Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising The Courts The Internet The Media Entertainment

Ad Blocking – a Coming Legal Battleground? 686

Posted by timothy
from the you-must-watch-and-hear-this-ad dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Computerworld asks: What will happen if big advertisers declare AdBlock Plus a clear and present danger to online business models? Hint: it will probably involve lawyers. From the article: 'Could browser ad blocking one day become so prevalent that it jeopardises potentially billions of dollars of online ad revenue, and the primary business models of many online and new media businesses? If so, it will inevitably face legal attack.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ad Blocking – a Coming Legal Battleground?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23, 2012 @04:34PM (#42076841)

    Internet -> Adblock -> Router -> Ad-free internet. These devices already exist, it's only a matter of time before a major router manufacturer builds in black/whitelist support for ad blocking. AdBlock Plus is great, but if they want to escalate, we are prepared to go full out.

  • by bwoneill (1973028) on Friday November 23, 2012 @04:54PM (#42077007)
    Most of these methods involve using third party JavaScript which can be circumvented by NoScript.
  • Re:Malware (Score:4, Informative)

    by Luthair (847766) on Friday November 23, 2012 @05:05PM (#42077111)
    It does, its even happened to major sites like the NYT in the past.
  • Re:Short answer: (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23, 2012 @05:18PM (#42077203)

    This already happens. I have seen several sites which ask me to disable Adblock. Some sites just ask it friendly, others refuse to show their content.

  • Re:Dear ad-blocker (Score:3, Informative)

    by dshk (838175) on Friday November 23, 2012 @05:59PM (#42077531)
    No, I am a software developer from the EU, who happens to work on a somewhat popular web site, and I value both my work and the work of other people who create content which proves to be useful or at least entertaining for me. This is the reason for example why I never click on the disable ads checkbox here on Slashdot, buy all the games are rarely play nowdays, etc.
  • by quixote9 (999874) on Friday November 23, 2012 @06:44PM (#42077875) Homepage
    Officially, we're not cattle. So when did making a buck off me start to take precedence over everything in the Bill of Rights?

    That's not just a figure of speech. As the (great?)grandparent comment says, it's about impressions. There's plenty of evidence (1 [uchicago.edu], 2 [le.ac.uk], 3 [wiley.com], for instance) that ads have the most effect on behavior when you're not paying attention. So the only way for me to stop manipulation of my own mind is not to have those ads in the background in the first place.

    But advertisers have some sacred "right" to make a buck that's more important than me making my own decisions. Which is even weirder because, I'm told, the free market depends on informed consumers making free choices.

    Let's face it. Advertisers are gunning for a world where our eyelids are propped open with matchsticks while we watch whatever we're told to watch.
  • Re:Short answer: (Score:2, Informative)

    by quantaman (517394) on Saturday November 24, 2012 @12:15AM (#42079773)

    if someone put up a site they can't pay the bandwidth bill for that's their problem.

    Unless you want to read that site (which you almost certainly do, given that you're talking about this on /.), then it's your problem too.

    It's as simple as this, no ads means less high quality content, the number of ad block advocates who deny this basic fact is depressing.

"If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem." -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234

Working...