Pure... Retardedness

[Mr. SmartyPants]

As long as it is Printed out ON the paper,
and it ends up IN your mailbox, you have the right to do whatever you want with them

same thing, as long the ad is MADE, and ON the website which we go regularly, we have the right to do whatever

[Fsiphskilm]

You're missing the point.

The Ads in the website are Virtual, they cannot be physically on the site, unless they actually show up.

Even so, Those ads support the website, they are the blood and Oxygen of the website. Without ads, 99% of ALL internet Web Pages, Blogs, would go down.

The entire Internet, Relies on ads!#

[Kaligraphic]

Okay, the only issue as far as the law is whether you have the right to selectively choose what graphics to request. We can dismiss with the "alteration" issue because just by rendering the page at all, your browser does far greater alteration to what is displayed - now, I recall that such blockers have been around for a while - since shortly after web advertising exploded - and yet there have been no successful suits against ad blockers. In fact, the only blocker-type program that I could see as even potentially actionable would be one that replaces a site's advertising with its own, and that for reasons other than what we're discussing. Simply declining to load certain elements is not illegal and cannot reasonably be made illegal. After all, you would make every lynx user a criminal, because lynx doesn't load any graphics. If I don't have the flash player, I can't see flash ads. Would that make me a criminal?

Whether the site gets paid is an entirely different issue, and you can make a moral case of it all you like. It simply isn't a legal one.

[LorentzForce]

The ads stay on. It would be illegal if you hacked into the account of the website owner and changed the banner coding in order to remove it. Simply setting your browser to not see it is completely legal.

Let's follow that in a simple reality situation. It would be illegal if you were walking past a large billboard and tears it down for whatever reason you had. It would never be illegal if you just turned your head 45 degrees away from the billboard and just plain don't see it.

It doesn't matter if they go down or not, that's their problem. Let those stupid sites that rely entirely on linking revenue to die, that just means I get more sites with less ads, which is all the more better.

[Nate]

Walking away, Looking away, ignoring an ad is completely different than using software to completely make the ad dissapear.

How?

If I turn off my TV the second it cuts to a commercial break, how is that different from using a pop-up blocker to block an ad? I am not seeing the ad at all. So are you saying they should make it illegal to turn off my TV during commercial breaks? That's freakin' stupid, yo.

Have you ever decided to just go to an Adless Website?

Hmm...I come here every day, don't I? ]If I don't have the flash player, I can't see flash ads. Would that make me a criminal?[/QUOTE]
According to Volt, yes, because then you'd be making sure you couldn't see the ad, which is wrong.

So I guess that would mean that refusing to download Flash Player would be an arrestable offense.

The more we discuss this, the stupider it sounds.

[Fsiphskilm]

That's it. I'm going out, finding a layer, dragging him here and i'm going to have him explain it all over again.

You guys keep useing the same examples, over and over. No matter what i say, or how i explain it, it's like I'm talking to a brick wall, the same.

"What if I use Lynx?"
"what if i don't have flash?"
"what if i turn my head?"
"what if i turn off my TV?"

what part of ->Virtual ads<- and ->Physical<- ads don't you guys get?

If you use TiVo to record a show, commercial free, that would once again be an entirely different manner. For you are making a back-up copy for yourself. And watching it later, still Makers of TiVo (as more people buy them) will find themselves in a lot of law battles in the upcoming years. Ads are getting more important, and more and more poeple are finding ways around them.

Funny thing is... TiVo and other TV station recorders are Technically directly or indirectly illegal, because your not only are recording something that isn't yours,
but buy recording it, you're not paying for the box set. The Box Set of TV shows, doesn't have ADs in it, becuase you are paying for it.

Ads are shown on the broadcasted version only. TV stations and Cable networks alike have found a way to Get past the TiVo's, which is why no one is sueing...
They do things like In-Program commercials. When you're watching your favorite show, at the bottom, a water mark or logo, or marqee of a commercial, or upcoming program scrolls along, this cannot be avoided or skipped.

The only reason ads are getting more annoying is because poeple keep trying to create a world without them. The more you resist the worst things will get. Resistance is Futile!(tm)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of the advertising company to provide Text based links for their ads, and many do.

