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 we surveyed this week 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 users 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.
Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal
Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal
http://www.news.com/Web+ad+blocking+may ... 07936.html
I seen no mention of this in that article. Does this not protect blocking ads ('content')?
It's about the Safe Harbor portion of the Communications Decency Act which was recently used in the case mentioned in the article linked to in that post.
It's about the Safe Harbor portion of the Communications Decency Act which was recently used in the case mentioned in the article linked to in that post.
The basis for the court's ruling was the Communications Decency Act, which contains a "safe harbor" provision in Section 230. The law provides protection for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, and harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
-
Wladimir Palant
-
Guest
Contributory infringement
There is some basis for suing in the U.S. under the doctrine of "contributory infringement." There are a lot of questions, but sadly it might work.
I would recommend that you remove the names and other identifying information of anyone in the U.S. who is associated with the project.
I would recommend that you remove the names and other identifying information of anyone in the U.S. who is associated with the project.
-
Guest
More detail of previous post:
A U.S. company, ReplayTV, was sued out of business because their product automatically skipped commercials on television programs. This automatic editing was deemed to be "creating an unauthorized derivative work" and thus infringing copyright. I'm not saying it's right, but it might be possible for someone to claim that their site's content plus their ads are a copyrighted work, and removal of ads is similarly infringing.
Put that together with Napster, which was sued into bankruptcy for "contributory infringement," which means selling a product that helps people to infringe without having any other substantial non-infringing uses, and anyone in the U.S. who is associated with ABP might have a serious problem.
A U.S. company, ReplayTV, was sued out of business because their product automatically skipped commercials on television programs. This automatic editing was deemed to be "creating an unauthorized derivative work" and thus infringing copyright. I'm not saying it's right, but it might be possible for someone to claim that their site's content plus their ads are a copyrighted work, and removal of ads is similarly infringing.
Put that together with Napster, which was sued into bankruptcy for "contributory infringement," which means selling a product that helps people to infringe without having any other substantial non-infringing uses, and anyone in the U.S. who is associated with ABP might have a serious problem.
-
Wladimir Palant
The CNET article cited in the first post already mentions this case (and a few others). There is a difference however. In case of TV you have to make an effort to skip ads. On the Internet however you simply don't download parts of the page - which is fair use, you might use a text browser after all, so it is up to the browser what should be downloaded and what shouldn't. So I don't think that you could successfully sue because of Adblock Plus. Add to this that there is no good target, as I said to the reporter - you cannot kill an idea on the Internet. You can find the source code of Adblock Plus on a few million computers, and this source code is everything you need to continue the project.
The main thing is that ABP does nothing on its own ... it is simply an 'empty' program that has the capabilities to stop unwanted items from getting on your computer. Debate it any way that you want ... NOT taking something is not thievery. It is no more thievery than dumping my McDonald's french fries into the bottom of the bag and throwing away the original container with the "Cars" movie promo on it. Is someone going to say that it was illegal to do that because I was supposed to look at the promo while eating my fries? That is the way it was served so that is the way I am supposed to eat them just because you gave me a free toy with my Happy Meal?
Legally, I'm sure a program cannot be illegal for being able to perform a task on one's own computer simply because it has an ability to keep things from being downloaded or displayed. There is no law that says items of a site MUST be downloaded. If that was the case, all "do not load images", javascript, java, and cookie "enable/disable" settings would also be illegal as they all affect ads. It would also be mandatory to install flash.
But an even bigger point could be made for being allowed to block any 3rd-party address requests ... because, in effect, the user did not request those domains when he visited that site. So therefore, that domain could NOT enforce any rule for any items that the domain takes no responsibility for. No domain EVER takes any personal responsibilty for any consequences on behalf of their 3rd-party info, therefore legally, I should have the right to reject any of it as I see fit.
Another thing, ABP does not block anything ... filters do! And I would be hard-pressed to find any legal system that would find a maker of a simple text file list of advertisers that is NOT directly associated with another program liable for a user installing one and then using the other in their own computer in any manner they wish as long as both are of a non-malicious & legal type. If this were the case, then ANY list containing undesirable addresses could also be deemed illegal ... like a Windows Host file. This kind of thinking could open up the kind of things. You theoretically could be forced to allow all cookies and could make it illegal to remove them (it IS part of the site's content, right?) ... blocking or removing them would mean modifying the site's intended downloaded content if I see all of this correctly.
But the main point here from a legal point of view is that the "content blocking" program and any premade lists are legally unrelated! Users themselves must actively combine BOTH of these legal files for adblocking to work at its best right away. Adblock Plus does not work "out of the box" without 3rd-party help. It is a clearly active choice that only the USER makes.
So which one could any law attack? ... the maker of ABP, which by itself does absolutely nothing? .... or the maker of a simple text list of advertisers?
I rest my case
Legally, I'm sure a program cannot be illegal for being able to perform a task on one's own computer simply because it has an ability to keep things from being downloaded or displayed. There is no law that says items of a site MUST be downloaded. If that was the case, all "do not load images", javascript, java, and cookie "enable/disable" settings would also be illegal as they all affect ads. It would also be mandatory to install flash.
