Slashdot Log In
Livejournal Bans Ad-Blocking Software
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Apr 20, 2006 01:01 AM
from the no-blocking-for-you dept.
from the no-blocking-for-you dept.
Anonymous Emo writes "The community/blogging site LiveJournal recently introduced ads on some pages for free users. More interestingly, they also added a new restriction to their TOS (XVI 17 b.) banning users from using or providing ad-blocking software. The new TOS also permits them to immediately terminate the account of anyone they catch doing this."
Related Stories
[+]
Slashback: Walmart and Wiki, Alan Ralsky 119 comments
Slashback, as always, provides updates and clarifications to previous Slashdot stories. Tonight we bring you updates on Australian Smart ID Cards, the security danger that USB memory sticks pose, Wal-Mart's Wikipedia War, Lego Mindstorms, LiveJournal's stance on Ad-Blocking software, and news about 'Spam King' Alan Ralsky. Read on for more.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Anticipated... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anticipated... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Anticipated... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Anticipated... (Score:4, Interesting)
Certainly, I'm glad a technical solution to this is already available, but if LiveJournal succeeds (that is, if they don't back down and people continue to visit their site(s)) the next step is forcing people to listen to the NOISE their ads create. An irritating fad in internet advertising is to have some kind of "audio branding" attached to pop-up/pop-over ads. I mute my computer speaker when surfing for this reason.
What next? Being banned if you mute your speaker so the ads that make noise don't disturb the people sitting around you? A significant portion of internet usage goes on in office/computer lab settings, and if "using an adblocker" is reason enough for a lifetime ban from a web-site, how long until "Turning down the speaker" (or not having one at all) becomes a "bannable" offense. Sad to say it, but its only a matter of time before advert-supported content goes the way of the dinosaur.
Look at radio: The ads became so invasive, and took up so much air-time, that now people are WILLING TO PAY for advert-free (or in some cases limited-advert) radio on XM and Sirius. To some extent, they've been doing it for years with NPR and other community supported radio stations on the terrestrial bands...
Parent
Problem with hosts... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Problem with hosts... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Problem with hosts... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you mean: voilà, but yes. There you go.
Parent
Re:Problem with hosts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Problem with hosts... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anticipated... (Score:5, Informative)
Tools > Extensions > Adblock Plus > Adblock Options > Support Websites
"The purpose of Adblock Ad Hiding is to allow you to support your favorite web site. By adding your favorite site to the list below the adverts will be downloaded and detected by the site as having been viewed."
Parent
Re:Anticipated... (Score:4, Interesting)
It was a pain though because noone wanted to waste their bandwidth on the stinky ads.
Parent
Re:Anticipated... (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, I find that this is not true. There are enough people who, although say they hate ads, also keep falling for them. It is one of the reasons why they hate them, because they know they're weak.
Way back in the day before cable got to our area, my boss accessed the internet through AOL. He asked me how to remove the ads that AOL shows him every time he logs in.
It turned out that AOL would show one or two ads as someone logged in and track their usage. If someone didn't ever click on them, they were no longer showed the ads. If someone clicked on them - or worse, bought something - then they would continue showing the ads.
I questioned my boss, and it turned out he had not only bought several things, but regularly clicked on most of the ads and thoroughly read them.
He wanted the ads stopped because they distracted him.
These are precisely the people marketers are targetting. These are also precisely the people who would use ad blockers if they were knowledgable enough to get their hands on it.
Ads on the internet would not nearly be as profitable as they are if an abundance of these people didn't exist.
Parent
Re:Anticipated... (Score:5, Insightful)
well at least kindof
you make the GET
livejournal people, please try to understand that this will never ever work.
if they make a more complicated system on flash banners and javascript for checking if the user really got it, you can display the banner offscreen somewhere, so it won't be annoying you in the top of the page.
worthless effort from the ad people. perhaps they should make banners worth to look at instead.
Parent
Choose the right advertising provider (Score:5, Interesting)
Until i see moving (flash or gif, makes no difference), sound making or content hidding ads i'll keep the ads from a site visible. As soon as i see one of those obnoxious ads on my browser they (and all ads from the same provider) get blocked.
