Post by PickyChicky on Apr 2, 2015 5:26:06 GMT -6
After having a lengthy discussion on Proboards's support forums regarding their terms of use that stipulate users cannot use ad blocking software on their site, it got me to thinking whether or not it's legal for them to require such a thing in their terms. So, I started doing some digging on the internet and it would seem this has been a hot topic for a while with companies claiming they have a right to advertise -- apparently even to people who would rather not be advertised to.
Below are some links to articles I've found on the subject that I'd like you to read and then share your thoughts. The way I see it, it's my equipment and I have a right to protect it from possibly harmful ads and ads that hinder my computer's performance. As we all know, there have been countless ads laced with malicious content that has done some serious damage to millions of people's computers via viruses, worms, and whatever other critters they want.
Furthermore, many ads -- particularly those with flashies, videos, and other things requiring programs like Flashplayer to run -- can bog down a person's computer, no matter how up-to-date it is. For example, I have two high-performance laptops that are always bogged down by those particular ads because they use Flashplayer -- sometimes they even make Firefox lock up or completely crash. Just imagine what they do to lesser computers.
Then there are those that blast out your eardrums when you weren't expecting any sound to come from a page. Oh, and let's not forget those that pop up and cover the whole screen when your mouse even comes close to their edge, blocking what you were actually trying to see. They sometimes even cause you to accidentally click on that ad when you were trying to click something else related to the content you WANTED to see.
Considering all of the problems associated with these ads, why would I want them on my computer? Don't I have the right to protect my computer from harmful ads and ensure that my computer is running efficiently? What if I were working on a blog post and my browser suddenly crashed because of some stupid ad using Flashplayer? Don't I have the right to ensure that I don't lose all of my hard work because of some stupid ad?
Company's fighting ad blocking software are claiming that it's copyright infringement because their websites are being altered by third party software. However, a user has to actually opt to use that third party software, so it's a choice -- not something that's happening automatically. Firefox's ad blocking software is the best and is under fire by many companies. Some ad-dependent sites have even opted to completely block Firefox users.
Furthermore, there are already laws in place against companies advertising to people who specify that they do not want to be advertised to by particular means. Does the Do Not Call Registry ring a bell? Why do people add themselves to that list? Because companies are infringing on their rights to peace. Nobody wants to hear their phone ringing umpteen times a day because somebody wants to sell them something.
Well, wouldn't the same go for people's computers? If ads are causing harm to their computers or affecting their computer's performance, shouldn't they have the right to block them, too? And without their being blocked by some site that displays such ads or be required by them to pay a fee to provide ad-free pages -- whether or not they're an ad-dependent site?
After all, such ads are infringing upon the consumer's rights to freely browse the internet without interruption or having their computers attacked by some virus, possibly costing them hundreds of dollars to fix. What's more, if you're going to advertise your site as being a FREE site, then shouldn't it be free without hidden strings attached?
Besides, if we can tell companies not to call us with their sales pitches, why can't we tell websites not to bother us with annoying ads -- even if that means we must use free third party software to alter their website? We use a free third-party service to put us on a Do Not Call list. But what if a company put in their site policies that you must allow sales calls and not be on the Do Not Call list in order to use their site for free or, if you are on that list, pay a monthly fee to avoid those sales calls in order to legally use their site?
Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? Not to mention highly illegal. So, why should a site be allowed to put in their policies that, if you want to use their site (free or not), you can't use free ad blocking software to protect your computer and your ability to use it without interruption; otherwise, you have to pay a monthly fee in order not to be marketed to?
It's their choice to be an ad-dependent site, so why limit their audience? Although, I'm sure many of those businesses that choose to pay for banners ads on a site require the site owners to put such things in their policies. However, that's infringing on the site owner's AND consumer rights. Yes, they could simply choose not to advertise on that site if the site owner doesn't comply, so the site owner is basically forced to put such things in their policies if they want to make money from advertising spots.
However, if you want to make money from the mere visits to your site, why not be upfront about it and require a fee-based membership in order to see and use it? Wouldn't that be a far less deceptive practice than hiding some stupid term in your policies that seems to be infringing upon users' rights to control and protect their own computers?
Then again, why put the power in the hands of aggressive advertisers in the first place? If they want to advertise to as wide an audience as possible, then they wouldn't limit the places where they advertised if they weren't legally allowed to discriminate against sites that allow the use of ad blocking software.
