 japimp102
join:2003-03-20 | WOW All I can say is WOW these ISP's will do anything for extra money. | |
|
 |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: WOW said by japimp102 :All I can say is WOW these ISP's will do anything for extra money. Rogers was sending bandwidth account usage messages to their subscribers. They aren't making any MONEY doing that. | |
|
 |  |   adisor19
join:2004-10-11
·Radioactif
·Videotron
·Look Communications
| Re: WOW said by TK Junk Mail :said by japimp102 :All I can say is WOW these ISP's will do anything for extra money. Rogers was sending bandwidth account usage messages to their subscribers. They aren't making any MONEY doing that. They aren't doing any money YET. Give it a few months and you'll see ads in no time.
Adi | |
|
 |  |  |   swhx7 Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: WOW How do you know they aren't making money at this?
The example we have an image of is pretty egregious, but using the same technology the ISP could be inserting its own ads alongside the legitimate ads that the website owners have been paid for. Can you tell which ads are inserted at which point as the page travels to you?
What is far worse, this same tech also enables alteration of news stories, search results, and other content, and it would be hard to tell whether we're getting what the publisher intended, or edited or rewritten text instead.
This has to be outlawed before it goes any further. I'm going to write to Congresspeople here in USA. Anyone else who cares about freedom of communication, please do the same. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   Devanchya Smile Premium join:2003-12-09 Pickering, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: WOW I actually see something done similar to AdBlock etc...
But instead of replacing Ads with 'nothing' you replace them with your own Ads.
Now Rogers Cable (Part of Rogers) does this already through perfectly legal means for TV ads. They will replace a chunk of Ads on a US Station with Canadian based Ads or Public Service time.
Soon, they will be putting in "Ads" between clicks perhaps... just a Commercial Break. You know, the Internet is replacing TV... | |
|
 |  |  battleop
join:2005-09-28 00000 | You don't think the Rogers/Yahoo logo on top of a competing website (Google) isn't advertising? How about a good old fashion splash page? | |
|
 |  |  |   Transmaster Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY | Re: WOW If you run firefox you don't have to put up with this crap. -- Eat pork chops for Allah! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  Shark_615
join:2006-01-17 Pickering, ON | Re: WOW Any proof for that? | |
|
 |  jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10 Youngstown, OH
·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| I would say that this probably won't last long. Not only are they forcing content to their customers, they are also injecting it into any site. This probably violates many site's TOS. If not, then it probably will soon since some sites have strict guidelines on editing the site and of what content goes on their site. Having ads that violate their company policy injected into their sites by ISP most likely will not fly. --
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
 |  |   swhx7 Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
edit: December 11th, @02:43PM
| Re: WOW It's not an infringement of the site owner's copyright. What the ISP is monkeying with is the customer's copy, which the customer is entitled to do as he wishes with, and the ISP's "Terms of Service" probably say that the customer gives permission for the ISP to do this.
It's offensive and ought to be prohibited, but not for the copyright reason.
------------ Edit: This is the same principle that allows each of us to run software that filter ads out of pages, or save a local copy and change the font or whatever. The site owner is not entitled to have everyone see it the way he/she intends; the site owner has a right to control what's in the published version, and then the viewer gets a copy and is entitled to do as he wishes with it, other than republishing. The ISP can claim to be acting as the agent of its subscriber in this situation.
There is an indirect wrong against the site owner, but the real evil is that the ISP can require the customer to allow the page alteration as a condition of service. This is what needs to be prohibited by law. | |
|
 |  |  |   SDottie
@rcn.com
| Re: WOW IANAL, but copyright violation is always spoken with respect to distribution. Thus, end users can modify copyrighted works without legal repercussions because they are end users. However, anyone who is retransmitting the copyrighted webpage would be violating copyright if they modify it. And if they're using it to make a money, it's a criminal violation.
