Adblock - Is it legal?

[philcozz]

Okay, thanks.

It is kind of immoral, but oh well.

It's immoral for me to stop people from trying to sell me something that I don't need or want?

Wow...

[waft]

I don't -- the advertiser does

i don't think. where do owner of page get the money from? from ads.
where would he get the money from, if there were no ads? from users.

=>

you read ads - you do not pay
you do not read ads - you pay

[Nitin]

you read ads - you do not pay
you do not read ads - you pay

You depend on doubleclick ads, your site goes bankrupt
You come up with a donation/subscription system, your site does well.

[ivand67]

If you feel immoral (I sure don't, I don't read the ads anyway) and you view the new ad-free appearance as a "negative effect", then simply don't use adblock.

WHOA!!!!! THAT'S immoral??!?

Whoa dude, seriously, chill out... loosen up your tie or something, grab a beer...

It's your right as a customer to do this. Norton Internet Security which is one of the most popular consumer firewall-antivirus software solution comes with Ad Blocking as well... this is perfectly legit and it's good for you since you don't have to be a slave to corporations and companies' advertisements on your computer.

It's YOUR computer... you decide what you see on the web page. After all, you're paying for it.

[Nitin]

If you feel immoral (I sure don't, I don't read the ads anyway) and you view the new ad-free appearance as a "negative effect", then simply don't use adblock.

WHOA!!!!! THAT'S immoral??!?

Whoa dude, seriously, chill out... loosen up your tie or something, grab a beer...<snip>

Um, didnt djst clearly say he does NOT consider it immoral?

[BenBasson]

It boils down to this...
-> Do you hold in your need to urinate while watching a film until the advert break?
-> Do you flick through the channels during advert breaks?
-> Do you get up and make a drink during advert breaks?

If the answer to any of these is yes, you're (in theory) denying someone some advertising revenue... so what about this one?
-> Does every single person strategically avoid every single advert?

The answer obviously is no. Now put this in the Internet advertising context. Does every single person block every single advert? No. Do you have the right to choose? Yes, just as much as you do with any form of advertising. It's nobody's right to shove adverts in your face, it's their choice, just as it's your choice to ignore them.

Adverts are put on websites because people want to make money, not cover their costs, since any non-commercial site can probably do that anyway.

[tonymec]

I don't -- the advertiser does

i don't think.

That explains a lot.

where do owner of page get the money from? from ads.

Who pays for ads? the advertiser.

where would he get the money from, if there were no ads? from users.[...]

Not necessarily. He might also:

1. go bankrupt
2. get his living money from elsewhere, as I do (the few ads on my own site aren't paid).
3. use his site to advertise one or more other products, some of which might be sold for money, not necessarily by him directly to just any user (Example: Where does Mozilla get its money from? Answer: from Netscape. Where are the ads [if any] that pay for that money? Not on Mozilla's pages.)
4. ask for voluntary donations

you read ads - you do not pay
you do not read ads - you pay

you read ads: you pay or you don't, depending on the site
you don't read ads: you pay just as much -- or as little.

[Underwood 5]

Somebody said:

"Does every single person strategically avoid every single advert?"

I do. I'm sure my ad-block text is 100 miles long. I turn Flash/Shockwave on and off with Applescripts, and like JavaScript, Flash/Shockwave usually is off. I refuse to read pages that more resemble pinball machines. I haven't had that shaking "There's a message waiting for you" abomination in years.

Does anyone feel guilty for not reading all the ads in every newspaper and on every magazine page? Or do you stop the car to read the billboards?

If "they" could figure out a way to put that "message waiting" ad in a magazine or newspaper, they would, but the peasants armed with pitchforks and torches would mob the place and burn it to the ground.

That crap is unacceptable and so intrusive they made ad blockers inevitable.

Now the only people who suffer from that cheesy dreck run IE. Who said there's no God?

But wait until 3-D HD TV comes along. It'll be loaded with eight-foot by eight-foot popups appearing two inches from your funny glasses and scaring the tihs out of you with focused sound from a focused ad that in a roomful of people only you will see and hear because you forgot to turn off the cookies from your personal couch the night before.

Spike TV is almost there as it is.

[waft]

Not necessarily. He might also:

1. go bankrupt
2. get his living money from elsewhere, as I do (the few ads on my own site aren't paid).
3. use his site to advertise one or more other products, some of which might be sold for money, not necessarily by him directly to just any user (Example: Where does Mozilla get its money from? Answer: from Netscape. Where are the ads [if any] that pay for that money? Not on Mozilla's pages.)
4. ask for voluntary donations

1. wow! what a fantastic resolution
2. and why should he do this? he can put some ads to his site he has no problem
3. isn't it the same as putting ads to his site?
4. and this is the same as making the site paid

[tonymec]

Not necessarily. He might also:

1. go bankrupt
2. get his living money from elsewhere, as I do (the few ads on my own site aren't paid).
3. use his site to advertise one or more other products, some of which might be sold for money, not necessarily by him directly to just any user (Example: Where does Mozilla get its money from? Answer: from Netscape. Where are the ads [if any] that pay for that money? Not on Mozilla's pages.)
4. ask for voluntary donations

1. wow! what a fantastic resolution

that's not a resolution; I'm putting it in for the sake of completeness.

2. and why should he do this? he can put some ads to his site he has no problem

There may be lots of reasons. Not everyone is a business. I for one have a small but comfortable income, I find a plethora of ads to be ugly, and even if I could get a few more euros by putting ads on my site, I don't want the side-effects in terms of income-tax hassle and site uglification.

3. isn't it the same as putting ads to his site?

It isn't. There are no ads on mozilla's site AFAICT. If there are ads on Netscape's site I couldn't care less when I browse Mozilla's.

4. and this is the same as making the site paid

The difference between a voluntary contribution and a mandatory tax (with maybe a username & PW that you can't get without paying €€€) means a helluva lot to me.

All this said, if you still think it's immoral to refuse looking at ads because if no one did, advertisement money wouldn't pay for what we do look at, then you must think it's immoral not to buy everything that is advertised to you because if no one bought advertised products there would be no one to advertise and thus everything which advertising pays would be costlier.

I think we're wandering off-topic; let's close this discussion or at least move it elsewhere.

[asqueella]

correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Netscape is part of AOL, and it's AOL who gets money for *.netscape.com ads. Mozilla.org lives on donations.

[drumz0rz]

Yeah that last one was rediculous, I go to tons of websites that are free with a small button to donate, alot of donation only income sites do pretty well, I know some small sites that still get around $250. If a sie is a pay-service I don't go there anymore or I find a way around the fee.

[Nitin]

I know of several websites that have a part-free, part-subscription model. You have access to free features, and if you like them and want more, pay for it. All of these realised in time that advertising as the only revenue stream is not sustainable.

[bugrep]

-

[md2perpe]

I don't know, it just seems kind of illigal to be blocking people's advertisements. Hopefully it's not.

If one mans use of Adblock had blocked the ads so that noone on the net had seen the ads, it might have been illegal. But of course it only blocks the ads for those who install the extension.