Adblock Plus Victorious Again In Court 321
New submitter Xochil writes: AdBlock Plus has successfully defended itself in court for the second time in five weeks. The Munich Regional Court ruled against media companies ProSiebenSat1 and IP Deutschland. The companies sued Eyeo, the company behind Adblock Plus, asking the court to ban the distribution of the free ad-blocking software, saying it hurts their ad-based business model. An Eyeo release says in part: "We are elated at the decision reached today by the Munich court, which is another win for every internet user. It confirms each individual’s right to block annoying ads, protect their privacy and, by extension, determine his or her own internet experience. This time it also confirms the legitimacy of our Acceptable Ads initiative as a compromise in the often contentious and rarely progressive world of online advertising."
Love it (Score:5, Insightful)
"Today is also a sad day for internet users, because AdBlock Plus jeopardizes the financing options for all free internet sites. We still feel it is inadmissible under copyright and antitrust laws, and it is an anti-competitive attack on media diversity and freedom of the press. Therefore, we will review the options for appeal and further legal action against Eyeo.”
I don't think they understand that they are free to publish whatever they want... but we are also free to ignore/cut up/block the stuff we don't want. I call that a win. If it means a bunch of publishers go out of business and the internet gets less commercial, I'm fine with that too.
Re: (Score:3)
As this is the forth lawsuit, it may just be Eyeo that goes out of business due to the lawyer fees.
Re:Love it (Score:5, Informative)
As this is the forth lawsuit, it may just be Eyeo that goes out of business due to the lawyer fees.
Germany is one of several nations that adopted a "loser pays" civil litigation model. I think they recovered all legal costs in another case, but don't recall which one and don't feel like looking it up.
The ruling likely specifies that ProSiebenSat1 and IP Deutschland are liable for all or nearly all of the costs in this case, and Eyeo is likely have only the cost of their time.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the correction. How I wish that was the case in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
There's litigation insurance that covers losses on suits the policy holder initiates?
As long as you had a reasonable expectation of winning, yes it does. I have one. They decide beforehand if they're going to cover this case or not (if it's a bullshit case where you don't have a snowballs chance in hell, they don't have to), and after that it doesn't depend on winning or losing anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it does. Litigants in person in the UK can claim £18 per hour for their time. If you hire legal representatives they can claim for their time
Costs also depend on parties being reasonable; court should be a last resort, so even if you win if you are unreasonable you may not get any costs awarded, or a nominal amount.
Attorney's fees (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Attorney's fees (Score:4, Interesting)
This should absolutely be the norm for most civil cases.
An interesting twist we have here in Sweden is that for purposes of determining who pays cost, even if you win the case but is awarded less than half of what you originally claimed, you're counted as the loser when it comes to paying cost of litigation.
Keeps down frivolous claims quite nicely. However, I doubt this way of running civil cases would serve well if we didn't also have the system of ombudsmen, i.e. in any case where the little guy would face interests with big pockets (including government) there's an ombudsman to hear you case and litigate on your behalf, providing both the expertise and funds. (They can also fine directly.)
The missing difference (Score:5, Insightful)
What neither side pointed out in their statements was that there is a huge difference between companies creating ads and adblock. Primarily, that Adblock does not come to users by default. People have to find, download, and install Ad-block. It does not come pre-installed on anything I have ever seen.
Now compare that to the ad companies complaining who give you ads without your consent, and where you can not block them without an application like Adblock. You have to see their crap until you can figure out how to block it.
I have nearly the same amount of respect for these "advert" companies as I do for spammers. I think there is a spec on the bottom of my shoe someplace... er wait, what did I step in??
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. Android & the "Adblock Plus Browser" is about the only example I can think of that is sort of pre-installed... in the browser anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an Android, so correct me if I'm wrong.. The 'AdBlock Plus Browser' does not come pre-installed does it?
It was on the front page last week... http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to that article, it does not come pre-installed. It still requires a user do something to get the ability to block ads.
