Slashdot Mirror
Adblock Plus Victorious Again In Court
New submitter Xochil writes: AdBlock Plus has successfully defended itself in court for the second time in five weeks. The Munich Regional Court ruled against media companies ProSiebenSat1 and IP Deutschland. The companies sued Eyeo, the company behind Adblock Plus, asking the court to ban the distribution of the free ad-blocking software, saying it hurts their ad-based business model. An Eyeo release says in part: "We are elated at the decision reached today by the Munich court, which is another win for every internet user. It confirms each individual’s right to block annoying ads, protect their privacy and, by extension, determine his or her own internet experience. This time it also confirms the legitimacy of our Acceptable Ads initiative as a compromise in the often contentious and rarely progressive world of online advertising."
"Today is also a sad day for internet users, because AdBlock Plus jeopardizes the financing options for all free internet sites. We still feel it is inadmissible under copyright and antitrust laws, and it is an anti-competitive attack on media diversity and freedom of the press. Therefore, we will review the options for appeal and further legal action against Eyeo.”
I don't think they understand that they are free to publish whatever they want... but we are also free to ignore/cut up/block the stuff we don't want. I call that a win. If it means a bunch of publishers go out of business and the internet gets less commercial, I'm fine with that too.
1: Stop using them to track users, you want to show a text ad, fine Ill deal with it, but if you're going to track me across multiple sites then I block you.
2: Make them text based, or at least no flashing colors etc..
3: Stop using Flash, which is another attack vector
4: Stop selling our personal information to every single spammer that offers you money for our info
5: Make the site more than 75% content to 25% ads
6: Secure your servers so we aren't being attacked from letting your ads through
When you accomplish those simple things you may see a difference in the amount of people letting ads through, till then, go to hell.
It's hilarious any advertising agency thought this would work. Any here ever got any branded products for free? T-Shirts, screwdrivers, network cables, whatever, but with a company's logo stuck on them.
If you decided to scrape the logo off, should you go to jail? No? What is the difference between that and scraping the ads off their websites?
(Of course, you don't feel the need to remove the logo from that lovely knapsack XYZ corp gave you. If we compare it to the web, it would be a 30 lb ball and chain with blinking lights, sirens, with free herpes).
You post a sign on the side of the highway do not think others owe you anything to read it.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Those of you who block ads but still consume the services of sites that run them without paying into any subscription fee, why do you freeload?
Leaving aside the technical issues for blocking ads (EG taking up *my* bandwidth for things I have no interest in, nefarious tracking schemes and their ilk, etc), your argument seems to be predicated on an RIAA lost revenue model.
If I "freeload" now in order to view content a website, I severely doubt that I would buy a subscription to view content on that website if it became closed. Therefore if the website can't survive without monetizing all 100% of their viewers, why do you think it can survive with monetizing 100% of a smaller pool of viewers? IE I am not a "lost" sale - I was never a potential "sale" in the first place.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
7. No more video ads
8. Quite autoplaying
9. No audio ads overwhelming me when I am trying to read a text website
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Put your services behind the subscription fee, then.
Deliberately giving it to public access then whining when it's accessed is bullshit.
10. No more "32 top reasons to click through 32 pages of eights ads" - type BS; thank you so much in advance.
Requiem for the American Dream
What neither side pointed out in their statements was that there is a huge difference between companies creating ads and adblock. Primarily, that Adblock does not come to users by default. People have to find, download, and install Ad-block. It does not come pre-installed on anything I have ever seen.
Now compare that to the ad companies complaining who give you ads without your consent, and where you can not block them without an application like Adblock. You have to see their crap until you can figure out how to block it.
I have nearly the same amount of respect for these "advert" companies as I do for spammers. I think there is a spec on the bottom of my shoe someplace... er wait, what did I step in??
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
In theory, it should be the same verdict. In the US, the right we have is for free speech. You can say and publish anything you want (with reasonable restrictions regarding slander/libel, etc.). But the first amendment right to free speech is not the same as the right to be heard. Just because you can publish what you want doesn't mean you have any guarantee that anyone has to read it. You are not guaranteed an audience for what you say. The only right you have is that the government cannot shut you up without a damn good reason.
Will the courts continue to rule this way is the real question. After all, the courts do seem to be trending towards shills for corporate interests. Because of that, there is a chance they would ban ad block software if their benefactors wished it. It's hard to say for sure.
Adblock is used as a self defense mechanism. If we keep getting punched in the face then we're going to start wearing head protection, no matter how much someone whines that they make their living by punching me in the face.
If your livelihood depends upon annoying your customers, or even harming them, then you need a better job. If it's just a hobby then stop demanding that we pay for it.
Seriously, who is the freeloader, me for protecting my computer and my bandwidth, or the advertisers who use my bandwidth without permission and sites who offer up any ads without testing for malware first? Try living for a month on dialup only or pay per megabyte, then see how much you learn to hate advertisers.
- Treat your viewers and customers with respect
- Be responsible
- Stop tracking viewers
- Stop stealing their bandwidth.
- Provide the ads from your own server, not from a third party provider that you have no control over.
- Stop annoying users with ugly crap, stupid animations, pop ups, pop unders, blaring sound, etc.
- No videos!
- Provide relevant ads
- Stop sending out malware - if you do not vet your ads then you are at fault if malware gets through.
If you have an advertisement that you feel is appropriate, then submit it to adblock and see if it gets on their whitelist.
Well I ask you "6 Ways to Burn Your Belly Fat Fast", do you like visi"Work at home mom makes $8,795 month working part time"ting sites that be"CR7 Driven to Perfection Thanks to Herbalife"come unusa"Napoleon Games Play When Feeling Lucky"ble because of al"McDonals I'm + Lovin' + It"l the unrela"15 Downloads That Will Block Annoying Ads and Pop-Ups"ted advertentions? Do yo"The “Ordinary” Mom’s Discovery That’s Making Botox Doctors Furious!"u? Do you re"KFC It's Finger Lickin' Good!"ally like these 'free' ser"Can you hear me now?" vices?
Actually their acceptable ads (which you can turn off with a single checkbox and they even offer the option on first install) is exactly what I've been saying for years should be the only ads allowed due to security concerns,
1.- Static only (no Flash or Java, but they go one further and put no animations like GIFs), 2.- No "pop up/ under" ads blocking content (which is more likely to cause the user to click to try to move it, thus making it a good target for a malware link) but again they go farther with actual size requirements, 3.- Ads have to be clearly labeled as ads (so no fake security dialog boxes or images the user might click on concealing ad links) and yet again they go farther than I came up with by rules for borders and a bunch of rules for hyperlinks.
So as long as advertisers follow these rules? The odds of an ad based malware attack drops right off the chart. All your usual threats, third party flash, fake links, etc are removed from the equation. Most of us have no problem with the sites we use having a few adverts to stay afloat but what we DO very much have a problem with is putting users at risk for the profit of website owners. the ABP acceptable ads rules seems to address this concern and goes above and beyond so ATM I can really find no fault with the system.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.