If the browser does not support images or the media format that the current ads use, that is an unfortunate fate for the ads, it's the agency's responsibility to make the most compatable format of ads.

There's a whole bible full of little loop-holes, and picky laws, and circumstances. Unfortunately, no matter how much i try to explain any of them, it seems we'll always end up back where we started

"What if i turn my head?" "what if I use Linx" "What if i don't have flash"

so it doens't really matter. Enjoy. Enjoy your moment of victory, indulge in the temporary feeling that you are right and i am wrong, One day, you pathetic mortals will turn on the TV and your entire little world will come crumbling down into peices of nothingness. WHy? Becuase you will have destroyed it, with your ad-free fantasies of a free world.

The future of TV and Internet is a dark and God forsaken place. Where Ads will run rampant, there will be ads on Everything. Already there are sites such as IGN.com that featured 15 ads of McDonald's new Mc. Griddles sandwhich on ONE page.

This is only the begining. In the future... there is no place for sanity.

In the future there will be Ads on Ads.
You'll turn on the TV to watch the Simpsons and homer will have a "___.com " shirt on, Marge will be the new spokeswoman for a household cleaning chemical, there will be ads taped onto their fridge, car, and house.
At the bottom of the screen, there will be scrolling ads, and during episodes of Itchy and Scratchy, there will be Commercials running in real-time.

[shooraijin]

You guys keep useing the same examples, over and over. No matter what i say, or how i explain it, it's like I'm talking to a brick wall, the same.

Mod note: There's no need to be insulting. No one is calling *you* stupid.

[Fsiphskilm]

One who is like a brick wall, is simply not listening.

Intelligence isn't based on how well a person listens, i mean no offense in my Brick Wall figure of Speech.

I'm just curious as to how you got the assumption that i was calling someone or something stupid, by using the term "Brick Wall"

flash ads are stupid and annoying

Let those stupid sites that rely

That's freakin' stupid, yo.

The more we discuss this, the stupider it sounds.

Of all the times Stupid was used in the thread, why pick on Volt?

[LorentzForce]

What part of fact that virtual ads are no different that real-life ads don't you get? They're both ads. If you don't want to see them, you can make it so that you don't have to see them. It doesn't change the fact that the ad is there or not, one is just not seeing it for benefit of themselves.

And your stance that "not seeing ads will make everything go bankrupt, it'll be put on blah blah" is pointless. If a business runs solely on ads then it's their problem. Why? For example, TV stations don't care if anyone sees the ads, they care about how much they get for each ad and the popularity of the shows to increase that cost of ad. People who make the shows don't care either because all their job is make a show that makes most people watch it, it's popularity. Only people that loses out is people who advertise, who they can try to get people who makes shows to advertise in it (like your Simpsons example, even if it's already happening), but the catch if that if there's too many ads people get turned off, lower popularity, lower cash, and it just circles.

Same goes with on the net. Who's the only one who cares about ads and its revenue? The site owners. Here the advertising company just pays how ever much the ad has been clicked or used or visited. The site owner is a fool if they think they can gain entirely off links; if so, why not make a website completely out of ads? In order to counteract this ad they have to make a website that people will still visit regardless of it having an ad or two or not. If someone can't see the ads? Still their problem, that's why they have all sorts of ways to gain revenue (merchandise, off-line advertising, competitions that are part of the site's activity, imagine the possibilities!).

Also note that many websites that do have ads can be classified as following;

1) Personal websites hosted freely with requirement of having an ad (such as Geocities)
2) Businesses that relies on people visiting (such as review sites and online comics)
3) Stupid sites trying to gain profit without content (such as piracy sites)

Personal website owners don't want banners either. They just have it because they can't help it, but don't want to pay for paid hosting.

Businesses that rely on people visiting don't entirely rely on ads. More over, they get higher chance that people are turned off, so they reduce number of ads to minimal. Most people tolerate this, so either they live with it or don't see it. Not much difference really. For example, look at IGN, as you mentioned. Do they seriously entirely base it off ads? Ever notice that they're sponsored too, so all they have to do is let people come in after luring them with nice content, so the rest is the sponsor's problem if people don't click the banners?

Stupid sites, well, they deserve to die.