But an even bigger point could be made for being allowed to block any 3rd-party address requests ... because, in effect, the user did not request those domains when he visited that site. So therefore, that domain could NOT enforce any rule for any items that the domain takes no responsibility for. No domain EVER takes any personal responsibilty for any consequences on behalf of their 3rd-party info, therefore legally, I should have the right to reject any of it as I see fit.
Another thing, ABP does not block anything ... filters do! And I would be hard-pressed to find any legal system that would find a maker of a simple text file list of advertisers that is NOT directly associated with another program liable for a user installing one and then using the other in their own computer in any manner they wish as long as both are of a non-malicious & legal type. If this were the case, then ANY list containing undesirable addresses could also be deemed illegal ... like a Windows Host file. This kind of thinking could open up the kind of things. You theoretically could be forced to allow all cookies and could make it illegal to remove them (it IS part of the site's content, right?) ... blocking or removing them would mean modifying the site's intended downloaded content if I see all of this correctly.
But the main point here from a legal point of view is that the "content blocking" program and any premade lists are legally unrelated! Users themselves must actively combine BOTH of these legal files for adblocking to work at its best right away. Adblock Plus does not work "out of the box" without 3rd-party help. It is a clearly active choice that only the USER makes.
So which one could any law attack? ... the maker of ABP, which by itself does absolutely nothing? .... or the maker of a simple text list of advertisers?
I rest my case
-
jamieplucinski
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:42 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Advert blocking is completely legal, end of story. The only way in which it would be illegal is in the case of software that is advertisement supported being edited to remove the advertisements... somewhere along the lines of editing Windows Live Messenger or another application to remove applications. Now that would be illegal since you'd be editing software protected (lol) by an EULA.
Filtering advertisements would not be illegal, and is not illegal, if it was then ISP's would be sued if a site was loaded but due to a routing issue they couldn't resolve somecrappyadvertiser.com
AdBlock Plus just provides a filter for advertisements to be separated from good content, it doesn't rip apart Firefox, use hex editing to remove related code, and then go on it's merry way, since Firefox doesn't come with any of that and that is not what the argument is about.
If anything AdBlock Plus would be immune from all kinds of legal action, all ABP does is provide an interface and framework for third party filter subscriptions to interface with, based on end user choice. If it's used to block advertisements everywhere the fault lies with the people making the lists, and so would legal action. If someone sued Wladimir for ABP, then it'd be the same as suing Microsoft for creating a programming language that is used by another company to create spyware. It's not Microsoft's fault it's the people writing stuff for it.
If a company wants to sue me for my list then fine, have fun with that, I'm a British Citizen in Canada so yeah, US lawyers and US law matters not to me.
Considering people seem to make the point clear of not *that* many people use ABP, why are people making such a stink about this? I think there are more people using ABP than we realise and the pressure is coming from Advertisers.
Filtering advertisements would not be illegal, and is not illegal, if it was then ISP's would be sued if a site was loaded but due to a routing issue they couldn't resolve somecrappyadvertiser.com
AdBlock Plus just provides a filter for advertisements to be separated from good content, it doesn't rip apart Firefox, use hex editing to remove related code, and then go on it's merry way, since Firefox doesn't come with any of that and that is not what the argument is about.
If anything AdBlock Plus would be immune from all kinds of legal action, all ABP does is provide an interface and framework for third party filter subscriptions to interface with, based on end user choice. If it's used to block advertisements everywhere the fault lies with the people making the lists, and so would legal action. If someone sued Wladimir for ABP, then it'd be the same as suing Microsoft for creating a programming language that is used by another company to create spyware. It's not Microsoft's fault it's the people writing stuff for it.
If a company wants to sue me for my list then fine, have fun with that, I'm a British Citizen in Canada so yeah, US lawyers and US law matters not to me.
Considering people seem to make the point clear of not *that* many people use ABP, why are people making such a stink about this? I think there are more people using ABP than we realise and the pressure is coming from Advertisers.
That's the part that really gets me. On one hand you get "Firefox with adblock plus users are a relatively small amount of total visitors"jamieplucinski wrote:why are people making such a stink about this?
... but then you get:
"OMG! ... its hurting my blog revenues.
Since when does a 1% difference in revenue become such a BIG story on the web. Are these people just liars or are they simply just incredibly greedy ... or both. Are they only getting $54/month instead of their normal $55/month? OMG! I'm being robbed!
-
jamieplucinski
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:42 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
@rick752:
Simple. They're greedy. For too long the internet has be bound by laws, these laws entitled you, the visitor to be told your penis was remarkably small, to be told that you were, in fact, the billionth visitor to some obscure geocities page that had only been registered two days ago... this was the law of the land.