I re-read the article and I'm not seeing what you're seeing (unless you're referring to the browser itself not being pre-installed?)
What I am seeing is:
Adblock Plus says its app is the first mobile browser to offer users ad blocking as an integrated, out-of-the-box feature. More people are using ad blockers, according to the company, and so moving to the mobile space automatic ad blocking at the browser level is a natural extension.
Re: (Score:2)
(unless you're referring to the browser itself not being pre-installed?)
Obviously, I don't believe this requires a large leap on logic. I said users need to intervene to stop ads, you pointed to a browser which meets the exact criteria I gave.. that a user must intervene to stop ads. The browser only changes what a user needs to install to intervene and block ads.
Re: (Score:3)
I have nearly the same amount of respect for these "advert" companies as I do for spammers.
Nearly? You mean that there is a difference between them? I'd be curious to find out what that is, because I really don't see any difference whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Very much so. Just because their business model requires people to make bad decisions, doesn't mean they have a right to enforce bad decisions.
The web browsing they want is like, if you walked into a reseraunt to meet a group of 10 people, 1 of whom you know, and are told in this circle, we greet eachother with unprotected anal sex....at which point, everyone at the table stands up to "greet you".
Re: (Score:2)
90% of those publishers either publish tripe, or rip it off from elsewhere. in fact a LOT of those sites simply rip off other people's work and pass it off as their own. LiveLeak for example steals stuff from Vimeo and youtube.
Re:Love it (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot that if they detect that the ads are being blocked they don't have to supply the service there are already sites that do this. If their services are good enough they may be able to provide a paid ad free experience and just not provide ad supported services to those with adblockers.
Re:Love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Love it (Score:4, Informative)
Blocking is still better because you save download time and resources (RAM, CPU)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And malware gets blocked.
Re: (Score:2)
Audio ads kill that.
Websites are slowly catching on (Score:2)
Over the last few weeks I have started to notice messages from various websites along the line of "It looks like you are using ad blocking software. Do you want to contribute to this site in another way?" Meaning do I want to give cash directly to the site.
At the moment I am a bit divided over this issue. I understand their desire to collect revenue to fund a site. But I do need to balance that against the opening up of my system to all sorts of tracking. And at the moment my privacy trumps the websites
Re: (Score:2)
I also see those messages, but I don't use any ad blocking software. Java is disabled, plug-ins are disabled, javascript is enabled and cookies are limited to the same domain. Whoever wrote those "ad blocking detection" functions is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
I also see those messages, but I don't use any ad blocking software. Java is disabled, plug-ins are disabled, javascript is enabled and cookies are limited to the same domain. Whoever wrote those "ad blocking detection" functions is an idiot.
Or are very smart .. because I assumed that they actually worked.
Re: (Score:3)
it's most likely using the JavaScript detection - if you don't run the ad javascript, then you're most likely blocking it (are there any modern browsers that don't support javascript?).
Of course, it's a basic check - there are more advanced checks that could be done. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
I am a pickpocket, but you outwitted me, so do you want to give me money so I can afford to pick someone else's pocket?
Surely these are the kind of people law enforcement should be dealing with.
Re: (Score:3)
No
"But I've designed and made this content for you to enjoy, should I not be paid?"
No
"Okay, don't use my site then"
Okay
The sites that I want to use I donate to if given the option. They tend to not be overfilled with ads, but I will always look for the least annoying while most useful alternative to your content. If this makes you sad, that's fine with me.
"What about the quality, it'll go down if there are no incentives."
No, it won't.
Re:Websites are slowly catching on (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds me of the giant blow up over paid mods to Skyrim. The player community went nuts. But the modding community also went nuts and split a bit, some still wanting to treat their modding as just a hobby same as any other open source, but others who stopped modding altogether because "we deserve to be paid", "no one ever voluntarily donates", "you're a bunch of freeloaders". Ugliest mess you ever saw.
All because it was a system that worked well for a very long time, and then one day money entered the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a thorn in my side beyond the PaypalDonate? pleading out there.
