page: 1 · 2 · 3  |
 
Oleg
Bellsouth Fastaccess
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL | Old news Old news. | |
|  | 
koam
Pink Pecker
Premium
join:2000-08-16
East Puddle
clubs: | Re: Old news i think maybe weekends are for old news to rise again... | |
| | 
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
2 edits | Old indeed.
When these sleeze stop shoving links all over the place, things that activate with a simple mouse hover, then I may consider their so called terms of service seriously.
But really, I block offensive ads at will, mostly from JunkBuster, a modified one from myself. No sleazy website is going to tell me what I can and what I can't do with my own computer.
Maybe that's the goal of web2? hahahahaha, what a pathetic joke.
Edit: What's really and even more pathetic, is that people call that their line of business. They're sleaze for a living. That's some sad s*
E2: What csn be worse... "blogger interns" muahahahaha! | |
| 
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | repost repost | |
| 
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
 ·WildBlue
| How are they gonna know? Considering the fact that the AdBlocking is done on your end and not theirs how are they gonna know who is AdBlocking anyway. You can't sue someone if you don't know who to sue.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows Vista Home Premium | |
| | 
jbgroup1
Dolemite
Premium
join:2000-05-04
Beltsville, MD | Re: How are they gonna know? You sue the makers of adblocking software. | |
| | |
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
| Re: How are they gonna know? Start with me then, please.
You're giving me fine reason, not only to release a JB update, but the blocker control files.
As long as this is transparent, they'll loose. I already work on Madison Ave, and it has nothing to do with sleazy ad companies.
I'll have fun with some slick haired little lawyer that they throw against me, I used to have fun memorizing things like Black's Law dictionary, maybe I can put it to some use. | |
| | | | | 
DCB
@pacbell.net
 from:
dadkins 
| Re: How are they gonna know? What he said x2!! | |
| | | theeinstein
Premium
join:2003-07-31
Fernandina Beach, FL
| said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky!    What he said 10X
This kind of garbage should piss everyone off. I swear these people arnt worth the gum on the bottom of my shoe!! | |
| | | | | | | 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
2 edits | Re: How are they gonna know? Not needed now.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | Magic501
join:2004-05-24
Lilburn, GA
| Very well said, and gets me to thinking. The whole argument stems from the premise " you are accessing the content, by viewing the ads". Such as MSN videos which make you view a commercial before it shows the video you want to see.
That said, why cant we just be informed what the requirements are and choose whether the content is worth it? Instead we are presented with surprises, which are not always good ones, subjected to stealth tactics, etc.....
The original poster mentioned Use of Bandwidth. I like this idea. Since the pipe owners are considering charging more for the content providers, why cant we the users charge to view, display, and get rid of unwanted solicitations?
The time, and effort alone spent trying to make the intrusive stuff "leave us alone" would probably make pay the ISP bill.
M | |
| | | Edward1978
join:2007-07-23
De Soto, IL | Right on, it is my connection. I can block ads if I want. | |
| | | dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL
| said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content.
We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. | |
| | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Re: How are they gonna know? said by dlewis23 :said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content. We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. then dont pick ads that make people want to block them. take google ads for example, simple and non intrusive but they still pay the bills im sure. and they dont piss people off like those ones with sound and video, im a gamer and sometimes have my sound up and if i minimize to look something up on dont want your website shouting at me i have won a free ipod.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | |
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
| Re: How are they gonna know? Actually, google is pretty intrusive, and that's on my blocker list...
For a company that likes to pretend it's so "careful" it kind of sucks.
urchin.com
googlesyndication.com
google-analytics.com
google.com/coop
google.com/safebrowsing
And this is just blockers, but go there directly and they try to get away with redirecting URLs and such, that's unacceptable bullshit to me. Sites like those to make useful, turn off java etc. | |
| | | | | dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL
| said by Kearnstd :then dont pick ads that make people want to block them. take google ads for example, simple and non intrusive but they still pay the bills im sure. and they dont piss people off like those ones with sound and video, im a gamer and sometimes have my sound up and if i minimize to look something up on dont want your website shouting at me i have won a free ipod. I agree with that, some of the ads are just annoying. But we often don't have the ability to choose what ads are displayed.
