digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal

news.com — 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.

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 16, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

468 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • autoatsakiklis, on 10/10/2007, -6/+411I don't care if it's legal or not
  • sparkmonkeyz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+314I'll have to put that on the list of "not (entirely) legal" things I do on the interweb.
  • Senn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+288You can pry my Adblock Plus extension out of my cold, dead fingers.
  • BrainCoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+243If they don't want us to block ads, than they should change them. Some are really annoying, like "you are the xxx visitor, click here to claim the prize" or "Find a girl in XXX right now" or that dumb talking emoticon saying "no way" on rollover. I hate them, and I love blocking ads.
  • zorba64, on 10/10/2007, -3/+238This is pure *****. I decide what comes into my home via the browser, not some commercial entity. FFS!!
  • tech10171968, on 10/10/2007, -2/+207I don't even see the point, as this is entirely unenforceable. You don't even really need a browser add-on (like Adblock, Proxomitron or, my favorite, Bfilter for Linux) to block most web ads. All you really need is a good pacfile and/or HOSTS file in some cases.
  • BladeMelbourne, on 10/10/2007, -2/+194Next - using a remote control to fast forward through TV commercials will be illegal, then not reading advertisements in magazines and on public transport.
  • doctorfungi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+140I've got problems with all ads except Google ads. They are clean, they don't pop up in your face with annoying sound effects, they don't demand that I beat Santa at drinking, nor do they contain extremely noisy emoticons that I will never, ever purchase.
  • smackjack, on 10/10/2007, -5/+130Who the hell cares if it's illegal?
  • jonr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+93"Your business model is not my problem" I wish I could put this in tags... And find the original quote...
  • ThndrShk2k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+87It's entirely legal. Whatever data your computer decides to proces and then subsiquentially show you is locally, aka on your property, your data sight, your data rendering.
    article Dugg down for ignoring the obvious.
  • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -5/+84um... i'll just point out that intrusive ads may not be (entirely) legal.
  • ElbridgeGerry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+79You can't force me to download all the content on your webpage. End of story.
  • Twelve-60, on 10/10/2007, -3/+73Possibly the worst analogy I've seen.. but yes I agree
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+71Time to throw some tea websites into boston harbor.
  • d0nk3y, on 10/10/2007, -1/+65I suppose getting up and walking out of the room during commercials is illegal too...
    (edit, sorry I didn't read all the comments..) :(
  • Frophauser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+50Precisely.... I had heard about ad-blockers, but it wasn't until my computer started shouting "Oh my god! No WAY!!!" that I decided that enough was enough and downloaded ABP for Firefox.
  • CosmicJustice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+44I will not allow obnoxious blinking, moving ads to be displayed on my screen. If that means a website dies, then it dies.
  • bruinexmo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+42If the legal issue of ad-blocking is addressed in the courts, then the legality of nanny software should also be placed under scrutiny. Hell, what's the difference between AdBlock Plus and changing the TV channel during a commercial?
  • PAStheLoD, on 10/10/2007, -3/+44Have they thought about that, even if I saw the ads I wouldn't click on any of them? So those who block the ads don't cause profit loss , IMHO.
  • DavidGX, on 10/10/2007, -8/+48You know that's a damn good point. It's like wearing sunglasses with little mountains painted on them and looking outside and then getting sued by the city because there aren't any mountains there and you're modifying the landscape. It's silly.
  • facelesscoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+38I didn't use AdBlock before, but hearing about this made me go download it.
  • m0bilitee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38I'll stop blocking ads when my bandwidth is paid for by the ad providers, it's 100 megabits bidirectional with no monthly caps, and the ad companies subsidize a quad-core gaming machine for me. Until then, I will pull down only exactly what I want to see. My computer, I bought it. My bandwidth, I pay for it. My electricity, I pay for it.
  • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35I hope you simply misunderstood the technology.
    Ad blockers are not "providers". They do NOT download the page to company Y, company Y strip out the ads and sends it to you minus the ads. Yes that would be illegal. Ad blockers are run on the users computer, so it is not like your analogy at all. To correct your analogy, the question becomes whether it is illegal for you to cover newspaper sections which contain advertisements before you read the paper if you do not redistribute that said paper to a third party?
  • Nossie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35no its not......