Furthermore, ad-dependent sites wouldn't be limiting their audience either if they weren't allowed to block people using such software or require them to pay a fee to avoid the ads. A web-programmer put it into perspective..."You cannot assume that everybody will want to pay for your content and what is more important: YOU CAN'T FORCE THEM TO."
I know we're all in the business of selling things online, but most of us here don't use annoying banner ads to promote our businesses. However, I've been planning to use AdSense on my blogs as an income stream, but I wouldn't be blocking people or making them pay a fee for using ad blocking software. At the same time, I wouldn't be using annoying ads, either.
Plus, I can always place my own affiliate ads on the pages that most likely wouldn't be blocked by software because of the custom coding not being recognized as an ad. I do see those on other blog sites despite having AdBlocker turned on, so that would mean I could just forego using AdSense or Amazon ads. There are many sites that allow privatized affiliate marketing directly from their site, using their own affiliate marketing software.
So, what are your thoughts on the whole thing? Where should the line be drawn? Do you think this has the potential to seriously hurt any business's opportunity to advertise online -- particularly when ad blocking software becomes more popular? Or do you think this will make advertisers rethink how they advertise to their audience, forcing them to be far less aggressive and taxing on people's computers? In other words, be more respectful of users.
Should advertisers be allowed to discriminate against site owners that don't require users not to use ad blocking software? How could that be monitored and regulated? Should site owners be allowed to require it of users in the first place with a threat of being blocked or required to pay a fee -- especially when they're openly advertising themselves as a free site? (NOTE: I'm beginning to wonder if this is why I sometimes come across websites with the same blank blue page -- because I use Firefox and some sites are blocking FF and/or AdBlock users.)
Shouldn't a consumer have the right to refuse to be advertised to in a manner that could potentially be harmful to their computers -- and without being blocked by site owners or required to pay a fee (particularly for a FREE site)? One AdBlock user said it so well..."I think it is as legal as going away from the TV during commercial break." LOL
Articles on the Subject (I know there are several, but try to read them all as they each cover different aspects of the issue to give you a better view of the bigger picture):
c|net || Web Ad Blocking May Not Be (Entirely) Legal -- September 14, 2007
The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review || Is Ad-Blocking the New Frontier for Copyright Law? -- December 6, 2012
New York Times || Ad Blocking Raises Alarm Among Firms Like Google -- January 6, 2013
Forbes || Use Of Ad Blocking Is On The Rise -- August 21, 2013
MondayNote || The Rise of AdBlock Reveals A Serious Problem in the Advertising Ecosystem -- December 8, 2014
Below are some links to articles I've found on the subject that I'd like you to read and then share your thoughts. The way I see it, it's my equipment and I have a right to protect it from possibly harmful ads and ads that hinder my computer's performance. As we all know, there have been countless ads laced with malicious content that has done some serious damage to millions of people's computers via viruses, worms, and whatever other critters they want.
Furthermore, many ads -- particularly those with flashies, videos, and other things requiring programs like Flashplayer to run -- can bog down a person's computer, no matter how up-to-date it is. For example, I have two high-performance laptops that are always bogged down by those particular ads because they use Flashplayer -- sometimes they even make Firefox lock up or completely crash. Just imagine what they do to lesser computers.
Then there are those that blast out your eardrums when you weren't expecting any sound to come from a page. Oh, and let's not forget those that pop up and cover the whole screen when your mouse even comes close to their edge, blocking what you were actually trying to see. They sometimes even cause you to accidentally click on that ad when you were trying to click something else related to the content you WANTED to see.
Considering all of the problems associated with these ads, why would I want them on my computer? Don't I have the right to protect my computer from harmful ads and ensure that my computer is running efficiently? What if I were working on a blog post and my browser suddenly crashed because of some stupid ad using Flashplayer? Don't I have the right to ensure that I don't lose all of my hard work because of some stupid ad?
Company's fighting ad blocking software are claiming that it's copyright infringement because their websites are being altered by third party software. However, a user has to actually opt to use that third party software, so it's a choice -- not something that's happening automatically. Firefox's ad blocking software is the best and is under fire by many companies. Some ad-dependent sites have even opted to completely block Firefox users.
Furthermore, there are already laws in place against companies advertising to people who specify that they do not want to be advertised to by particular means. Does the Do Not Call Registry ring a bell? Why do people add themselves to that list? Because companies are infringing on their rights to peace. Nobody wants to hear their phone ringing umpteen times a day because somebody wants to sell them something.