But we still have bills to pay, and i really do fell like you are stealing when you block ads on my site. So ive started banning people who do it. | |
| | | | | | KUppiano
Karl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA
| Re: How are they gonna know? said by dlewis23 :said by Kearnstd :then dont pick ads that make people want to block them. take google ads for example, simple and non intrusive but they still pay the bills im sure. and they dont piss people off like those ones with sound and video, im a gamer and sometimes have my sound up and if i minimize to look something up on dont want your website shouting at me i have won a free ipod. I agree with that, some of the ads are just annoying. But we often don't have the ability to choose what ads are displayed. But we still have bills to pay, and i really do fell like you are stealing when you block ads on my site. So ive started banning people who do it. Are you saying you are not responsible for your web site's content? If that's the case, then you need to get a handle on your content. Ad blockers exist because the ads are intrusive, offensive and downright viral in nature. Fix the ads, and the need for ad blockers will go away. | |
| | | | | | Timmn
join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| said by dlewis23 :But we still have bills to pay, and i really do fell like you are stealing when you block ads on my site. So ive started banning people who do it. I disagree sir, by shoving content I do not want into my face, you are stealing from me. You are stealing the bandwidth used to deliver it, the computer processing time used to display it and the time I wasted viewing it.
You may ban anyone you choose, it's your site, you may do as you wish with it. The problem is, that your banning method singles out anyone who is using Firefox, if they actually are running Adblock or not.
I am not a programmer, but I am fairly certain that someone out there could write a version of Adblock that would be effective on IE. Then, I guess, you would have to ban all of them also. | |
| | | | | | | 
SkyBlue
join:2007-03-31
| Re: How are they gonna know? said by Timmn :said by dlewis23 :But we still have bills to pay, and i really do fell like you are stealing when you block ads on my site. So ive started banning people who do it. I disagree sir, by shoving content I do not want into my face, you are stealing from me. You are stealing the bandwidth used to deliver it, the computer processing time used to display it and the time I wasted viewing it. You may ban anyone you choose, it's your site, you may do as you wish with it. The problem is, that your banning method singles out anyone who is using Firefox, if they actually are running Adblock or not. I am not a programmer, but I am fairly certain that someone out there could write a version of Adblock that would be effective on IE. Then, I guess, you would have to ban all of them also. LOL DITTO DITTO>... you took the words right out of my mouth I pay for the bandwith do I pay to receive calls from the mens church or from a bank trying to get you to sign up for there online service?
On my cell phone last I checked it costs me per minute.
I pay for that. Excuse us for not wanting to waste our money and the isp's money on banner ad bandwith..
I even noticed on my computer that sometimes it hangs while trying to load POS ad's and that Peeeeeeeeee Z me off.
As far as my space and websites like that trying to get money off you? That's why they came out with cookies you can trac people and steal information that i didn't authorize them. Rather it was part of the agreement that if I wanted to view there site I have to enable cookies.
The only Cookies I like are the ones that come out the oven hot with chocolate chips on them.
I gota reconfigure my router and browser to reject all this BCrap! | |
| | | | | | |
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
1 edit | We already have, it's called JunkBuster.
I can only lead a horse to water,
I can't make it drink. | |
| | | |
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
| They'll deliver whatever they deliver, it's the wild wild west out there, and be bloody sure I'm gonna protect myself.
Maybe remote controls and such should be made illegal too because people like to skip through the commercials?
Hanging up on a commercial caller, oopsie...
Chuck 'em all in a Guantanamo bay? The folks there have real issues to deal with, not some stupid advertising.
Do I really need crap from doubleclick? I think not, but not just think, I block 'em. End of line. | |
| | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | said by dlewis23 :said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content. We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. *IF* you cannot pay the bills with less intrusive ads and still deliver the content, well, I imagine you are destined to fail. Sorry!
Even if I did not block the ads YOU have, if they are so annoying that your site is an unwelcome ad farm, I will not go to your site!
Take your pick.
You slather BS ads everywhere, I either block them or go elsewhere.
Both scenarios, you lose! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | rapidrick
join:1999-10-28
Bear, DE
| said by dlewis23 :said by dadkins : Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content. We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. I'm not so sure about that, it depends on the viewpoint.... You(Companies) pay more than the users? Perhaps not if you figure in that the users outnumber the companies by what, 10 to 1, 50 to 1, 100 to 1, may 10,000 to one, or higher...
