If they don’t want us to block web ads they should start abiding by some rules.
1) NO popups
2) NO pop-under ads
3) NO in-line word ads
For those of you who don’t know what they are they are ads in the form of links attached to words and are usually underlined. It’s ugly, it’s annoying and when they pop up they cover portions of text in the article.
4) NO sound
I cannot tell you the number of times I have gone to video sites only to have the video’s sound interrupted by an ad. One of the most annoying are the ones for smiley packs for MSN and shout phrases like “HELLLOO!”.
5) No bright flashing colors or anything that could cause a seizure.
More information is available here
In fact, I think the only type of ads that follow theses rule are google ads and because of that I find that generally google ads are not blocked. Now, there are some web masters that feel we are obligated to view those ads. Well to those people here is what I have to say….you can complain all you want about the legality of blocking ads but regardless of what you do ad blockers will continue to exist because people find ads incredibly annoying.
To those idiots at http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/ firefox users can simply change their user agent to appear as IE. Also I don’t know if this is news to you or not but IE has pop up blockers as well so you are getting nowhere. Ad blocker Plus may be better then any of the add ons on IE at the moment, but if you force users to change over then you will eventually see an ad blocker plus clone appear. It’s here to stay and you best deal with the reality of it. When people don’t like something they will find ways around it.
It seems that no matter what you do these days everything is turning into a criminal or civil offense. When I go to a website I have the right to choose what is downloaded and displayed on my screen using the Internet connection that I paid for.
By Anne Broache and Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: September 14, 2007, 4:00 AM PDTAdvertising-supported companies have long turned to the courts to squelch products that let consumers block or skip ads: it happened in the famous lawsuit against the VCR in 1979 and again with ReplayTV in 2001.
Tomorrow’s legal fight may be over Web browser add-ons that let people avoid advertisements. These add-ons are growing in functionality and popularity, which has led legal experts surveyed this week by CNET News.com to speculate about when the first lawsuit will be filed.
If ad-blockers become so common that they slice away at publishers’ revenues, “I absolutely would expect to see litigation in this area,” said John Palfrey, executive director of Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
Firefox’s Adblock plug-in is probably the most prominent way to configure Web browsers not to display advertisements. It lets people block ads from individual Web sites such as Doubleclick.net or through configurable directories, like “/banner”. Similar plug-ins are available for Opera, Safari and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.
The Interactive Advertising Bureau, the lobbying arm for the online ad industry, says it isn’t preparing a legal offensive at this point. Mike Zaneis, the organization’s vice president of public policy, said he wants to work with software developers and consumers to come up with a middle ground on what he describes as an “issue that is just now ripening.”
“We don’t want to go down a route that would seem adversarial at all,” Zaneis said. “People are free to ignore ads, and they often do that, but when you have a third party blocking those ads, that’s the real problem.” He said the IAB is “looking at all the options.”
Ad-blocking tools have been around for years, of course, albeit not without controversy. Nearly a decade ago, a Web software firm called ClearWay Technologies released a beta version of its AdScreen blocking software to threats of boycott from Macintosh-oriented publishers that feared the product would kill their ad-supported Web sites. The company responded by killing the project. Before that, security firm PGP Corp. discontinued an ad-blocking program called Internet Fast Forward because its creator said he had been threatened with copyright lawsuits for modifying publishers’ pages without their permission.
Ad-blocking recently hit the spotlight again when an obscure blogger named Danny Carlton–who expounds fringe political views such as AIDS being a “mythical disease” invented by the U.S. government–banned Firefox users from his Web site. Claiming that Firefox creator Mozilla Corp. has endorsed the Adblock plug-in, Carlton redirected Firefox browsers to Whyfirefoxisblocked.com.
The New York Times wrote about the Whyfirefoxisblocked.com kerfuffle last week, and the CNET Blog Network expanded on the topic from a technical perspective. On Wednesday, Carlton lifted the ban on all Firefox users, saying he found a way to identify only Firefox browsers outfitted with Adblock Plus.
MySpace, LiveJournal: Don’t block our ads
Many Web sites prohibit any kind of ad-blocking in their terms of service agreements. MySpace.com prohibits “covering or obscuring the banner advertisements on your personal profile page, or any MySpace.com page via HTML/CSS or any other means.” Six Apart’s LiveJournal uses similar language, as do some news organizations including the Chicago Sun-Times and Fox TV’s Houston affiliate. CNET News.com does not.Any lawsuit would likely invoke two arguments–that copyright infringements are taking place (through derivative works), and that the Web site’s terms of service agreement is being violated.
“From a pure legal point of view, a Web site can do anything it wants, so to speak,” said Michael Krieger, an intellectual property and business lawyer with the firm Willenken Wilson Loh & Lieb in Los Angeles. “That’s a little overstating it, obviously, but suppose to get into Google, you first have to click ‘I agree, I’m not blocking ads.’ I think it’s perfectly within their rights to do that.”
In the past, entertainment companies have threatened commercial-skipping products on the grounds that they violate copyrights. ReplayTV, which sells digital video recorders, eventually dropped in 2003 a feature called Automatic Commercial Advance after facing a lawsuit from major TV networks and movie studios over that and other issues. (A judge dismissed the suit the following year.)
It’s not clear whose side the courts would take, if asked. In the famous lawsuit over the VCR from nearly 30 years ago, the movie studios claimed that Betamax users would fast-forward through commercials.
They lost, of course. The 1979 district court opinion estimated that only 25 percent of VCR owners fast-forward through commercials. But it was based on the technology available at the time: what if it was easier and 95 percent of TV viewers did it? (The judge said: “To avoid commercials during playback, the viewer must fast-forward and, for the most part, guess as to when the commercial has passed. For most recordings, either practice may be too tedious.”)
Posted by redchaos
Posted by redchaos
Posted by redchaos 