-----

And I think that just about does it.

[shooraijin]

One who is like a brick wall, is simply not listening.

Intelligence isn't based on how well a person listens, i mean no offense in my Brick Wall figure of Speech.

I'm just curious as to how you got the assumption that i was calling someone or something stupid, by using the term "Brick Wall"






Of all the times Stupid was used in the thread, why pick on Volt?

Because your statement implies people were thick-headed for disagreeing with your arguments, or as you insist, not listening to them. No one has said that about you, and none of the quotes you cited were directed at you, while your statement came across directed personally at everyone else: "You guys keep useing the same examples, over and over. No matter what i say, or how i explain it, it's like I'm talking to a brick wall, the same."

Whether you meant it that way or not, cut it out.

[Kaligraphic]

If you use TiVo to record a show, commercial free, that would once again be an entirely different manner. For you are making a back-up copy for yourself. And watching it later, still Makers of TiVo (as more people buy them) will find themselves in a lot of law battles in the upcoming years. Ads are getting more important, and more and more poeple are finding ways around them.

Funny thing is... TiVo and other TV station recorders are Technically directly or indirectly illegal, because your not only are recording something that isn't yours,
but buy recording it, you're not paying for the box set. The Box Set of TV shows, doesn't have ADs in it, becuase you are paying for it.

Actually, TV recorders are completely legal - I refer you to the now-famous Betamax Case (findlaw.com), and to findlaw in general, which may increase your knowledge of US legal precedents.

The only reason ads are getting more annoying is because poeple keep trying to create a world without them. The more you resist the worst things will get. Resistance is Futile!(tm)

Actually, ads are based on efficacy - if they don't increase sales enough to cover their costs, they'll go away. If they decrease sales, they'll stop much faster. As people learn how to block the most annoying ads, advertisers have to find other ways of getting the ad across. Doubleclick is complaining because they don't want to adapt to people, and any ad that doesn't have its viewers in mind is already doomed to fail. That's why they're just a delivery system, and not a real advertising company.

If the browser does not support images or the media format that the current ads use, that is an unfortunate fate for the ads, it's the agency's responsibility to make the most compatable format of ads.

If the viewer does not support seizure-gifs, then that's unfortunate for the ad, because away it goes. It's the agency's responsibility to make ads that don't irritate people enough to stamp them out. Ads have to be compatible with the viewer as well as the browser. I, personally, have no problem with unobtrusive little text ads - such as, for instance, the one on the right column on findlaw. I do, however, have issue with seizure-gifs, "musical" flash garbage, stupid flash popups and overlays, and other such annoying ads. So, I don't see them. I challenge you to cite any specific law that compells me to.

In the future there will be Ads on Ads.
You'll turn on the TV to watch the Simpsons and homer will have a "___.com " shirt on, Marge will be the new spokeswoman for a household cleaning chemical, there will be ads taped onto their fridge, car, and house.

It's called product placement, and it's been around for decades. As I recall, there was an entire episode of Friends about the Pottery Barn. They're just a bit more subtle. Usually. Well, I, Robot had the whole bit about the shoes.

[Nate]

Actually, ads are based on efficacy - if they don't increase sales enough to cover their costs, they'll go away.

Volt, do you remember the Quizno's commercials with the singing gerbils or monkeys or whatever they were? Quizno's got a LOT of hate mail from people saying that they found the commercial irritating and stupid and would never eat at another Quizno's ever again because of those commercials. Therefore, Quizno's took them off TV as soon as they could.

I, personally, have no problem with unobtrusive little text ads - such as, for instance, the one on the right column on findlaw. I do, however, have issue with seizure-gifs, "musical" flash garbage, stupid flash popups and overlays, and other such annoying ads.

I don't have a problem with ad banners either (such as the ones on geocities). What I have a problem with is the ads that have SOUND. Like on this wallpaper site, I was trying to listen to a CD on my computer, and a stupid Star Wars ad popped up with TIE fighters flying by shooting lasers, and it was getting in the way of my music.

Those ads need to go away.

At the bottom of the screen, there will be scrolling ads, and during episodes of Itchy and Scratchy, there will be Commercials running in real-time.