Websites will deliever good content, if they want our $$$ for whatever they are hawking! Otherwise, we take our money elswhere....Seems pretty simple to me..... | |
| | | 
Scree
In the pipe 5 by 5
join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ
·Comcast
| said by dadkins :It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. And furthermore, if a connection is denied, or no data is transferred, how can they prove it's not just a connection error or other anomaly?
Anyway this is a bullcrap issue. I suppose next will be suing tv makers for having the ability to change channels when commercials are on. lmao | |
| | |
DeeplyShrouded
@comcast.net
from:
dadkins
| said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Actually Dadkins, they can send anything they want, it's
what gets to your PC that they have no control over.
I totally agree though, people are bombarded with ads, spyware,
malware, viruses all day, every day.
Ever watch to see how many connections are attempted to
your PC in a 24 hour period? You have to put up with all
that and ads screaming "buy me" "click here" and anything
else to get your attention. Don't like the fact I use an
ad blocker and want me to stop using it?
Pay for the upkeep of my PC, my internet connection, and
my time. When that's done, THEN you can make me watch ads.
Since this is as likely as a human surviving on the surface
of the sun, I do believe the choice of what comes into my
PC is still mine, and mine alone, thankyouverymuch.
--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet | |
| | | 
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. That is the worst way to block ads (firewall). The best way is when your browser doesn't even know ad content has been removed. It doesn't ask for what it never sees. Of course the web master can still determine that an ad blocker was used by use of a script to notify when the ad content has been fully loaded in the browser. If the script routine never returns after a certain timeout or an error occurs, you're busted. There are other methods which are more effective. In short, you cannot hide the fact you are blocking ads from someone determined to find out.
--
God is the problem. | |
| | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: How are they gonna know? Usually, it's easier to just put the ad server's address in the browser's Blacklist.
No mo adsky! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | |
SkyBlue
join:2007-03-31
| said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! I like your idea.
As a matter of fact I used to have a comprehensive list of ad servers and I blocked it at the router for years until these new flash programs have extentions and it seems hard to block for me.
If you have any suggestions let me know.
Or if you have a list of sites to avoid please post them. Maybe we can share information.
I used to love to get an ad screen that said : This site blocked by administrator. haha.
The way I see it is what if you don't want your kids looking at Viagara ads or PMS Douche ads you know (not so fresh feeling)?
You should have the right to block it.
I need a V chip for my router or computer.
| |
| | 
jjsk8r85
join:2005-02-17
Belleville, MI | they can see in their logs what IPs are and aren't being served the advertisements. your browser actually requests them when you go to pages with ads, and if it's not requesting them (ad blockers) they can see it. | |
| | | 
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | Re: How are they gonna know? So all it has to do is request the ad, but not show it.
They'll like that MUCH better. | |
| | 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| MySpace does prohibit ad-blocking when viewing profiles just blocking the ads with html or css coding on your personal myspace site. Viewers can block but designers of their pages are not supposed to do so.
However, a lot of MySpace ads are definitely spyware or false advertising (free becomes text to cell number and get a charge). Of course, advertising all kinds of products on personal MySpace is a violation of TOS but don't see MySpace enforcing it unless it is sex-related.
I personally don't see how legally ad-blocking could be construed by the courts as being illegal. Stealing content is illegal but not blocking anoying ads. Internet explorer already blocks pop-up or pop-under ads. Is that illegal? No.
Maybe advertisers should stop using flash, which is known to have malware or spyware. I don't block text ads just flash ads. To me, Google is smart just putting non-anoying text ads along search results since some are useful. The flash ads, especially with music or somebody talking or other noises, are just anoying. Unless it is a major site, I block WMV too. Viruses come with those too.
Advertisers are going to have a tough time proving illegal vs. legitimate blocking of spyware/malware. Ad-blockers should just ad that language to their products (it blocks ads that are probably spyware or malware) and advertisers have no argument. Consumers shouldn't have to "open" their computer to viruses, spyware, and malware just because some advertiser's stupid ad isn't getting viewed because they are using the most common forms of causing such infections.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
| | | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Individual vs Business I agree, use of ad-blocking software is not contrary to any existing principles of law. Some new theory could be introduced by statute or court decision, but it would be wrong in terms of traditional copyright law.
By putting up a website you offer copies of your content to the public. A "terms of service" notice purporting to impose a contract has no effect unless you require visitors to indicate agreement as a condition of letting them see the pages.