Well, wouldn't the same go for people's computers? If ads are causing harm to their computers or affecting their computer's performance, shouldn't they have the right to block them, too? And without their being blocked by some site that displays such ads or be required by them to pay a fee to provide ad-free pages -- whether or not they're an ad-dependent site?
After all, such ads are infringing upon the consumer's rights to freely browse the internet without interruption or having their computers attacked by some virus, possibly costing them hundreds of dollars to fix. What's more, if you're going to advertise your site as being a FREE site, then shouldn't it be free without hidden strings attached?
Besides, if we can tell companies not to call us with their sales pitches, why can't we tell websites not to bother us with annoying ads -- even if that means we must use free third party software to alter their website? We use a free third-party service to put us on a Do Not Call list. But what if a company put in their site policies that you must allow sales calls and not be on the Do Not Call list in order to use their site for free or, if you are on that list, pay a monthly fee to avoid those sales calls in order to legally use their site?
Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? Not to mention highly illegal. So, why should a site be allowed to put in their policies that, if you want to use their site (free or not), you can't use free ad blocking software to protect your computer and your ability to use it without interruption; otherwise, you have to pay a monthly fee in order not to be marketed to?
It's their choice to be an ad-dependent site, so why limit their audience? Although, I'm sure many of those businesses that choose to pay for banners ads on a site require the site owners to put such things in their policies. However, that's infringing on the site owner's AND consumer rights. Yes, they could simply choose not to advertise on that site if the site owner doesn't comply, so the site owner is basically forced to put such things in their policies if they want to make money from advertising spots.
However, if you want to make money from the mere visits to your site, why not be upfront about it and require a fee-based membership in order to see and use it? Wouldn't that be a far less deceptive practice than hiding some stupid term in your policies that seems to be infringing upon users' rights to control and protect their own computers?
Then again, why put the power in the hands of aggressive advertisers in the first place? If they want to advertise to as wide an audience as possible, then they wouldn't limit the places where they advertised if they weren't legally allowed to discriminate against sites that allow the use of ad blocking software.
Furthermore, ad-dependent sites wouldn't be limiting their audience either if they weren't allowed to block people using such software or require them to pay a fee to avoid the ads. A web-programmer put it into perspective..."You cannot assume that everybody will want to pay for your content and what is more important: YOU CAN'T FORCE THEM TO."
I know we're all in the business of selling things online, but most of us here don't use annoying banner ads to promote our businesses. However, I've been planning to use AdSense on my blogs as an income stream, but I wouldn't be blocking people or making them pay a fee for using ad blocking software. At the same time, I wouldn't be using annoying ads, either.
Plus, I can always place my own affiliate ads on the pages that most likely wouldn't be blocked by software because of the custom coding not being recognized as an ad. I do see those on other blog sites despite having AdBlocker turned on, so that would mean I could just forego using AdSense or Amazon ads. There are many sites that allow privatized affiliate marketing directly from their site, using their own affiliate marketing software.
So, what are your thoughts on the whole thing? Where should the line be drawn? Do you think this has the potential to seriously hurt any business's opportunity to advertise online -- particularly when ad blocking software becomes more popular? Or do you think this will make advertisers rethink how they advertise to their audience, forcing them to be far less aggressive and taxing on people's computers? In other words, be more respectful of users.
Should advertisers be allowed to discriminate against site owners that don't require users not to use ad blocking software? How could that be monitored and regulated? Should site owners be allowed to require it of users in the first place with a threat of being blocked or required to pay a fee -- especially when they're openly advertising themselves as a free site? (NOTE: I'm beginning to wonder if this is why I sometimes come across websites with the same blank blue page -- because I use Firefox and some sites are blocking FF and/or AdBlock users.)
Shouldn't a consumer have the right to refuse to be advertised to in a manner that could potentially be harmful to their computers -- and without being blocked by site owners or required to pay a fee (particularly for a FREE site)? One AdBlock user said it so well..."I think it is as legal as going away from the TV during commercial break." LOL
Articles on the Subject (I know there are several, but try to read them all as they each cover different aspects of the issue to give you a better view of the bigger picture):
c|net || Web Ad Blocking May Not Be (Entirely) Legal -- September 14, 2007
The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review || Is Ad-Blocking the New Frontier for Copyright Law? -- December 6, 2012
New York Times || Ad Blocking Raises Alarm Among Firms Like Google -- January 6, 2013
Forbes || Use Of Ad Blocking Is On The Rise -- August 21, 2013
MondayNote || The Rise of AdBlock Reveals A Serious Problem in the Advertising Ecosystem -- December 8, 2014