I have never understood this argument. Well... I have not understood this argument since what? Sometime around 1999?
as long as the site is getting credit for pushing it, I don't see a problem with blocking them No one gets paid for "pushing" the ad. People get paid for clicks generated by the ad.
In my opinion the ad blocking software, in its current form, is causing more problems than it solves.
1. Your browser requests the ad and burns server side bandwidth/CPU/other resources to deliver the ad. 2. Your browser receives the ad and burns client side bandwidth/CPU/other resources to receive the ad. 3. Your ad delivery is counted as a "view", since it was "pushed" to you. 4. The number of views is now erroneously increased, since it was never viewed. 5. The overall click through rate is driven down, since the ad was never viewed. 6. Advertisers are forced to react to plummeting click through rates with more intrusive ads or inventive measures to get around your countermeasures.
I personally feel the whole ad blocking idea needs to get over the "but I gave them credit for the view" idea and just not request the things at all. If there is no intention to display the ad, fine. Then do that. Just do it right.
If the technology was not requesting the ads at all, advertisers would get more accurate numbers and may be inclined to pay more per click. The Internet as a whole would have more bandwidth. The webmaster would have more accurate numbers of how many of his viewers are actually accepting his forms of advertising/revenue and could better gauge the his own business model.
Ad blocking technology needs to stop being an active part of the problem instead of trying to be the total solution.
Those charges would result in the gambler getting hauled before a judge and made to prove that he thought that he was just "lucky" when the machine gave him a $10 credit for every $1 he put in.
So, you are basically saying that these people are guilty and have to prove they are innocent?
Seems to me if they have any first year law student, they would not say a word.
The plaintiff would need to prove the defendant knew the 10:1 ratio was not just because of a video game "10 plays for a dollar"
The plaintiff would need to prove the defendant knew that they did not win the money (assuming they played once or twice
The plaintiff would need to prove the defendant knew the video machine was not giving an award for the Xth player of the day -- 'I threw in 10 bucks, and it had $100... I thought I won a $90 bonus for being the 1,000th player of the day'
The plaintiff would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a whole slew of other 'plausible' arguments
It seems to me that any decent lawyer would use any number of possible alternative explanations to shred every plaintiff witness that is called. Without calling the defendant to testify at all...
Which is the true key to this case -- it is impossible for the plaintiff to completely remove plausible doubt from all possible alternative explanations the defense could argue without examining the defendant... and the plaintiff cannot compel the defendant to testify.
You are asking the wrong question given the stellar history on this matter.
The right question is 'does any mechanism really matter anymore?'
So, the FBI gets a warrant to go look for horrible person A suspected of crime A (say speeding across state lines). They throw their giant net into the water by sniffing the whole pipe then wait.
When they pull up the net, they come up with this:
Nothing related to person A. Unrelated evidence of person B breaking law B (say downloading copyrighted software) Unrelated evidence of person C breaking law C (say swapping credit card information)
Now, legally this evidence against B and C is not 'technically' usable, so we need to get around that bothersome problem and 'discover' evidence through a 'proper' investigation...
They fire up their favorite email program and fire off some emails:
Hey, person B, check out this cool new software download site Hey, Person C, check out this cool new site listing credit cards
Now, these people are not too bright and respond.
Fantastic, the 'clean' sting operation has worked perfectly.
Time to go get more warrants for B, C.. and be sure to never mention why we thought to suspect them... and also be sure to make sure we can tap more full pipes.
The names for B and C just showed up during a 'routine' sting operation.
How did we know to include them in our clean sting operation? How dare you question my authority... oh. I mean... that is a national security secret... we are at war... can't let the terrorist... oh good, your eyes glazed over...
Oh yeah... I almost forgot... We are after that godless terrorist speeder... throw that net back into the water.
Sure, they could be scammed, but not without leaving a paper trail.
If a cashier gives a blind person 2 5's instead of 2 20's, then later it is just the blind person's word against the company (since the blind person probably has no idea who the cashier was).
Now, if the same thing happens with a debit/credit card, there is an auditable trail left -- the blind person leaves with a receipt and their bank has a record of the transaction.
Not being able to read the receipt or the bill being padded with bogus charges are still problems that changing the money does not fix -- but those are not really problems wihtin the scope of this discussion.
Doesn't this test introduce the chicken/egg problem?
Granted, some process may be obvious to 99.99 percent of current grad students. But why is it obvious?