Now people start to exercise their voting power and personal and internetual (new word) freedoms, and oh noes!!111oneoneoneone People don't like it. See freedom is a strange thing, you are free to do whatever you want providing it doesn't hurt the bottom line of a company or anyone else. It's no secret that huge websites that use huge ad providers are backed by rich people who want to get richer, which ultimately leads you to the government of the country most ad providers are from... the USA. A government that is known world wide for taking the side of a corporation over the "freedom" the country supposedly offers... a little o/t I know but it makes sense if you think about it real hard. And since most of the people in power (senate/congress) have their fingers dipped into many advertising/media outlets it just strengthens the argument.
So while Mr Mc. Crappy Blog sitting in his college dorm room aged 45 and a half, never been kissed, whacking off to hentai whilst on his 5th degree in pointlessology at the University of Christ is pissed that he isn't going to make his $0.20 for maybe 100 ad impressions over the next year it's not people like him we should think about. It's these big ad companies, as I said on the private forum this is a real opportunity for us to change the way advertising companies do business. Sadly this change has spooked the stock holders of said companies and rather than do anything about it, you know, listening to their consumers, they've called in a few favours and have sites badmouthing ABP and anything remotely related to it.
If you've been watching this develop (as I know you have) you'll see how it went from one little man/creature to some major players in the online world... things like that do not happen every day, and require some major financial backing to occur.
I'm very interested in how this will play out, and who are the major players behind it all.
Simple. They're greedy. For too long the internet has be bound by laws, these laws entitled you, the visitor to be told your penis was remarkably small, to be told that you were, in fact, the billionth visitor to some obscure geocities page that had only been registered two days ago... this was the law of the land.
Now people start to exercise their voting power and personal and internetual (new word) freedoms, and oh noes!!111oneoneoneone People don't like it. See freedom is a strange thing, you are free to do whatever you want providing it doesn't hurt the bottom line of a company or anyone else. It's no secret that huge websites that use huge ad providers are backed by rich people who want to get richer, which ultimately leads you to the government of the country most ad providers are from... the USA. A government that is known world wide for taking the side of a corporation over the "freedom" the country supposedly offers... a little o/t I know but it makes sense if you think about it real hard. And since most of the people in power (senate/congress) have their fingers dipped into many advertising/media outlets it just strengthens the argument.
So while Mr Mc. Crappy Blog sitting in his college dorm room aged 45 and a half, never been kissed, whacking off to hentai whilst on his 5th degree in pointlessology at the University of Christ is pissed that he isn't going to make his $0.20 for maybe 100 ad impressions over the next year it's not people like him we should think about. It's these big ad companies, as I said on the private forum this is a real opportunity for us to change the way advertising companies do business. Sadly this change has spooked the stock holders of said companies and rather than do anything about it, you know, listening to their consumers, they've called in a few favours and have sites badmouthing ABP and anything remotely related to it.
If you've been watching this develop (as I know you have) you'll see how it went from one little man/creature to some major players in the online world... things like that do not happen every day, and require some major financial backing to occur.
I'm very interested in how this will play out, and who are the major players behind it all.
GOOD creator who made adblock should get sued
adblock stealing ppl web content and web service, leaving webmasters without a living. he deserved to get sued if it happen...
jamieplucinski wrote:
why are people making such a stink about this?
That's the part that really gets me. On one hand you get "Firefox with adblock plus users are a relatively small amount of total visitors"
... but then you get:
"OMG! ... its hurting my blog revenues.
Since when does a 1% difference in revenue become such a BIG story on the web. Are these people just liars or are they simply just incredibly greedy ... or both. Are they only getting $54/month instead of their normal $55/month? OMG! I'm being robbed!
----------------
TO jamieplucinski
you take free web content and service from webmasters then you leave him without a living do you think this is very good for the he|| world.... you are like a theif. advertisers pay for the ads not you. you as a visitor just to surf the content or click on ads if you found it fit you. you dont pay a single cent to the webmaster. why must you create a adblock
to kill a webmaster? what if all webmasters quit producing free web content to the he|| internet world do you think that is a good scenario?
ppl create free content for you. why must you jeapardise webmasters' living?? ppl live on that ads. are you as evil as google?
why are people making such a stink about this?
That's the part that really gets me. On one hand you get "Firefox with adblock plus users are a relatively small amount of total visitors"
... but then you get:
"OMG! ... its hurting my blog revenues.
Since when does a 1% difference in revenue become such a BIG story on the web. Are these people just liars or are they simply just incredibly greedy ... or both. Are they only getting $54/month instead of their normal $55/month? OMG! I'm being robbed!
----------------
TO jamieplucinski
you take free web content and service from webmasters then you leave him without a living do you think this is very good for the he|| world.... you are like a theif. advertisers pay for the ads not you. you as a visitor just to surf the content or click on ads if you found it fit you. you dont pay a single cent to the webmaster. why must you create a adblock
to kill a webmaster? what if all webmasters quit producing free web content to the he|| internet world do you think that is a good scenario?
ppl create free content for you. why must you jeapardise webmasters' living?? ppl live on that ads. are you as evil as google?
-
A Cat Is Fine Too