Popups that manage to go around Firefox's pop-up protection are reason for me to block the whole site of the ad provider plus the one of the company whose advert is on that pop-up.
It's a ballance between helping the sites i like to keep going on (and even make a profit) and enforcing the limits i've set for what are acceptable ads.
To all web-site managers out there i say: Don't use ad providers that (try to) abuse the viewer's good will and you won't have any problems with having a steady revenue stream from advertising.
Parent
Re:Anticipated... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they want to make sure we watch the adds then dump them in the image dir ON THEIR OWN SERVERS! that way everything gets same speed and I wouldn't care, my brain filters out all the ads anyways.
Parent
Re:The REAL issue (Score:5, Interesting)
However, unless they'd made an explicit commitment to allow you access to get your files off their servers, I don't see any reason why they couldn't just cut off your access entirely until you agree to pay for the service. Unless you're paying for the service already, it's unlikely they have any contractual obligations toward you.
Ordinarily, contracts must be two-sided -- it's assumed that no one would enter into a contract if they don't receive some sort of consideration. If you're not paying, the service provider is hoping that your content will attract business through some other channel. I doubt that this very indirect "payment" would be seen as consideration unless there were an explicit agreement in place. I can't imagine any rational free service provider writing their contract to make that the case, either. In the eyes of the law, you're probably receiving a gift -- and the courts won't require a gift giver to keep giving a gift (barring some extremely bizarre circumstances, I imagine).
Of course, IANAL... but I always assume any free service I use on the web (or anywhere else) is a fleeting thing that may vanish without notice. It generally seems fair to me, given that I'm getting something for nothing.
Parent
Re:The REAL issue (Score:5, Informative)
Its parent post is better, but equates this TOS change with "What if they suddenly insert a term that forces all their users to pay $100 a day or leave without even a change of retaining their data."
Crazy!
This is SO far off base from the reality of Livejournal.
If they want to start charging you for the service, I imagine they would at minimum have to provide you with a reasonable amount of time to become aware of the change and accept/consent. More likely, they'd have to get a positive indication of your acceptance in order to begin billing you.
Livejournal has offered both free and paid accounts for years.
Livejournal has a long history of giving advanced notice about planned changes, and inviting discussion, and keeping things compatible
On top of all that, the addition of ads is on an entirely new class of account. Yes, that's the truth. Rather than force ads onto everyone who has traditionally had ad-free accounts, they're leaving all those free accounts as they were, and adding a new class of account with a level of service above the free acct but below the paid acct, which is "paid" by the ads.
That is the real truth here, which is easily verified by reading the news over on Livejournal.
They're not suddenly forcing people to pay. They're not even changing the free accounts. And they DID talk about this for some time, in public, and invited discussion.
My point is, the Livejournal folks are pretty good people, trying to do their best. You wouldn't know if from all this ranting here, but it's pretty easy to see if you go check out the site and read what they're doing.
However, unless they'd made an explicit commitment to allow you access to get your files off their servers, I don't see any reason why they couldn't just cut off your access entirely until you agree to pay for the service. Unless you're paying for the service already, it's unlikely they have any contractual obligations toward you.
What if, what if, what if, and so on.
Livejournal has a very long history of great service. They have a great reputation, and it's a well deserved one.
Back here in the real world, what matters is not so much what theoretically would or wouldn't matter in a court. Livejournal is one of many free/inexpensive services, which are almost universally used by individuals for personal communication. This just isn't the sort of thing that goes to court over a dispute. Any "mission critical" blog is going to be hosted using its own domain name.
In reality, what matters is Livejournal's reputation, and that reputation depends mostly on how they treat their users, both free and paid. All this ranting is just nit picking about the TOS. What truly matters is what they actually DO. And I highly doubt it will be evil, given their very long history.
There's just one last bit of profound-lack-of-perspective to comment on,
Of course, IANAL... but I always assume any free service I use on the web (or anywhere else) is a fleeting thing that may vanish without notice. It generally seems fair to me, given that I'm getting something for nothing.
Certainly a business would want to use its own domain name.
But for individuals looking for a free service, Lifejournal has been operating for 7 years, and they have a successful business model based on maintaining free and paid accounts.