Injecting advertisements is definitely illegal for this reason. Injecting status messages is a gray area. Any revenue made from the injection of status messages is likely to be indirect. Hence, while Google can sue for copyright violation, it would be in a civil court, and only for lost revenue, possibly for defamation, defacement, what have you.
Also, there are agreements between providers that prohibit discrimination of data. So if data goes through a certain provider from Google to your ISP before getting to your computer, there's likely a violation of that agreement.
It's not a net neutrality issue per se, but there are still legal issues to consider. | |
|
  rob in mi
@comcast.net | Another reason Another reason to block javascript. | |
|
 |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Another reason said by rob in mi :
Another reason to block javascript. Or use something like the FF NoScript addon where you can decide what javascripts you will or won't allow to run. »noscript.net/ -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page
| |
|
 |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Another reason Better yet how about ISPs not illegally modify copyrighted works. | |
|
 |  |  |  hottboiinnc ME
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH | Re: Another reason they didnt modify copyrighted works the insert wasnt in an edited page but a frame type page they added on their own network. they're not doing anything illegal
Its actually nice of them to tell you that you're abot to reach your limit. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
edit: December 11th, @03:36PM
| Re: Another reason That isn't what happens.
Rogers using Preftech's methods has to modify Google's HTML to insert the instruction to execute the script. The browser receives the modified HTML with the added SCRIPT line which executes Roger's Preftech doc write-ins filled script which then adds all the crap you see added to Google's page.
Without the original modification of Google's copyrighted HTML to insert the execution line, the execution of Preftech's javascript can't occur.
This is nothing new, this Preftech has been around for years. But in an age where ISPs with break whatever they want or mooch after whoever they want, I see ads coming next. And Preftech advertises their stuff as such.
There is also nothing stopping Rogers from just inserting HTML banner ads instead of java execution commands, making those banners impossible or virtually impossible to circumvent..since you can't tell who added it if it was added at all.
This is just bad all around. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Another reason said by adisor19 :said by rob in mi :
Another reason to block javascript. LOL, this isn't Javascript ! This is the HTML file being modified on the fly before it gets to your computer. No JavaScript involved. Adi Maybe you missed this in the BBR news story above: »lauren.vortex.com/isns-code.txt The javascript that was used. -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page
| |
|
 |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: Another reason They have to modify the HTML to insert the Javascript. It's javascript that obtains and displays the usage data, but the HTML is what contains the instructions on executing the javascript and where it goes on the page.
The ISP is taking it upon itself to inspect, intercept and then modify the HTML page to include their javascript. The modified page then runs the javascript and you get the giant banner. Google's HTML is copyrighted so I don't see how this can be legal. | |
|
  Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Give them an inch, they take a mile. I want to say that the idea of displaying a warning to the user that they are reaching their quota for the month is a great idea, but I fear that if we accept it, then they'll do as the article says and start injecting ads.
I also want to say that I doubt ISPs in the U.S. would even think about doing this, but I know for sure if they do, there will be a massive uproar and more legislative to attempt to control our Internet. -- www.rr.cx - My Blog YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more!
| |
|
 |   jgkolt Premium join:2004-02-21 Lakewood, OH clubs: | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. why dont you just block is with ad block plus or the like? -- 3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me | |
|
 |  |   Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by jgkolt :why dont you just block is with ad block plus or the like? Why should we have to block something that our ISP shouldn't be doing in the first place?
Why can't ISPs just connect us to the Internet and leave us alone. | |
|
 |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. Because ISPs are in the business of making money, not strictly providing you access to the Internet. If consumers are dissatisfied with what they're receiving for their money, then they need to take action. Block the offending material (if it starts happening) or save their money for something else. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by openbox9 :Because ISPs are in the business of making money, not strictly providing you access to the Internet. If consumers are dissatisfied with what they're receiving for their money, then they need to take action. Block the offending material (if it starts happening) or save their money for something else. Yes, ISPs are in the business of making money. But I'm already paying them for my connection. It's not like I'm getting anything for free.