Time and again I'm quite willing to spare a dollar or ten on a product or service, or even simply hand it out, but I don't have a means. I'm not signing up for $stupidshit or supporting $IoTcloudshit service or announcing the details of my private transaction to every fucking ear that wants to harvest it for a penny.
I'll probably resort to cash-bought prepai
Re: (Score:3)
And then you get sites like Slashdot, which have this wonderful checkbox that says because I am such a good user, that they will disable advertising for me if I want. Which even if I do, I still get ads served up to me - hence another reason for ad blocking software.
Yeah.. I noticed that.. Rightt now, here on Slashdot, where I'm such a good user, I get to have ads turned off, uBlock is reporting 2 ad networks are *still* trying to put their shit on my system.. Good job, Dice.. Good thing I use Linux instead of Windows...
Re: (Score:2)
And never actually buy any of the products.
Seriously, the advertising model on the internet is very screwed up at a times. Like a Buick advertisement on a cycling site. Too many sites just accept random ads that are provided by a third party advertising service. Ie, they've got a blog, they want to make some money to pay for hosting their blog, so they accept scripts from someone they heard about then sit back and wait for money to roll in. And the advertisers who are not paying their fair share of the
Boo hoo for your business model ... (Score:5, Funny)
Why the hell do corporations think their business model is a guaranteed right, or that it confers any obligations on anybody else?
My business model involves being given millions of dollars to engage in acts of debauchery with college girls.
So far I've been having a hard time coming up with the millions of dollars. Or the college girls. Or the acts of debauchery. Most of them seem awfully complicated and there's stuff on TV.
Who do I sue about that? (No, really, I need to know this. ;-)
I should be given my millions of dollars to commit debauchery with college girls ... because ... business model!!
Re: (Score:2)
Can I come work for your company? I suggest we start by sending our bills to ProSiebenSat1 and IP Deutschland, they after all feel it is other's responsibilities to support a business model, therefore they should be more than willing to cut a check.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents & copyrights are some of the most idiotic guarantees of our time.
Re: (Score:2)
You are greedy. I, on the other hand, do not need nor covet millions of dollars. Just send the college girls over.
Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would anyone, ever, think that me not looking at their ad should be illegal? I mean, are we that far gone that it's even conceivable to have the courts forcing me to view ads?
I look forward to the day when somebody makes augmented reality glasses that block meatspace advertising like billboards, TVs in airports and bars, logos on clothes, all it. I'll be the first in line.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would anyone, ever, think that me not looking at their ad should be illegal?
That wasn't their argument. Their claim was that the web page should not be altered before it is rendered in the browser. Sort of like saying your TV remote control shouldn't have the capability to mute the sound during a commercial.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Informative)
Or like the courts would say that Hollywood could stop Christian groups from editing their movies down to a more acceptable level...
Oh wait, that actually happened... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Or like the courts would say that Hollywood could stop Christian groups from editing their movies
Nobody can edit a movie and redistribute it without the copyright holder's permission, that's an entirely different scenario. That's not the same as editing your own personal copy before letting your kids watch it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean that's different from TV networks cutting movies left and right to make NC17 movies suitable for broadcast or "trimming" them down so they can squeeze in another ad break? Oddly, this seems to be a-ok with the studios.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem with that argument is the site's code is shipped pristine to your browser which is on your machine. Once inside your domain, you are free to make footnotes, comment out, etc. Then the browser interprets what *you've* done. No infringement involved.
You can do exactly the same thing with a book or movie you have acquired legally. You just can't redistribute, which the browser does not.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, their view would prohibit you from using ctrl-scroll to enlarge the text for
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be a pretty impressive piece of kit, I'd definitely buy that app for my set of AR goggles.
We just need the virtual retinal display tech for AR to take off...staring at a tiny screen, regardless of lensing, is bad news.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone, ever, think that me not looking at their ad should be illegal?
It goes a lot deeper than that. I am running software on a device I own. That software requests a resource from a remote service. After receiving it, the same software manipulates that resource in ways I have specifically asked it to in order to meet my needs.