Yeah, in theory they could vanish tomorrow. But that's about an unlikely as slashdot, yahoo, google, and every other MAJOR successful website offering free services suddenly doing dark.
Parent
just for journal owners (Score:5, Informative)
You sure? (Score:3, Informative)
The relevant clause:
17. Employ tactics and/or technologies to prevent the full and complete delivery or display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Making journal style changes, customizations, or overrides that effectively block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on a Sponsored+ account's Content or other pages within the Service.
2. Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies
You have to read the entire contract (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:You have to read the entire contract (Score:4, Informative)
XII. ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS
You understand and agree that some or all of the Service may include advertisements and that these advertisements are necessary for LiveJournal to provide the Service. You also understand and agree that you will not obscure any advertisements from general view via HTML/CSS or any other means.
To me, the bit saying 'from general view' sounds like the key - it doesn't mean I can't use Adblock or whatever to stop me from seeing the ad, but does mean I can't use anything to stop everyone else from seeing it. (Insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.)
(On another point, if I use Adblock to block ads from a site, how easy is it for them to tell that I've done so, and to narrow it down to a specific ad blocked from a specific site on a specific visit?)
Parent
Re:You have to read the entire contract (Score:3, Informative)
If you are blocking (not hiding) ads and they serve the ads themselves it should be feasible for them to notice that you did n ot in fact download all the content of the page. If they have a separate ad provider with their own servers it's more likely they will only note the aggregate effect of fewer viewed a
Re:You have to read the entire contract (Score:3, Insightful)
But then it doesn't make sense, does it. The penalty is possible account termination. So what, if I install ad-block and jump from journal to journal I'm effectively doing a mass journal massacre.
So, beware, cause I'm installing it right now and coming.
Re:You sure? (Score:3, Interesting)
The relevant clause:
2. Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages.
This can't possibly be about users, for the simple fact that that would be completely unenforcable. As far as I know, LJ pages are normal, publicly accessible webpages not hidden behind passwords or anything (isn't that the whole point?), so visitors don't have to agree with the TOS. And besides,
Re:just for journal owners (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:You sure? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Bandwidth is Not Free! (Score:5, Insightful)
With ad blockers getting more and more prevalent and sometimes getting installed by default with some firewall software, it might get problematic for websites depending on ad revenue.
Although I guess peopl installing ad blockers on their own, probably would just ignore the ads anyway.
Re: Bandwidth is Not Free! (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, when I'm watching TV I always go pee during the love scene or the chase scene, so I won't miss the commercials.
Confusing Wording but is it Serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is clear one thing this rule is aimed at is people changing their journal to block the ads on livejournal. This is perfectly reasonable and even slashdot doesn't let you foil their ads by posting cleverly formated comments on a story (not technically possible here I presume).
What is less clear is if this is intended to apply to people VIEWING livejournal content. After all you aren't even really acting as a livejournal user when you do this you are just reading someone's blog.
I think we just need to wait and see if this actually amounts to any changes or is just overbroad legal wording to cover their ass in unforseen circumstances. Remember there are all sorts of crazy conditions in some EULAs/TOS that don't necessarily amount to anything.
Re:Confusing Wording but is it Serious? (Score:3, Interesting)
You agree to NOT use the Service to: [...] Employ tactics and/or technologies to prevent the full and complete delivery or display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages. These include, but are not limited to, the following: (et cetera)
Golly gee, I'm not using the Service to employ technologies that block ads. I'm using Firefox to employ those technologies.
Nothing confusing about it. (Score:3, Informative)
My initial reaction is "of course it doesn't apply to random people viewing livejournal.
To back up this line of though, I browesed the ToS.
I. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
"LiveJournal, blah blah provides the following service to you, subject to these Terms of Service ("TOS") blah blah blah. Failure to comply with th
Good FUDding, Slashdot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Livejournal just recently added opt-in ads for users that would let them have pretty much all of the benefits of a paid user for the cost of having ads on their journals. After you opt-in to ads you can opt-out at any time and return to your ad-free cost-free journal. Free users viewing another free user's page, their own friends page, or a paid user's page will see no ads but they will see ads when viewing the journal page of someone who's opted for ads. Paid users will see no ads at all. Even so, all I've seen of these ads so far are Google ads. This is article is total FUD and should be tagged as such.