Unfortunately, no. Remember when Fox would have those promos running on the bottom of the screen during shows? So many people complained about those that they stopped doing them. They knew if they kept doing something people hated, they'd lose viewers. And in TV, ratings are EVERYTHING. Most people don't mind regular commercial breaks, but they don't want their shows interfered with. Fox learned that the hard way, and if they'd kept on doing it, they would've lost viewers, thus making the ads less effective because less people would watch their station.

[Fsiphskilm]

You guys are trying to see things from a LOGICal point of view, and I'm seeing things from a LEGAL point of view. The Legal way doesn't make sense. THis thread has turned into a "Oh look, volt doens't make sense and we can't understand him, this is a perfect oppertunity, keep making points volt already covered!" With members repeating the same thing over and over. Whilst i counter it, I cannot keep up, i unfortunately have college and various activities to do.

I can honestly say with all of these arguements, that I don't know what we're argueing anymore. So I've went and dug up a small but Authentic Quote from the CABLE LAW that was passed to prove my point once and for-all

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals - "Under the Cable Act, a cable provider may not edit an advertisement for tapes and transcripts of a cablecast on a public access channel where the program otherwise qualifies as non-commercial."
-cablecast = a cable channel broadcast
-public access channel = regular cable channels open to the public for a fee, not to be confused with non-cable, free tv.
-non-commercial = not an info-mercial

If Ads were just the random, stupid, wastes of money, like you guys are making them sound... then this law never would of been passed.

1) Ads ARE important,
2) they are sponsorship services,
3) they must be displayed if the payee has payed money to put them there


-----this is the last round of repliing i'm doing-------

What part of fact that virtual ads are no different that real-life ads don't you get? They're both ads. If you don't want to see them, you can make it so that you don't have to see them. It doesn't change the fact that the ad is there or not, one is just not seeing it for benefit of themselves.

rules of sponsorship are very specific, an add being hid by natural means is different than be purposely hid, not rendered, not loaded, or hidden by purpose virtual means or programs.

For example, TV stations don't care if anyone sees the ads, they care about how much they get for each ad and the popularity of the shows to increase that cost of ad. People who make the shows don't care either because all their job is make a show that makes most people watch it, it's popularity.

In the ad industry, they have a set of tools and techniques so that they don't go around spending MILLIONS of dollars for no reason, Ad agencies aren't dumb you guys, they don't take spontanoius risks. McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Microsoft, are all very capable of figureing out that people are NOT watching or being affected by their ads. it's NOT just a game to see if they can benefit from ads.

You guys are trying to make it sound like these Ad COmpanies have no idea what they're doing, that they're just throwing ads everywhere and hoping someone can spot them. That is 100% false. Ads are tracked, survey'd and official reports are made as to how many people it has or is estimated to have effected. Don't over- simplify something you don't understand. Ad companies of all companies are very good at tracking and know when something works or not.

You guys are looking at one very narrow point of view, and that's yours. This view of "I sit at home and i don't care, as long the tv show/ web site gets payed, it's all cool"

You are extremely over simplifying this.

Same goes with on the net. Who's the only one who cares about ads and its revenue? The site owners. Here the advertising company just pays how ever much the ad has been clicked or used or visited. The site owner is a fool if they think they can gain entirely off links],

Free porn sites are Exactly Like that. You mean to tell me you've never been to the VIN DEISEL site?!

The Vin Deisel Random Fact Generator
http://www.4q.cc/vin/

"We've exceeded the ten million mark in less than a month and have generated more income from advertising than the Gross Domestic Product of Tuvalu*"

[b]why not make a website completely out of ads?

They're all over the place? Didn't you know? Portals.

http://www.deansworld.com/

For example, look at IGN, as you mentioned. Do they seriously entirely base it off ads?

Sure, what a perfect guess...

Actually, TV recorders are completely legal - I refer you to the now-famous Betamax Case (findlaw.com), and to findlaw in general, which may increase your knowledge of US legal precedents.

Yes it is legal becaue you are making a copy for yourself, but do you mean to say that Recording the Matrix when it comes out on prime television is legal?

Maybe so, i won't go there because my point is about ads

Actually, ads are based on efficacy - if they don't increase sales enough to cover their costs, they'll go away. If they decrease sales, they'll stop much faster.