Then once they've retrieved the pages, they're entitled to do whatever they want with them, as long as they don't republish without permission. To understand this, consider buying a magazine, or receiving one for free: the publisher still has a copyright on the intangible content, but the particular copy of the content is now your property, and you're within your rights to cut out pictures if you want to, or throw away those subscription cards.
Also, note that a web page is only a text file with (a) text for humans to read (b) html formatting and (c) scripts and links that instruct the browser to retrieve other files or take other actions. It would be absurd to pretend that by downloading this hunk of text you somehow take on an obligation to make your browser follow the instructions in it and retrieve other files. If you tell your browser not to retrieve certain things you haven't altered the html in any way by doing so. | |
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Individual vs Business its no different than a firewall with blocked adresses
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| 
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
| hm So what if they DO ban the software for users to download..You will still have people with older versions using the software.
Most adblock programs are made by users themselfs..it would be like going after p2p users one would pop up after the next. | |
| |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: hm said by ztmike :So what if they DO ban the software for users to download..You will still have people with older versions using the software. Most adblock programs are made by users themselfs..it would be like going after p2p users one would pop up after the next. Don't trip!
Most browsers themselves have Blacklists(mine do)...
Just right click the ad, get the server's address, and paste it into the Blacklist.
Also...
Got Hosts File?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: hm said by dadkins :Most browsers themselves have Blacklists(mine do)... Just right click the ad, get the server's address, and paste it into the Blacklist. Also... Got Hosts File? Of course if web sites are really worried about loss of ad$ and if the ad industry can't sue the ad-blocking software companies, they always can embed the ads in their own websites and don't serve them from outside ad serving companies. If the ads are totally integrated and served from the web sites own servers, blocking the ads gets to be very difficult, although not impossible.
TV shows are to a small degree starting to do this. Instead of separate commercials, some are starting to put crawls across the actual show content. And they can use product placement within the actual story. Like some shows always use Ford cars instead of GM or Toyota.
Ultimately the advertisers will find a way. It just takes their current ways to stop working to get them to change.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: hm Yes!
But then if it gets too annoying, they will lose viewers/patrons altogether.
Viewer count drops, ad pricing drops, show fails.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| 
Mercurybird
Premium
join:2004-06-24
Hooks, TX
·Allegiance Communi..
·CableOne
| Who cares?! Have you ever turned the TV when a commercial comes on?
You blocked the ad from displaying on your set. Prepare to be sued. No?
Then how is blocking it on your monitor illegal?
All we have to do here to justify ad blocking's legality is establish a precedent for blocking anything that you do not want to see, that someone else has a right to show you. That should be easy enough for a thoughtful person.
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free. | |
| | 
seaquake
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-23
Millersville, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Who cares?! said by Mercurybird :Have you ever turned the TV when a commercial comes on? You blocked the ad from displaying on your set. Prepare to be sued. No? I was thinking the same thing. I guess they'll go after remote controls next.
I use adblock plus and a custom hosts file from Mike's Adblocking host site (»everythingisnt.com/hosts.html). Even without the ad blocking software, the host file does wonders, redirecting common ad server addresses to 127.0.0.1. | |
| | | | | 
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| Re: Who cares?! said by dadkins :I still have and use a VCR(yeah a VCR!). Guess what it has on the remote... Blocking an ad on a site? DUH! I recommend you go ahead and destroy all equipment, then turn yourself in to the local authorities, Dave.
It'll go much easier on you that way . . . .
| |
| 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | WTF Only in America!  | |
| |
LormanCarey
@rr.com
| Re: WTF said by kapil :Only in America! Your bias is demonstrated clearly here. Legislation of this nature already exists in the E.U. This is also not even up for a vote in Congress, it's a discussion by an individual that has nothing better to do than... discuss things regarding legal issues on the internets. | |
| | | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| Re: WTF said by LormanCarey :said by kapil :Only in America! Your bias is demonstrated clearly here. Legislation of this nature already exists in the E.U. This is also not even up for a vote in Congress, it's a discussion by an individual that has nothing better to do than... discuss things regarding legal issues on the internets. Utter BS> Never existed such legislation in the EU and never will.
I'm in America and I fully agree with him: only in America - land of the slaves, home of the corporate power.