The plaintiff's case is that they have a legal right to tell me how to view a resource once it's on a machine I own. Copyright etc. isn't involved; I'm consuming a properly licensed copy of the resource that they sent to me. I'm not distributing it, ei
Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)
Sooo... our browsers will honor the ADS_NOT_TO_BE_REMOVED flag as much as they honor our browser's DO_NOT_TRACK flag and we call it even?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We will win this battle.
I can live without their content.
Can they live without my money, or the revenue from ads?
very clever (Score:2)
"protect their privacy and, by extension, determine his or her own internet experience. "
I see what they did there!
death to bandwidth hogs! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind the bandwidth. What I do mind, though, is that they don't even bother checking who's advertising with them and whether they use this vehicle to spread malware. As long as they pay, who gives a shit about the visitors of their pages?
Showing ads to me is a privilege. Earn it!
Re: (Score:2)
I use Adblock Plus to block plenty of things that are not ads for this very reason. For example, CNN has autoplay news videos... or at least I presume they still do. Their ads I do't mind.
That's the good news... (Score:2)
Re:That's the good news... (Score:4)
The fact that this happened, and with the right result, is a good thing as it confirms that the system is working.
No it isn't. This would be like a malware company going after Norton or Kaspersky because it hurt their distribution model, or if ammunition manufacturers sued bullet-proof vest manufacturers because it makes their product less effective. Yeah, the good guys win, but they ended up having to spend a lot of money to defend themselves unnecessarily.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear corporations (Score:2)
Courts are not here to protect your failing business model. But it sure shows a certain kind of feeling of entitlement that you think they are.
Ad blocking (Score:3)
Blocking of ad content on the internet is a problem that the internet advertising community brought upon itself.
Huge, messy, obnoxious high bandwidth, sometimes even dangerous ads.
If the entire playing field of internet advertising wasn't as toxic as it is, we'd see a wider array of people running without adblockers.
The intertubes (Score:4)
is a public communication network, like a phone network. It was developed by public research dollars. I pay for my own bandwidth. I have ZERO obligation to tolerate your ads polluting my communication network.
If you don't want people downloading your 'content' for free, put up a paywall.
P.S.: F off and dye.
Acceptable Ads my a** (Score:3)
Taboola is on that list. The kings of click-bait. They use about 4 million different domains to avoid being blocked outright as well. BS. The crappy part is I actually value Googles Ads but if you disable all acceptable ads you disable all sites.
Re:"Annoying ads" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Annoying ads" (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I allow the adblock allowed ads. Not many sites use them.
Sites I frequent that give me the 'Please disable your adblocker' I tend to respond with(and yes, I've used their forum/webmaster address to do this) 'Then use adblocker approved ads'.
After about the 3rd time the ad sites tried to serve me malware it became more about protecting my computer than anything else. The fact that many sites are unusable to the point that I wonder if their web-admin is even testing the sites without an ad blocker doesn't help.
Re: (Score:3)
Except those defined by Adblock as being "acceptable" (ie, they get paid).
Fine with me. They are unobtrusive, contain no malware, and don't blink or beep. I don't block them, and I occasionally even click on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Except those defined by Adblock as being "acceptable" (ie, they get paid).
I don't see a problem with Adblock getting paid to be a part of their "acceptable ads" program. The rules are clear & open to all, Adblock has to pay people to administer the program & enforce compliance with those rules. The larger the site, the more staff they need to ensure compliance/handle complaints/etc so larger sites pay more than smaller ones. And in the end, it's still up to the user whether they participate or not.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Annoying ads" (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually their acceptable ads
The real kicker (and why I switched to AdBlock Edge a long time ago) is that they ask for 30% revenue share on those acceptable ads, and with that they got too much into bed with the advertisement industry.
Especially given that AdBlock now belongs to a group of advertisement companies, and they whitelist all the ads from their network by default.