You wrote this right after the above quote, thus solving your own arguement
"""As people learn how to block the most annoying ads, advertisers have to find other ways of getting the ad across."""

Isn't that what I've been saying? Ads are going to get worse and worse.

If the viewer does not support seizure-gifs, then that's unfortunate for the ad, because away it goes. It's the agency's responsibility to make ads that don't irritate people enough to stamp them out. Ads have to be compatible with the viewer as well as the browser. I, personally, have no problem with unobtrusive little text ads - such as, for instance, the one on the right column on findlaw. I do, however, have issue with seizure-gifs, "musical" flash garbage, stupid flash popups and overlays, and other such annoying ads. So, I don't see them.

yes, the same thing i said (see volt's quote below)

It is the responsibility of the advertising company to provide Text based links for their ads, and many do.

If the browser does not support images or the media format that the current ads use, that is an unfortunate fate for the ads, it's the agency's responsibility to make the most compatable format of ads.

I challenge you to cite any specific law that compells me to.

There are laws that have not yet been broken because they have not yet been made, but the in-direct laws that effect the common sense of the people are what start the official laws.

EX: Napster wasn't illegal untill years after it launched, But stealing music was always illegal. Things take time.

Weather it be Ciezure inducing ads, text ads, image ads, flash ads, I'm not here to argue wheather they are enjoyable. But they are SponserShip services, they are workers and they pay the bills at the end of the day. In the very near future as more poeple begin terminating ads from TV, internet, there will be corporations that will rise, and sue, and they will shake the earth with anger and vengance. And they'll have the right to.

It still stands, a Man who pays for something, and doens't get it, has been ripped off. And ad-hiders are the Cashiers doing the ripping. If this were a secular message board, I wouldn't even be posting in this thread. But since being here for a while, and seeing the way the average christian likes to nit-pick on weather everything is legal or not. Why not contribute?

It's called product placement, and it's been around for decades.

And it's getting worse, the last thing poeple want to see is a Nike shoe and Will Smith saying "Gosh i love this shoe, it's soo awesome"

Volt, do you remember the Quizno's commercials with the singing gerbils or monkeys or whatever they were? Quizno's got a LOT of hate mail from people saying that they found the commercial irritating and stupid and would never eat at another Quizno's ever again because of those commercials. Therefore, Quizno's took them off TV as soon as they could.

what a great idea. Lets write to the websites, complaining about thier ads, so that the websites will set up a list of Dos and Don'ts for putting ads on their websites.

This way we are all happy, they're getting payed, we're not being annoyed. and People are clicking the ads, thus the Ads won't work as hard to try and get our attention with teh annoying sounds and flashes they make.

I don't have a problem with ad banners either (such as the ones on geocities). What I have a problem with is the ads that have SOUND. Like on this wallpaper site, I was trying to listen to a CD on my computer, and a stupid Star Wars ad popped up with TIE fighters flying by shooting lasers, and it was getting in the way of my music.

Those ads need to go away.

agreed, I too have similar problems, unfortunately no one's doing anything about it.

Remember when Fox would have those promos running on the bottom of the screen during shows? So many people complained about those that they stopped doing them. They knew if they kept doing something people hated, they'd lose viewers. And in TV, ratings are EVERYTHING. Most people don't mind regular commercial breaks, but they don't want their shows interfered with. Fox learned that the hard way, and if they'd kept on doing it, they would've lost viewers, thus making the ads less effective because less people would watch their station.

Fox might of stopped, but ABC, NBC, Comedy Centrail, Home and Garden Channel, Cartoon Network, etc... still do them, I've seen it with my own eyes.

[Fsiphskilm]

Whether you meant it that way or not, cut it out.

I apologize publicly, and i didn't mean it that way.
but it's easy to get mis-understood, let me show you an example.
Note: F/U really means, Follow-Up

[LorentzForce]

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals - "Under the Cable Act, a cable provider may not edit an advertisement for tapes and transcripts of a cablecast on a public access channel where the program otherwise qualifies as non-commercial."
-cablecast = a cable channel broadcast
-public access channel = regular cable channels open to the public for a fee, not to be confused with non-cable, free tv.
-non-commercial = not an info-mercial

That just drives my point exactly.