We cannot accept this and just say "block the offending material". That is NOT the answer. We need to stop this at the source, the ISP. We've given them so much freedom and they are abusing it. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. Yes, you are paying for the connection that is provided to you under the terms that it is provided. Why can't you just say "block the offending material"? I do it right now and it works wonderfully. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by openbox9 :Yes, you are paying for the connection that is provided to you under the terms that it is provided. Why can't you just say "block the offending material"? I do it right now and it works wonderfully. Because I will not accept this from any ISP - PERIOD. It's not about blocking the material, it's about that they shouldn't be allowed to do this in the first place. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. Back to my original comment. Save your money, or take it elsewhere. That type of action will be what gets ISPs' attentions the quickest. Whining in a forum or hoping for some inept "net neutrality" law to be passed, won't drive ISPs to change their actions. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by openbox9 :Back to my original comment. Save your money, or take it elsewhere. That type of action will be what gets ISPs' attentions the quickest. Whining in a forum or hoping for some inept "net neutrality" law to be passed, won't drive ISPs to change their actions. Oh for sure. The minute my ISP (Comcast) imposes this, I will be switching.
But I gotta say Comcast, while it has its "stories", it's pretty good with not getting in my business. But if they happen to impose this, and there is no ability to turn it off on their site for individual customers ("Opt-out feature"), then I switch. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  patcat88
join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by Rob :Oh for sure. The minute my ISP (Comcast) imposes this, I will be switching. To what, what are you going to do if AT&T/Verizon/Embarq are doing this? FCC killed line sharing. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by patcat88 :said by Rob :Oh for sure. The minute my ISP (Comcast) imposes this, I will be switching. To what, what are you going to do if AT&T/Verizon/Embarq are doing this? FCC killed line sharing. Even if I did switch, I could only switch to AT&T since they ripped out the copper in my area and replaced it with Fiber.
When the time comes, then I will decide. But I doubt Comcast would do it. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. Unfortunately where one ISP goes, many follow. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA | They should be legislated into not pissing with other peoples' works. What is next, telcos going to have every call you make start only after a 10 second ad spot? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. They aren't "pissing" with other peoples' works. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. Huh? They INJECT the code into GOOGLES CODE! On planet earth that is certainly pissing with someone else's work.
Of course the ISPs think they own the Internet and the cable shills will excuse ANYTHING they do. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  expert007
join:2006-01-10 Buffalo, NY
| When we as a company design a website, what happens under that domain is copyrighted, we go to great lengths to ensure that when someone accesses our domain, they see exactly what we want them to see.
How'd you like to be on the phone with a friend talking about good restaurants while someone from the telco listens in and randomly starts suggesting restaurants that advertise with them? Its no different. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. It would be different if Rogers ran, with customer consent, an outside popup program that regularly popped up messages obtained on it's own (eg a popup that runs in the sys tray).
It is a dangerous prescendent when an ISP goes so far as to deep inspecting, intercepting, then CHANGING the actual copyrighted HTML of a content creator for their own purposes. It would be like Borders Books, inserting full page ads (attaching them to the binding just like all the other pages) into the middle of books they sell.
There would be little (aside from copyright law) stopping an ISP from taking the top 1000 websites and injecting HTML banners, not javacript which is easily blocked) into the top 1/2 of all those pages. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  patcat88
join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY
| said by DotMac :They should be legislated into not pissing with other peoples' works. What is next, telcos going to have every call you make start only after a 10 second ad spot? Good idea, quick, someone get a business patent. | |
|
 |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
| Because that is how the websites pay for themselves. If everyone ran ad blockers no one would buy ads space.
The customers already pay handsomely for their connections and ISPs should not be permitted to interfere with traffic or worse, change someone else's copyrighted work.
This is site vandalism in transit. | |
|
 |  |  |  See 8 replies to this post |
|
 |  netPoser
join:2003-02-06 Spring Hope, NC
| Isn't that illegal anyway? If you or I "hijacked" a site and displayed a message it would be called "hacking" right?
