

Can "Almost ALL AdsBlocked" do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apkcatid=26:64bit-security-software

Hosts will work, doing more, more efficiently

[Anonymous Coward]

Can "Almost ALL AdsBlocked" do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

... apk