It'll be illegal if the ISP blocked out the ads for us. But it's not illegal if the recipient blocks it, since recipients are clearly not even in the above statement, only the provider.

I'll assume you very clearly know exactly and precisely how adblock programs work, so I won't repeat that here. ISPs don't block ads. General public with adblock programs or otherwise do. It's perfectly legal.

rules of sponsorship are very specific, an add being hid by natural means is different than be purposely hid, not rendered, not loaded, or hidden by purpose virtual means or programs.

It's exactly the same. There is nothing 'natural' about it, you're purposely turning your head away in order to not see it, purposely turning that TV off, purposely refusing to load that image from that image tag found in the HTML code you received from the website. If you really think no one should be able to turn their heads when they feel like just because someone paid for an ad then that's a serious breach of Human Rights.

In the ad industry, they have a set of tools and techniques so that they don't go around spending MILLIONS of dollars for no reason, Ad agencies aren't dumb you guys, they don't take spontanoius risks. McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Microsoft, are all very capable of figureing out that people are NOT watching or being affected by their ads. it's NOT just a game to see if they can benefit from ads.

You guys are trying to make it sound like these Ad COmpanies have no idea what they're doing, that they're just throwing ads everywhere and hoping someone can spot them. That is 100% false. Ads are tracked, survey'd and official reports are made as to how many people it has or is estimated to have effected. Don't over- simplify something you don't understand. Ad companies of all companies are very good at tracking and know when something works or not.

You guys are looking at one very narrow point of view, and that's yours. This view of "I sit at home and i don't care, as long the tv show/ web site gets payed, it's all cool"

You are extremely over simplifying this.

Of course they have their own agendas and ideas; they're also professionals. Doesn't have to mean that we have to listen to them though, regardless of their intentions. If they don't get sales because we used adblock programs then it's their problem to figure out how to get that ad to us around that program.

Just because they're awesome and professional and has lots of money does not make it illegal for anyone who's viewing a website to have to be forced to look at an ad. And no, saying that websites will die out and ads will get worse is pointless since that's in moral department, not lawful.

Free porn sites are Exactly Like that. You mean to tell me you've never been to the VIN DEISEL site?!

The Vin Deisel Random Fact Generator
http://www.4q.cc/vin/

"We've exceeded the ten million mark in less than a month and have generated more income from advertising than the Gross Domestic Product of Tuvalu*"

Never went there, and probably won't. If people went there to click ads and have fun GOOD ON THEM. Really, good on them, it's not my money. What point does this prove other than ads make revenue, which we already know? What forces me to visit that site just to click on ads?

They're all over the place? Didn't you know? Portals.
http://www.deansworld.com/

I also don't go to portals. Only "portal" would be Google, which so happens to put up their ads neatly enough not to get in the way, so people actually click it. Doesn't mean I can't block them though, except there's no point since it's harmless and quite friendly! See, that's what smart people who advertise properly do. Flash animations with music in the background is not.

Sure, what a perfect guess...

And give me one reason why I (or anyone else for that matter) should go to IGN (I never did before, why start now?) to see their ads.

------

And in the end, it's not a matter that I don't care, it's the matter that I am completely exercising every right I have, and there's nothing written on law to say "You must go watch ads because someone paid big bucks for them, and if you don't you'll get worse ads in the future".

[Fsiphskilm]

Proof of my Point, from 2 Proffesionals, using REAL and CURRENT laws.

The Future of Online Advertising and Ad-Blocking
- Douglas J. Wood

But the software [pop-up blockers] also creates a threat to the economic viability of some businesses and may be illegal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyberlaw and the Global Economy 2003
-Jonathan Gottfried

By eliminating pop-up ads, the client may be viewed as undermining the source of payment to the copyright owner for the site that is being viewed.(6) This might be construed as copyright infringement. However, the courts are unlikely to accept this argument for a variety of reasons. First of all, there is no principle of copyright that requires people to watch commercials, and the link between the pop-up ads and the copyrighted material is tenuous.

then there is a stronger argument to be made that the consumer (and not the client) is responsible for blocking the pop-up ads.