So if they can do this how do we know that's really google?
And how do you know what you are seeing on a legit website is "real"? | |
|
 |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. I can't imagine that changing someone's copyrighted work is legal.
The content providers pay a fortune to attract viewers now to just have the ISPs leech and vandalize their pages...in the prime top of page locations at that. | |
|
 |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL | It's absolutely no different than going through a web proxy server. | |
|
 |  |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. All a proxy server does is forward requests to other servers. It is not foregone that a proxy server molest HTML the way Rogers is. | |
|
 |  |  |   digitalfreak Frodo failed. Bush has the ring
join:2005-12-09 49533 | Go away, shill. | |
|
 |  rradina
join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| There are better ways to do this. When you connect to WiFi hot spots, they redirect your request to a login page. After you login, you proceed to your original destination.
The bandwidth limit warning could be handled in exactly the same manner without any net neutrality objections. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. Then they wouldn't get to test their new ad revenue mechanism. | |
|
 |   RARPSL
join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY
| said by Rob :I want to say that the idea of displaying a warning to the user that they are reaching their quota for the month is a great idea ... Why not just provide the information via a periodic email to the user? | |
|
 |  |   Rob In Deo speramus Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by RARPSL :said by Rob :I want to say that the idea of displaying a warning to the user that they are reaching their quota for the month is a great idea ... Why not just provide the information via a periodic email to the user? That would work, except you would have the folks say "I never got the email" like they do in the Comcast forum "I never got a call". | |
|
 |  |  |   RARPSL
join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY
| Re: Give them an inch, they take a mile. said by Rob :said by RARPSL :said by Rob :I want to say that the idea of displaying a warning to the user that they are reaching their quota for the month is a great idea ... Why not just provide the information via a periodic email to the user? That would work, except you would have the folks say "I never got the email" like they do in the Comcast forum "I never got a call". There is a SMTP Server log to show that the message was retrieved (although there is no way to insure that the message will actually be viewed or to acknowledge its viewing [DNT can be turned off or bypassed]). On second thought, the suggestion of the WiFi Hotspot intercept might be a better way. The first time you connect to the Web each day, present it (or maybe on some other timed basis so long as it is NOT every new first connect). | |
|
  DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA
| This is only the beginning It is the next logical step to inject advertising and the greedy suck ass providers will do it. We have already seen them charge QoS fees and break DNS. They are already trying to charge twice for content delivery. Cox is running ads claiming that net neutrality is a scheme of Silicon Valley fat cats.
We see more and more that net neutrality would do quite the opposite and stop the stupid get rich quick schemes of the telcos and cable companies he'll bent on providing only their own version of the Internet.
And like the cable shills tell us that price increases are good for consumers and that ISPs should be charging twice to deliver the same content, they'll come up with some lame logic justifying the modification of another company's copyrighted work.
Net neutrality NOW. -- Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network! | |
|
 |  backness
join:2005-07-08 K2P OW2 | Re: This is only the beginning if you look at the picture, you can see it says "Robbers YAHOO" already
Didn't take long to put in some advertisements  | |
|
  JasonD
@comcast.net | Not suprising, ISP's are being pushed.... hard to deliver more and charge the same or less. If you want cheap internet, this is one path that might be necessary. Contrary to popular belief, it takes money to run an ISP.
Don't like it? Use AdBlock and NoScript. | |
|
 |   DotMac Shill H8r Premium join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA edit: December 11th, @10:09AM
| Re: Not suprising, ISP's are being pushed.... And when they just inject HTML ads instead of HTML that runs their javascript...how do we block that? | |
|
 megahuts
join:2007-08-08 | Questionable Legality If you are adding ads to a website, wouldn't this be a 'derivative' work? (And for profit!) And since the copyright holder must approve/ be compensated for derivative works, wouldn't this be illegal under copyright law? | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 |