The biggest win for your team (site publishers that need ad revenue), would be to control the ads placed on your sites. Personally, I have no problem with unobtrusive (even targeted) ads from legit merchants (Amazon, Kohl's, etc). I have Adblocker installed because of obnoxious pop-ups and scripts placed in ads. Google noticed I looked a t a pair of boots on Amazon and they show me the same or similar product on another site? Sure! That might help me find a better price. An ad that installs a script to run in the background or an ad with sound enabled? Hell no.
Anti-Adblock Killer extension prevents sites from blocking your ad-blocker
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
It would care, because it explicitly prohibits the circumvention of copy protection, DRM and access control mechanisms. Ads themselves are not such mechanisms, but an anti ad blocker is.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
I don't believe that for an instant. There are no copyrights being violated in blocking code from running. If that were the case we never would have been allowed the comfort of anti-Malware.
What I do believe is that everyone is entitled to advertise. However if the user decides to block said ads, the use of an anti-Adblockers becomes a malicious act. And therefor should be considered Malware. I say this because it all takes place on the users machine, not the server. If blocking Ads took place on server side, they could shout Malware but it doesn't so they can't.
JeromeFree
Posts: 73 +9
Well to tell you the truth, the biggest win for my team will be when the adblockers will die. I'm already in the process of implementing a solution from a anti-adblock company.
R
RustyTech
JeromeFree, please share with us your website...so that we can avoid it like the plague that it is.
Haha pathetic. I hope you're planning on implementing your entire website in Flash, since:
1. That's the only way to prevent script tampering.
2. No one will visit your website since you've discarded most phones & tablets from your userbase, and google won't list your website in its search results since it's essentially not a website.
As others have said, if AdBlocker won't work and you will let any old add run (which seems obvious from your reply), then people will quit coming to your site. Sure, some AOL users who don't know any better will still go there, and they will all become bots for the malware you spread, but most of us will avoid you. There is not one website I couldn't drop like a rock and replace. Amazon comes closest.
Well, we're not arguing here about beliefs. I, at least, have presented you facts, not beliefs.
You were the first to say they were. What I said was that it's the violation of the DMCA to circumvent the anti ad blocker, which explicitly forbids such actions.
Now you are making no sense.
Again, nobody's talking here about malware, except you. The talk is here about anti ad blocking, and the circumvention of that, which is prohibited by the DMCA.
So what? There will be more server resources left to people who actually tolerate the ads, and are thus contributing to covering the costs of running the site. No income will be lost and the operating costs will be lowered. Site owners will be happy.
There's not one ad-supported website that couldn't drop ad blockers like a rock and even profit from that.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Your facts is what I'm disputing, and calling you out on. From a DMCA stand point the ads on the web page has just as much right to survival (my God I can't believe I'm saying this) as the Adblocker that removes them. Perhaps there is a difference I'm not understanding, that give DMCA the authority to protect one over the other.
I don't think you meant anti-Adblocker. The circumvention of anti-Adblocker would be our next step to blocking Ads once more.
I used Malware as the example, and suggested that the circumvention of any personal security would be Malware.
Ohh and before I forget, nowhere did I suggest copyright's were being violated. I may have interpreted you to mean that when you mentioned DMCA would be interested.
Now when you come back. If you can't convince me why an anti-Adblocker would be in violation of DMCA, when Adblocking is not, I will let this die here and now.
I have to log into my ISP's site through a browser to get internet connectivity. Ad Blocker with its requirement of proxy settings prevents this. In fact it won't even allow me to access Google Play site for software updates. What I am now looking for is a way to list more than one URL that will be accessed bypassing the proxy server !
Technician
Posts: 677 +115
Copy rights only come into play if you are trying to use something you don't hold the rights to in a way that infringes on those rights.
Technician
Posts: 677 +115
Then the ad blocker would also not be allowed to be circumvented for the same reasons.
You really need to read DMCA, because right now you obviously have no clue what it's about.
I DID mean exactly that. Just another proof you don't even understand the basic concepts discussed here.
Read the damn DMCA, man! You've no clue what's in it.
Last edited:
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
And an anti ad blocker is not "circumventing" the ad blocker anyway. It merely denies access to the content for visitors using an ad blocker.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
You came back and now I am done here.
Technician
Posts: 677 +115
The comment was a facetious one.
JeromeFree
Posts: 73 +9
I think you are missing the point, how do want sites to keep providing you with free content and still pay to their employees?
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
I don't, if their only revenue is ads! Sites can pay their employees with revenues other than ads.
No, you are missing the point. If your site hosts obnoxious ads and malicious ads (malware), then you deserve to go out of business. I have no problem with ads. My dad sold televisions ads when I was growing up and is a TV station manager today. Television has long had regulations that stop them from running dishonest or harmful ads. The internet does not. Television has to deal with its own "adblocker" in the form of DVRs and has to work around that to stay profitable.
Not true at all. They will have too little traffic to interest advertisers and will collapse. Good riddance!
You realize advertisers are only interested in visitors who don't block ads, because they're the only ones who can see their ads, don't you? No, you obviously don't.
Weird way to admit defeat. But I'll grant it to you.
Similar threads