Secondly, if users must choose to block pop-up ads (i.e. if the search engine does not default to blocking all pop-ups), then there is a stronger argument to be made that the consumer (and not the client) is responsible for blocking the pop-up ads. To the extent that there is any copyright infringement, it is the consumer who is infringing.(7)

If plaintiffs can prove that the client had (a) knowledge of the infringing use or an ability to supervise that use, and (b) a direct financial interest in the exploitation of the copyrighted material, then the client may be guilty of vicarious liability.(9)

(6)A similar argument is being asserted against ReplayTV’s commercial-skipping technology.
(7) The consumer would likely have a “fair useâ€

[LorentzForce]

But the software [pop-up blockers] also creates a threat to the economic viability of some businesses and may be illegal.

Maybe, to some businesses. They're just annoyed they don't get paid as much. Let them figure out how all other businesses work without having blatant ads on their site, even if they rely on advertising (Google is a very good example).

[quote]Cyberlaw and the Global Economy 2003
-Jonathan Gottfried

By eliminating pop-up ads, the client may be viewed as undermining the source of payment to the copyright owner for the site that is being viewed.(6) This might be construed as copyright infringement. However, the courts are unlikely to accept this argument for a variety of reasons. First of all, there is no principle of copyright that requires people to watch commercials, and the link between the pop-up ads and the copyrighted material is tenuous.

then there is a stronger argument to be made that the consumer (and not the client) is responsible for blocking the pop-up ads.

Secondly, if users must choose to block pop-up ads (i.e. if the search engine does not default to blocking all pop-ups), then there is a stronger argument to be made that the consumer (and not the client) is responsible for blocking the pop-up ads. To the extent that there is any copyright infringement, it is the consumer who is infringing.(7)

If plaintiffs can prove that the client had (a) knowledge of the infringing use or an ability to supervise that use, and (b) a direct financial interest in the exploitation of the copyrighted material, then the client may be guilty of vicarious liability.(9)

(6)A similar argument is being asserted against ReplayTV’s commercial-skipping technology.
(7) The consumer would likely have a “fair useâ€

[Fsiphskilm]

I spent days argueing with you guys over this
I offered Numerious examples
I re-explained things that I re-explained previously.
I brought in the Quotes and Saying of 2 ACTUAL proffesionals in this Industry.
Yet still, there is arguement? Is this the year of "Hate Volt and Keep argueing with him, even though he's done everything in his power to PROOVE and Show authentisity of his point and opinions through the Opinions of Proffessionals in the industry."

WHAT MORE CAN I DO?!?!?!???!!!!! You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I'm 100% positive if Jesus himself told you everything I told you, you would still argue my point. You would still refuse to listen. I'm not trying to dis-credit your intelligence, but you don't know anywhere near the amount of knowledge of Ads as my Sources do. What gives you the right to discredit them with your education?

Only thing they can ask is "Did you want to press that advertisement"? And anyone can say No.

How can you decide weathor or not you wanted to press the advertisement, if you never saw it in the first place?

Also to say NO, means you are LIE'ing in court. Last time I checked that was not only Biblically, but Lawfully, morally illegal.

WRONG. It infact saves bandwidth since you're not even loading the image.

WRONG, the PHP code that makes popups actually POP up, runs in the page that launches the pop-up, that code is being wasted, that space on the server is being wasted. The server that has the Hosted Ads on it is being wasted, the SQL server that holds the data for the ads is being wasted.

Pop-up blockers HACK the way sites are suppose to function, they are HACKS that are not deemed "LEGAL" and make a site function in ways that it is NOT suppose to function. It is TAMPERING[PERIOD]

nuts are only given out for free if you buy a drink.

Napkins would make a good example here. Napkins and plastic bags ARE given out for free at Fast Food Resteraunts, it wouldn't make it right for me to take them off the truck.

[quote]Neither is "hacking" into a subscriber's only part of the website. A public domain is just that]

??? If you hacked into the Subscribers section (AD-FREE) section of a website, because of an imperfection in the log-in system, it is still WRONG.

[LorentzForce]

How can you decide weathor or not you wanted to press the advertisement, if you never saw it in the first place?