--
| |
| | |
SkyBlue
join:2007-03-31
| said by LormanCarey :said by kapil :Only in America! Your bias is demonstrated clearly here. Legislation of this nature already exists in the E.U. This is also not even up for a vote in Congress, it's a discussion by an individual that has nothing better to do than... discuss things regarding legal issues on the internets. kapil is right
Only in American do you have the right LormanCarey to make a fool of yourself and have his head up his rear and no one really cares.
Good thing for free speech..
As far as what you said. Hmm, bla bla.. no wait bla bla bla..
I think your BIAS!!!! | |
| old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA | it used to be less of an issue It used to be that ads were not so obnoxious; but now when they are enormous, flash horrible colors, and play awful music then it's time to block the. I only started blocking ads when they got out of hand. | |
| | 
NJxxxJon
something good. or your mom.
Premium
join:2005-10-22
00000 | [ the annoying sound ] "HI! YOU HAVE JUST BEEN SELECTED TO WIN 3 FREE IPODS!" [that damn voice shockwave crap when my speakers are turned up]
--
\\"I don't have a girlfriend, I just know a girl that would get mad if I said that." \\Mitch Hedberg | |
| | old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA | Re: [ the annoying sound ] the first time I heard this crap I nearly had a heart attack!
And they wonder why we don't like ads! | |
| | | 
Hazeleyze
join:2003-05-09
Wauseon, OH | Re: I Won't Watch! It is really sad that today you're either considered a pirate, terrorist, thief, or business man. | |
| | | 
Thrudd
join:2004-06-21
Mississauga, ON
| Re: I Won't Watch! said by Hazeleyze :It is really sad that today you're either considered a pirate, terrorist, thief, or business man. just a sec.... is it not rather redundant.
To be a good businessman in the states, one has to be a thief, pirate and commercial terrorist to be considered successful and worthy of praise (and a multi-billionaire).... aka .... BG .... nuff said | |
| 
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| Obvious solution: The obvious solution is stated in the article: Stop making such obnoxious ads. No more flash ads, no more pop-ups/pop unders/pop-whatevers. As far as I know, it would be impossible for a program to block a simple image, hosted by the site itself placed within an article or webpage just like any other picture in the site would be. For example, you could replace your site logo with the normal logo, but "sponsored by: so and so". The only way someone could block that is by disabling images totally, since it would be hosted with all the other images on your site.
Just like spam, ads on sites are ignored and vilified for a reason: A few greedy individuals abused and abused the technology until we couldnt take it anymore. | |
| 
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | Maybe the issue will be forced by a new market Would you pay a penny or two for every site you look at? Somethings gotta pay the bandwidth bills. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
dougau
Premium
join:2007-08-09
Dickson, TN
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit |  I don't subscribe to CNET, I subscribe to a ISP
This is not the public air waves or a broadcast over a privetly owned network, this the internet parts of which are owned by many individual companies and which most subscribers pay a ISP, not a web site to have access to.
So if say a privetly owned web site like CNET doesn't want you accessing their site without viewing adds they should make it subscriber based. | |
| | 
richdelb
Go Hawks Go
Premium
join:2003-01-22
Algonquin, IL
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: I don't subscribe to CNET, I subscribe to a ISP said by dougau :Individual web sites don't own the networks over which their sights are sent over so it seems a little messed up that they should be able force you to watch a add anyway. This is not the public air waves or a broadcast over a privetly owned network, this the internet parts of which are owned by many individual companies and which most subscribers pay a ISP, not a web site to have access to. So if say a privetly owned web site like CNET doesn't want you accessing their site without viewing adds they should make it subscriber based. Yea, I agree. If a site wants you to view their ad's make it a subscription site. | |
| VerizonCynic
join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | 1984... This is like a George Orwell or Kafka book. If you are caught blocking any kind of ad on the radio, on tv on the net etc, the "federal ad police" will find out (as everything will be monitored by then). By this time all of society will be free and just supported by ads. When you are caught ignoring or skipping or blocking ads, depending on how many ads skipped or (God Forbid) you are a "programmer" allowing others to use your software to do it, you are sentenced to "ad retraining camps" where you are forced to endure endless ads in all mediums without sleep. You will only get to see brief glimpses of actual content to tease you. This will all take place at Guantanmo Bay prison as by the year 2078 the detainees will have all died and they will need a new use for the facility (as it is taxpayer supported) Also George Bushes grandson will have become president by then and will allege that skipping ads is akin to eco-terrorism.