    Its like me picking up the spam mail in the morning and dumping it straight in the bin :P
  • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33I can still download and discard the ads. It wastes bandwidth but the main concern is the eyesore. I can even tell it to download the ads after the ad free page has loaded, hence keeping speed up.
  • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28That's an interesting point about Lynx. If ad blocking software is illegal because it stops you from seeing their ad content, wouldn't text-based browsers be illegal for the same reasons, particularly on sites that use Flash for ads? Let's see them sue blind people who use text-based browsers in conjunction with other equipment in order to access the Internet.
  • filefly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26"...and hopefully your pants!"
  • doshindude, on 10/10/2007, -4/+30exactly. Ads suck.
  • AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31I recall a debate over whether or not it is theft of a program to not watch the commercials that fund it. If you watch the show without participating in commercials.... Let's not even get into the cost just to get cable.

    Really though, I don't mind ads if they're NOT ***** ANNOYING. You know, bright, blinking ads, ads that cover have the screen (if not all of it) and have no way to get rid of it until it's finished playing through, etc.. Make them fun (like those "Real Men of Genius" ads), and I may even look forward to them!
  • R2Bacca, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Funny...
  • lcmatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25Instead of fighting the add-ons or programs that block adverts look at why USERS who visit your site are blocking the ads. How many websites have horrible flash ads with sound or a page with one paragraph of content but 2 columns of adverts.
    Advertising on the internet is becoming more and more annoying and the website owners need to come up with different methods on making cash, selling products or premium content can bring in more cash than any adverts on your site if you market them correctly.
    Another way is to provide people with additional features at a small cost to remove the adverts (On forums you could enable images in signatures, more PM storage etc). The internet is evolving constantly while the advertising industry is stuck in time.
  • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25Remember the good ole days before the marketing nutjobs decided that they owned the internet?

    sigh.

  • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27I won't click on ads. In fact I make a point of avoiding products that advertise too hard. I know what I want and go out and get it, adverts are an unnecessary blot on my life.
  • tuxidomasx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25if it shows up on my computer, seems to me that i have a right to display it however i want to myself. i could put the png down, flip it, and reverse it.

    how is having a firefox adblock feature different than me writing my own personal plugin the blocks ads and loading it into firefox?

    i cant believe people are actually seriously considering this foolishness
  • portis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Uh, if you can't afford to stay in business, then it's time to close shop isn't it? There are plenty of smaller sites out there that don't even need advertising to survive.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Dugg you up for the "no way" reference that drive nuts.
  • gtaluvit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22It doesn't even matter if it's unenforceable. They can't dictate what content you view on a website. If you go to anysite.com/index.html, THAT is the only thing you are downloading. The HTML may link to images, ads, other content, etc. but they cannot force you to download it. If you viewed their page with Lynx, it'd be the same thing. Now if their website stated "you cannot view the information on this website unless you download the following graphics files onto your computer" then you could easily request and not view. This issue is dead on arrival.
  • StickWST, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Congratulations! You have been selected to win a free Apple iphone, and a complimentary interuption in your video!
  • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24There's a cool plugin called Firefox available.
  • fergl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22I think it's derived from the old saying "lack of foresight on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine".
  • smackhero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19next they'll say it's illegal to change channels or close your eyes during commercials...
  • MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18If ads weren't annoying, I'm sure adblock would be rare to non-existent.
  • Apreche, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18No harm, no foul.

    Also, a law banning ad blockers would be entirely unenforceable. If a law can not be enforced, then it doesn't count.
  • jjb123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21People just need to focus on other ways of making money than, like I don't know, providing good content that makes people want to donate a little every once and a while.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19I guess watching the telly on mute is illegal too then, since you're modifying the work by removing sound.
  • moocow1452, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18"Open up, this is the police. You have been caught skipping past advertisements while in the bathroom reading TIME. Come out with your hands up!
  • hmunkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18That's why I don't block Google AdSense. Their ads are unobtrusive and small sites use it for income.
  • justok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Those terms are accepted.
  • autosovereign, on 12/06/2008, -0/+17These days, what isn't illegal?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 466 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.