Because I set the option to block the advertisement. That usually means that I saw it once already, and don't want to see it again.

Also to say NO, means you are LIE'ing in court. Last time I checked that was not only Biblically, but Lawfully, morally illegal.

How am I lying if I'm not lying? Just because I said 'no'? But isn't it true that I didn't want to see the ad? So anyone who is in the court (therefore is accused of blocking the ad) can say 'No, I didn't want to see the ad so I blocked it'?

WRONG, the PHP code that makes popups actually POP up, runs in the page that launches the pop-up, that code is being wasted, that space on the server is being wasted. The server that has the Hosted Ads on it is being wasted, the SQL server that holds the data for the ads is being wasted.

Pop-up blockers HACK the way sites are suppose to function, they are HACKS that are not deemed "LEGAL" and make a site function in ways that it is NOT suppose to function. It is TAMPERING[PERIOD]

PHP is merely a language to create a dynamically content website, it only is used to generate the final outcome of the HTML coding that's asked for depending on the variables given.

Pop-up blocks don't hack anything. They don't stop anyone else seeing the ad, and it doesn't modify the original coding. Only thing it ever does is not request for the image present on the HTML coding.

I still don't see how that is unlawful.

Napkins would make a good example here. Napkins and plastic bags ARE given out for free at Fast Food Resteraunts, it wouldn't make it right for me to take them off the truck.

Last time I went to a restaurant they gave me napkins in the bag I bought chips and a burger for. It may not be right as per say to take a whole truckload of it, but that's why there's only so little of them in the trays as WELL as they already know such and such amount will disappear per day. It's all in the budget, if they decide everyone's stealing napkins they'll put some effort into it so people don't take all of it, again, like putting it in the bag you buy it in.

??? If you hacked into the Subscribers section (AD-FREE) section of a website, because of an imperfection in the log-in system, it is still WRONG.

Define your subscriber section of a website. Subscriber section of a website does not mean it's ad-free, it means it's a private part of the site that you actually physically funded for in order to access.

What difference does it make in a non-subscription part of the website if it did or didn't have a banner? Does getting rid of the banner make me a "hacker" who "hacked" into the subscription part of the website? No, it clearly does not.

[Bobtheduck]

What I find funny, volt, is that you responded to my message ONLY in regard to the statment made directly to you about the way you were treating people, and didn't touch my actual statements. It doesn't matter, I think I"m going to find one of these blocker programs now... I didn't even know it was possible to block doubleclick entirely. That knowledge is exciting!

Also, if you're being referred to cases, I believe (though I could be wrong) that Bonzai Buddy was shut down and forced to pay money in a class action suit for doing similar things as doubleclick. The only difference is that BB was a permanently resident program. Other than that, it was the tracking and the interruption of normal computer usage that brought the suit about. I think that applies to Doubleclick rather well.


[quote="lawyer people etc."]Cyberlaw and the Global Economy 2003
-Jonathan Gottfried

By eliminating pop-up ads, the client may be viewed as undermining the source of payment to the copyright owner for the site that is being viewed.(6) This might be construed as copyright infringement. However, the courts are unlikely to accept this argument for a variety of reasons. First of all, there is no principle of copyright that requires people to watch commercials, and the link between the pop-up ads and the copyrighted material is tenuous.

then there is a stronger argument to be made that the consumer (and not the client) is responsible for blocking the pop-up ads.

Secondly, if users must choose to block pop-up ads (i.e. if the search engine does not default to blocking all pop-ups), then there is a stronger argument to be made that the consumer (and not the client) is responsible for blocking the pop-up ads. To the extent that there is any copyright infringement, it is the consumer who is infringing.(7)

If plaintiffs can prove that the client had (a) knowledge of the infringing use or an ability to supervise that use, and (b) a direct financial interest in the exploitation of the copyrighted material, then the client may be guilty of vicarious liability.(9)

(6)A similar argument is being asserted against ReplayTV’s commercial-skipping technology.
(7) The consumer would likely have a “fair useâ€

[shooraijin]

I think people's tempers are flaring on this thread, so let's let it cool off.

Volt, if you think you're being picked on, then I suggest you bring it up in private PM with the administration.