Is it obvious because someone invented a process, patented it, then Universities started teaching it?
Or were Universities teaching it before the idea was patented rendering the idea obvious? (Or already invented and 'donated' to public domain, but that is a different discussion.)
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion the ad blocking software, in its current form, is causing more problems than it solves.
1. Your browser requests the ad and burns server side bandwidth/CPU/other resources to deliver the ad.
2. Your browser receives the ad and burns client side bandwidth/CPU/other resources to receive the ad.
3. Your ad delivery is counted as a "view", since it was "pushed" to you.
4. The number of views is now erroneously increased, since it was never viewed.
5. The overall click through rate is driven down, since the ad was never viewed.
6. Advertisers are forced to react to plummeting click through rates with more intrusive ads or inventive measures to get around your countermeasures.
I personally feel the whole ad blocking idea needs to get over the "but I gave them credit for the view" idea and just not request the things at all. If there is no intention to display the ad, fine. Then do that. Just do it right.
If the technology was not requesting the ads at all, advertisers would get more accurate numbers and may be inclined to pay more per click. The Internet as a whole would have more bandwidth. The webmaster would have more accurate numbers of how many of his viewers are actually accepting his forms of advertising/revenue and could better gauge the his own business model.
Ad blocking technology needs to stop being an active part of the problem instead of trying to be the total solution.
So, you are basically saying that these people are guilty and have to prove they are innocent?
Seems to me if they have any first year law student, they would not say a word.
It seems to me that any decent lawyer would use any number of possible alternative explanations to shred every plaintiff witness that is called. Without calling the defendant to testify at all...
Which is the true key to this case -- it is impossible for the plaintiff to completely remove plausible doubt from all possible alternative explanations the defense could argue without examining the defendant... and the plaintiff cannot compel the defendant to testify.
It *should* be a non-starter.
You are asking the wrong question given the stellar history on this matter.
The right question is 'does any mechanism really matter anymore?'
So, the FBI gets a warrant to go look for horrible person A suspected of crime A (say speeding across state lines). They throw their giant net into the water by sniffing the whole pipe then wait.
When they pull up the net, they come up with this:
Nothing related to person A.
Unrelated evidence of person B breaking law B (say downloading copyrighted software)
Unrelated evidence of person C breaking law C (say swapping credit card information)
Now, legally this evidence against B and C is not 'technically' usable, so we need to get around that bothersome problem and 'discover' evidence through a 'proper' investigation...
They fire up their favorite email program and fire off some emails:
Hey, person B, check out this cool new software download site
Hey, Person C, check out this cool new site listing credit cards
Now, these people are not too bright and respond.
Fantastic, the 'clean' sting operation has worked perfectly.
Time to go get more warrants for B, C.. and be sure to never mention why we thought to suspect them... and also be sure to make sure we can tap more full pipes.
The names for B and C just showed up during a 'routine' sting operation.
How did we know to include them in our clean sting operation? How dare you question my authority... oh. I mean... that is a national security secret... we are at war... can't let the terrorist... oh good, your eyes glazed over...
Oh yeah... I almost forgot... We are after that godless terrorist speeder... throw that net back into the water.
Sure, they could be scammed, but not without leaving a paper trail.
If a cashier gives a blind person 2 5's instead of 2 20's, then later it is just the blind person's word against the company (since the blind person probably has no idea who the cashier was).
Now, if the same thing happens with a debit/credit card, there is an auditable trail left -- the blind person leaves with a receipt and their bank has a record of the transaction.
Not being able to read the receipt or the bill being padded with bogus charges are still problems that changing the money does not fix -- but those are not really problems wihtin the scope of this discussion.
With the recent media frenzy of crushing everything down to one word, I am sure your Mobile Phone will become Mone.
Gives new meaning to 'crash on the couch'.
Doesn't this test introduce the chicken/egg problem?
Granted, some process may be obvious to 99.99 percent of current grad students. But why is it obvious?
Is it obvious because someone invented a process, patented it, then Universities started teaching it?
Or were Universities teaching it before the idea was patented rendering the idea obvious? (Or already invented and 'donated' to public domain, but that is a different discussion.)
The first thing that ran through my mind was a contractor at my house once saying 'well, that is what happens when Joe Homeowner buys a hammer'.
Who wants to start a pool on who the first Joe Homeowner that buys this for his house, then paints his house?