They sold out, simple as that, and they fight in court not for the good cause (though that is a side-effect and a very good one) but to protect their revenue stream.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually their acceptable ads (which you can turn off with a single checkbox and they even offer the option on first install) is exactly what I've been saying for years [adblockplus.org] should be the only ads allowed due to security concerns,
I disagree. The "acceptable ads" rules that Adblock Plus uses allow the very thing that I object to the most about online ads: the tracking. So their "acceptable ads" are completely unacceptable to me.
Until ads stop spying on me, I will block every single one of them that I can.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey if you feel guilty you can always cut them a check...
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:5, Insightful)
1: Stop using them to track users, you want to show a text ad, fine Ill deal with it, but if you're going to track me across multiple sites then I block you.
2: Make them text based, or at least no flashing colors etc..
3: Stop using Flash, which is another attack vector
4: Stop selling our personal information to every single spammer that offers you money for our info
5: Make the site more than 75% content to 25% ads
6: Secure your servers so we aren't being attacked from letting your ads through
When you accomplish those simple things you may see a difference in the amount of people letting ads through, till then, go to hell.
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:5, Insightful)
7. No more video ads
8. Quite autoplaying
9. No audio ads overwhelming me when I am trying to read a text website
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:5, Insightful)
10. No more "32 top reasons to click through 32 pages of eights ads" - type BS; thank you so much in advance.
Re: (Score:3)
No ads designed to mislead. If you are a download page and you have dozens of "Click here for your download" ads you are getting adblocked or simply not visited. If you care so little about your website that you can't be bothered to protect it's users from malicious and misleading ads, you don't get my ad views.
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
Here in Manchester (UK), there are an increasing number of HUGE eye-searingly bright digital displays on buildings, roadsides, on the sides of bridges under which the road passes... They are generally the slightly more upmarket version of the flash ads begging you to click - irritatingly distracting. I find it interesting that whoever grants these licenses would so casually prioritize ad revenue over driver safety. It's almost as if they don't actually care.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how governments sometimes differ. USA, supposedly land of the free, would quickly have the Department of Transportation having a word with the owners of said billboards, as you describe them.
Things like lit scrolling marquees are fine - most gas stations show their prices using a digital billboard today, and rolling time/temperature/ad is common,
But there are rules in place about potentially 'distracting' displays.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You are correct, I work in digital signage and the states DOT have specific rules for LED billboards. An example (from Iowa, the first i could find, but these are fairly standardized).
Each change of message must be accomplished in one second or less.
Each message must remain in a fixed position for at least eight seconds.
No traveling messages (e.g., moving messages,animated messages, full-motion video,or scrolling text messages) or segmented messages are presente
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:5, Insightful)
Those of you who block ads but still consume the services of sites that run them without paying into any subscription fee, why do you freeload?
Leaving aside the technical issues for blocking ads (EG taking up *my* bandwidth for things I have no interest in, nefarious tracking schemes and their ilk, etc), your argument seems to be predicated on an RIAA lost revenue model.
If I "freeload" now in order to view content a website, I severely doubt that I would buy a subscription to view content on that website if it became closed. Therefore if the website can't survive without monetizing all 100% of their viewers, why do you think it can survive with monetizing 100% of a smaller pool of viewers? IE I am not a "lost" sale - I was never a potential "sale" in the first place.
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:5, Funny)
Omg, communist! By using AdBlock you have robbed the advertising ghouls of the opportunity to perform a non-customer to customer conversion against your will, using their superior ad-fu. It's just not something that should happen in a free and democratic police state. Shame on you =S
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those of you who block ads but still consume the services of sites that run them without paying into any subscription fee, why do you freeload?
If you like something you support it, right?
I still have not figured out the bizarre-o world of the internet where some people want something for free, block any attempt to pay for it via ads, refuse to pay subscriptions, won't buy the T-shirt, etc., but still want it to be there tomorrow for them when they wake up.
I'm addressing now folks who do that - who do you think pays the bills on sites? Who do you think puts the work in? Do you get paid for doing YOUR job?