--
Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ “LAAG” | »www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™
| |
| 
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
·ViaTalk
·T-Mobile US
 ·Bandwidth.com
| This issue.. Isn't really that straightforward, and cuts both ways.
Nope, you don't have to allow any ads or anything you don't want on your computer - and you shouldn't.
Likewise, no website "has" to serve you, and is perfectly within its right (albeit may not be the best business sense) to block you if it can somehow detect an ad blocker (not impossible, but tricky.)
We need to be careful here. If all ads end up being blocked, I think you'll see a lot of sites go pay-for-access only (or do an access scheme like salon.com)
Yes, the illegitimate ads are bullshit and should be blocked... Wonder if there's some way to have "signed" ads that could be reported and traced back if abusive, then leading to revocation of their ad certificate?
There's going to have to be some kind of compromise here. Suing users for using ad blockers is ridiculous, but so are the folks being a bit immature saying "NO ADS ANYWHERE EVER, NYAH NYAH!" Fine, just expect to be asked to pay to access sites then. | |
| | 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Re: This issue.. I have no problem with that scenario.
We'll be back to 1995 or 1996 type internet, where there was limited websites we went to on the net.
And tbh I don't give a rat's behind. I have sent my donations to the websites I use and that don't use ads (wikipedia, and a few others). If everyone does the same, the internet should be a better place to be... If CNN or google wants to charge to use their website, fine by me. I'll use neither of the two.
--
"Money and sex, storage and bandwidth: only too much is ever enough"
Arno Penzias - Former Head of Bell Labs, and Nobel prizewinner | |
| 
crischen
join:2000-11-07
Anderson, IN
| Commercial Skip, Eh You do realize that broadcasters want to require Televisions to obey a "broadcast flag" and REFUSE to change channels, disallow the MUTE key to work, and ignore the 30-sec skip button during commercials.
I suspect they will also want to disallow you from turning the thing off, and if you do, require battery backups in all TVs to prevent it.
--
-Kinsey
Geeky chix0r | |
| |
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: Commercial Skip, Eh Next stop, commercial skipping will be forbidden, spam blocking or filtering will be made illegal.
Oh wait, are we there yet?
;D | |
| | |
Thrudd
join:2004-06-21
Mississauga, ON
| Re: Commercial Skip, Eh said by LilYoda :Next stop, commercial skipping will be forbidden, spam blocking or filtering will be made illegal. ;D No need for batteries if they run off of broadcast power.
Then all you would have to worry about is your head exploding from exposure to blip-verts .... | |
| zentec
join:2002-01-05
Monroe, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
| Raises More Legal Issues Legal action against ad blocking software manufacturers will not solve anything because someone will create packages and release them into the wild for free. You can certainly try to shut down the distribution of such software, but it's a futile attempt.
What will be a more logical approach is to simply block people who block ads. But the only way to do that is to see who isn't downloading the ads and block them and that isn't going to stop people from downloading the ads, but not rendering them. How are you going to stop things like custom CSS files that download the ads, but snuff them out during rendering?
This is a legal battle that I don't think advertisers have thought out very carefully. It's going to open up, in a court of law, the legality of using cookies for tracking by ad servers who are a third party of the visitor and web site operator. It also will undoubtedly question the legality of the third (and fourth, fifth and sixth on some sites) party running Javascript on my computer without my consent.
Once again, advertisers have abused the very fragile quid pro quo of viewer and advertiser. It is always a trade between the time of the viewer and content. The advertiser has slowly been tipping that trade more and more in their favor; more commercials per hour, more obtrusive advertising and online, obnoxious and annoying ads complete with privacy intrusions and tracking. I invite them to take this to court, I think it'll be an interesting day when these people get a lot less than they bargained for. | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16 | Re: Raises More Legal Issues Great post! | |
| 
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
·Mountain Cable
| no dice. Sorry, its my computer and connection and no legislation or laws can force ads on me. Outcome of this = doesn't matter. Ads will ALWAYS be able to blocked no matter what they "legislate"
--
AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |
Ipods SUCK | |
| 
ARGONAUT
got ping?
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | 0+0=1 Take my ad blocker "from my cold, dead web browser" | |
| | | |
|
|
Are Ad Blockers Illegal?
·
I Won't Watch!