Somebody needs to learn how to read (Score:5, Informative)
Geeze
Re:Somebody needs to learn how to read (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure...
What about b? By the letter, it seems to deny at least some people the use of ad-blocking software. Or maybe it just says that users can't "use the service to employ" ad-blocking. What's that mean? You can't link to it? Talk about it?
The first one (a) seems reasonable to me. B should at least be made more clear.
Parent
Nothing new (Score:4, Informative)
An important point (Score:4, Informative)
No one's forcing you to view the ads. You're agreeing to see them to get more features on your (free!) account. You can also pay $20 for an entire year and get even more features and no ads.
lynx (Score:5, Interesting)
Adblock can download, but not display! (Score:5, Informative)
Most Misleading Summary of the Year (Score:4, Informative)
Second, the TOS change means that members cannot sign up for a Sponsored+ account and then attempt to jack with the layout so that the ads don't appear.
Wow.
One or the other (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One or the other (Score:3, Insightful)
LJ-nifty (Score:4, Informative)
Most important about that uniqueness was the contempt Brad Fitzpatrick [livejournal.com] (founder) had/has for advertising. See his post here [livejournal.com]. So Livejournal adding ads, even if they are opt-in (the free / no-ads option is still available; the ads just get you the features that were previously for Paid accounts only) - is a big deal for LiveJournal.
Now, finally my point - the B. part of that ackward ToS means this for LJ users: "Don't post scripts to LJ-nifty [livejournal.com]," a community on LiveJournal where quasi-crafty scripts are frequently posted. That's what they're talking about without talking about it. Lawyers just don't know how to get to the point.
No one has mentioned the most onorous bit (Score:3, Interesting)
XII.
# ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS
You understand and agree that some or all of the Service may include advertisements and that these advertisements are necessary for LiveJournal to provide the Service. You also understand and agree that you will not obscure any advertisements from general view via HTML/CSS or any other means. By using the Service, you agree that LiveJournal has the right to run such advertisements with or without prior notice, and without recompense to you or any other user. The manner, mode and extent of advertising by LiveJournal on your Content and throughout the Service are subject to change at LiveJournal's discretion. Your correspondence or business dealings with, or participation in promotions of, advertisers found on or through the Service, including payment and delivery of related goods or services, and any other terms, conditions, warranties or representations associated with such dealings, are solely between you and such advertiser. You agree that LiveJournal shall not be responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as the result of any such dealings or as the result of the presence of such advertisers on the Service.
There have been instances where the advertisers themselves have been compromised and browser exploits come from them.
There are also people with epilepsy who cannot view flashing material so disable flashing and moving images without prior approval.
Re:jumping ship (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:jumping ship (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:who cares.. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well, when you think about it... (Score:3, Informative)
They're adding a new level. They used to have a free and rather limited account, and a paid account with fewer restrictions. They're now adding a "sponsored" account. You get more of the "paid" features, but instead of paying, you agree to have ads placed on your site.
This whole change in TOS is about you not signing up for the sponsored account and then turning around and trying to use code in your site to block the ads or keep site visitors from seeing them.
T
Re:Well, when you think about it... (Score:4, Informative)
And they have to pay for theirs -- bandwidth is needed for servers as well as clients. When you pay money to an ISP it only covers your end of the connection, none of the money goes to people running the other end :-P
It isn't your bandwidth
So how are they sending you data?
and I can't steal what you're handing out for free anyway.
Much like things on a shop shelf are "free"; sure you can take them and walk out of the shop, but the business model relies on customers paying, be it cash or ad views.
Parent
Re:One-sided contracts are against contract law. (Score:3, Insightful)
These "contracts" are closer to being one-sided the other way -- the provider is letting you use their servers for free and only asking that you abide by their rules. What consideration are you providing
Re:raising revenue from ads is wrong headed (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole concept of somebody paying a website owner on the basis that visitors to the website might have seen an advert {but probably are not going to do anything about it, and almost certainly not buy the product} is just broken on too many levels to be sustainable.
As people get more and more savvy, so they are going to be less inclined to put up with adverts intruding into their internet experience. In a magazine, you can turn the page; on the TV you can change the station or leave t