Questions ever unanswered..
The problem isn't not wanting to pay the site maintainers its not wanting to be subjected to potentially malicious code embedded in attack ads. And as this same subjects comes up ever couple of weeks now I am just going to copypaste my response to this same objection from a little over two weeks ago.
I trust Slashdot not to attack me. But Slashdot is paid by "acme ad company" to insert their ads. Acme will pipe through whatever code crackers and malicious operators gives them as long as they get their money. I don't trust acme because of this and I certainly don't trust the person placing the ad. But here is the problem acme doesn't care as, I am a product not a customer. They only have to appease Slashdot and who ever is placing the ad. In fact their is a disincentive to scrutinize the content on the ads they are selling as they get paid either no matter the content and passing up bad operators is lost money. They can get away with it because if Slashdot viewer complain then they can say they will look into it opps one got through our system and nothing happens. So the only way to be safe is to block ads.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those of you who block ads but still consume the services of sites that run them without paying into any subscription fee, why do you freeload?
If you like something you support it, right?
I still have not figured out the bizarre-o world of the internet where some people want something for free, block any attempt to pay for it via ads, refuse to pay subscriptions, won't buy the T-shirt, etc., but still want it to be there tomorrow for them when they wake up.
I'm addressing now folks who do that - who do you think pays the bills on sites? Who do you think puts the work in? Do you get paid for doing YOUR job?
Questions ever unanswered..
Those of you who fast forward over ads but still watch the TV shows, why do you freeload?
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:4, Insightful)
Deliberately giving it to public access then whining when it's accessed is bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:4, Interesting)
When I've run my sites in the past, I've never put a single banner on that page that wasn't my own... except for a single page that was specifically built just to allow access for my users to make use of my affiliate programs. That one page had one affiliate block each for Amazon, DigiKey, NewEgg, and TigerDirect. The rest of the page was banner links to friends' pages where they were selling their own products or services. I made dick on running that entire ad page (maybe 60 cents over the course of that 2 year run), and I never expected to make any money off of it. It was only there as a side service to customers that were already cruising the rest my site for my products/information. My direct revenue at that time was only ever from whatever product or service I was using that site to sell, not advertisements from 3rd party sources. If I was running a blog on a page of the site, I wasn't making money off of it. That was just a way to put my own opinions out there. If you went there, read through it, maybe left a comment... great. Not once on that page were you going to be subjected to any kind of advertising. The #1 compliment that my customers and site visitors gave me on the site design? It was a refreshing break from the rest of what they had to deal with on the web. Simple, sleek, great use of colors, and the fastest loading pages that they've ever seen since the inception of the commercialized web.
If you are a large syndicated news site, charge a subscription fee. That's fine with me. If I like a sampling of your articles, I'll probably pay for a subscription. If enough people feel you're worth the subscription fee...great, you get to live. If you're Joe Sixpack running a personal blog and putting your opinions out there with a ton of clickbait ads all over your page... Guess what; opinions are like assholes: Everyone has one and every single one stinks. You want to support yourself by putting yet another source of near useless information out there and rely on that for your only bit of income? You deserve to flounder when no one clicks your ads, blocks the ads, or just doesn't visit your site after the first go. If you're not truly insightful, you're offering nothing for society. If you were truly insightful, you'd be able to put your money where your mouth is and make something of all those wonderful ideas you have, and use that to make your money on...instead of bombarding me with garbage ads for enlarging my dick or what ever one neat trick pony they put up on your piece of shit site.
Basically it comes down to this: do something useful that I'm willing to buy into? I'll go to your site and buy all day. Use your blog to bullshit me like a damn street hawker and then flash all kinds of ads in my face? Fuck you, goodbye. I listen to enough bullshit all day, I don't need yours too.
Re: (Score:2)
Those of you who block ads but still consume the services of sites that run them without paying into any subscription fee, why do you freeload?
I already paid for my internet service. Why should I have to pay again?
You are advocating the Verizon/Netflix model.
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:5, Insightful)
Adblock is used as a self defense mechanism. If we keep getting punched in the face then we're going to start wearing head protection, no matter how much someone whines that they make their living by punching me in the face.
If your livelihood depends upon annoying your customers, or even harming them, then you need a better job. If it's just a hobby then stop demanding that we pay for it.
Seriously, who is the freeloader, me for protecting my computer and my bandwidth, or the advertisers who use my bandwidth without permission and sites who offer up any ads without testing for malware first? Try living for a month on dialup only or pay per megabyte, then see how much you learn to hate advertisers.
- Treat your viewers and customers with respect
- Be responsible
- Stop tracking viewers
- Stop stealing their bandwidth.
- Provide the ads from your own server, not from a third party provider that you have no control over.
- Stop annoying users with ugly crap, stupid animations, pop ups, pop unders, blaring sound, etc.
- No videos!
- Provide relevant ads
- Stop sending out malware - if you do not vet your ads then you are at fault if malware gets through.
If you have an advertisement that you feel is appropriate, then submit it to adblock and see if it gets on their whitelist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I ask you "6 Ways to Burn Your Belly Fat Fast", do you like visi"Work at home mom makes $8,795 month working part time"ting sites that be"CR7 Driven to Perfection Thanks to Herbalife"come unusa"Napoleon Games Play When Feeling Lucky"ble because of al"McDonals I'm + Lovin' + It"l the unrela"15 Downloads That Will Block Annoying Ads and Pop-Ups"ted advertentions? Do yo"The “Ordinary” Mom’s Discovery That’s Making Botox Doctors Furious!"u? Do you re"KFC It's Finger Lickin' Good!"al
Re: (Score:3)
The world does not owe you a living.
>internet will die if ads don't exist
I pretty much preferred the old Internet when the NSF was the backbone.
Go cry more.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
consume the services of sites that run them
I made a request for some HTML from one domain.
why do you freeload?
I'm cheap. And paranoid.
If you like something you support it, right?
Not particularly financially, no. See above.
but still want it to be there tomorrow for them
I want a lot of things.
who do you think pays the bills on sites?
Obviously, self-evidently, I don't care about the financing of my diversions, or I'd have ads turned on. You're not very good at this.
Who do you think puts the work in?
H1B's? Am I close?
Do you get paid for doing YOUR job?
The website I develop for actually sells a product.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with a lot of what you said, but these two are pretty lame:
The context is business. None of your counter examples were.
You either considered those internships worthwhile for that foot in the door (making them a transaction not altruistic) or you were an idiot to work for fre
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with a lot of what you said, but these two are pretty lame:
The context is business. None of your counter examples were.
The internet is not a guarantee of being able to operate a business. Sure, some have figured out how to make a business out of it, but many are simply getting information out there. Be it for their business, politics, religion, science, history, etc. the internet's primary function is communication & the dissemination of information to anyone who wishes to access it. If your business model doesn't work unless you obstruct that access, either by ads/malware/paywall or some other form, then you can exp
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In theory, it should be the same verdict. In the US, the right we have is for free speech. You can say and publish anything you want (with reasonable restrictions regarding slander/libel, etc.). But the first amendment right to free speech is not the same as the right to be heard. Just because you can publish what you want doesn't mean you have any guarantee that anyone has to read it. You are not guaranteed an audience for what you say. The only right you have is that the government cannot shut you u
Re:Wonder if (Score:4, Informative)
Depends on how much the US judge would have been paid off.
Re: (Score:3)
With this Supreme Court, it would depend on whether the advertising was religious or not.
Re: (Score:2)
However part of the ruling says that there were so few adblock users that it was not a serious concern. If adblock suddenly showed up on 90% of all viewers the courts might have to rethink it...
Re:Ahh (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Since when is it a court's business to protect some business model that doesn't work out?
Re: (Score:3)
I think the expensive clothing items with the giant company logo on them are hilarious. Pay extra to wear an item that is essentially a billboard, what an ingenious business model!