Is blocking advertisements a form of stealing?

[TheBuzzSaw]

This topic came about after reading this discussion: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/discussions/comments.php?DiscussionID=3060&page=1

I agree with the majority of people who responded in that thread. The blocking of ads falls under the same rights we have had all along when it comes to throwing away newspaper ads, muting TV ads, etc. It disgusts me to hear about people whining that Internet browsers like to block advertisements. If anything, they brought it upon themselves with all these overly bright/flashy ads. On top of that, they intrude our computers with tracking cookies and spyware.

And for the record, I am a web developer. Sure, I may end up putting ads on sites I host, but I will never criticize my users for blocking them. Ads are 100% voluntary, and viewers have every right to avoid them. How is it any different from viewing the ad and refusing to purchase?

 

[AltF4]

I don't know about whether or not it's stealing but blocking ads might just have larger consequences than we might think.

There are many new advertisement blockers that are coming out / are out that are very good at blocking ads. There's a firefox plugin I saw that blocks any content from a list of known ad servers, as well as some other functionality. Sounds great, huh? It's like being able to skip the commercials while watching TV.

But you're forgetting that the money flows in the internet because of advertising. Google for example makes virtually all of their money from ads. There's really only two ways of making it all possible:

1) Having to watch ads. Believe it or not, people actually are persuaded by ads. They work, which is why they're all over the place.

2) Have a subscription service, where you have to pay a (monthly or other) fee to use it.

It's like the difference between NBC and HBO. One is free and has ads, one has a fee and has no ads.

If you go and block all the ads on the internet, the money that runs everything will stop. And we'll have a big problem on our hands. You wouldn't want to have to pay a subscription fee to use every different web page you go to do you? Just to skip the ads?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Well, there are other aspects to consider. First off, I never click on Internet ads. Given that history, I feel I should have the right to block them from my web-browsing experience since I never generate any revenue for these people anyway, and ads that are thick with media/data slow down my Internet drastically. Secondly, since people really do click on ads, are those same people inclined to install an ad blocker? I would imagine that such people are fine with ads and would avoid an ad blocker.

I can see problems with including ad-blockers in Internet browsers as a default; otherwise interested customers would miss out on certain ads. On the other hand, advertising as a whole is an inherent risk! There is no contract attached to an advertisement. Ads are meant to entice and convince, not enslave and bind. So, if I see an ad and reject its product, I have stolen absolutely nothing.

The question advertisers really ought to ask is this: why are people turning to tools (sometimes even paying for them) that block advertisements? Perhaps it has something to do with their intrusive nature (too bright/flashy, installs Internet cookies, etc.).

 

[AltF4]

Oh, no. No no no.

Online advertisements aren't necessarily so benign. You know that the ad companies track virtually every website you go to? They keep logs every time you go to a website. They stockpile information on you, what you like, where you go, your name, anything they can get. And they use this information to serve you more appropriate ads. (If they play by the rules, if they don't, they sell your information to others)

Go to a website... like say... the smashboards. Look on the bottom of the page as its loading. If you have a good connection it might go kind of fast. You'll notice that it's loading something from "doubleclick". Doubleclick is one of many internet advertising companies that gather information on users like I've said. Whenever you visit a website, you also contact doubleclick and say "Hey, I'm going to the smashboards now" or "Hey, I'm gonna watch some porn". They know about it.

But new tools are out/coming out that can block these companies from gathering information in this way. In fact, you can do it yourself. Find the IP of doubleclick and set your router's firewall to block it. No more tracking from them.

But the problem is that advertisements are what keep a VERY large portion of the internet running! The smashboards itself is maintained in large part by the funding from serving ads. So if everyone blocks them, people will stop advertising, and websites (like our beloved smashboards) go down in flames. Hence the issue...

It's precisely the same as cable TV. What if someone came out with a device and gave it away for free. And the device got rid of all commercials from every TV show. Such a device would ruin cable television. Nobody would want to pay to advertise on TV since everyone's gonna just skip it! Then the networks go bankrupt since they aren;t getting in any money and now you have no TV at all!

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

So if everyone blocks them, people will stop advertising, and websites (like our beloved smashboards) go down in flames. Hence the issue...

I agree with you, but you also sort of made my point. You are going under the assumption that everyone blocked ads, and I am suggesting that not everyone does or even wants to. If the current balance were maintained, I think there would be no problem with ad-blocking. However, I have problems when people start saying that it is somehow illegal for me to block them. There has never been a law stating that I must view a set of ads for any reason. Yes, certain web sites and/or services can require ad-viewings (such as pre-ads for IGN videos and whatnot), but am I violating any agreement by turning my head or leaving the room? I see ad-blocking as no different.

 

[AltF4]

I was only using words like everyone for dramatic effect. It wouldn't take everyone blocking ads to cause serious problems.

From a legal standpoint, it looks like you're perfectly right. I can't see how a company could justify outlawing program that blocks ads. (But they'll try anyway) I was just trying to provide some insight into exactly what we might get ourselves into if we "get what we ask for", so-to-speak.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Well, I honestly would like to meet some people who have purchased more than one item from clicking Internet ads. Are they really that seductive to where almost every web site alive has them? They must work if they are still so abundant. Maybe I have yet to reach that "I have money to burn" phase of my life, but it just seems weird to me.

 

[AltF4]

People totally do! It's scary! Ads are everywhere because people click on them and buy their products.

One of my friends' grandmothers is an infomercial *****. She buys just about every gadget and do-hickey that you see being sold for "Only $19.95". It seems hard to believe, but ads like that really do work.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I am going to go start my own nation. Anyone want to help?

 

[Falco&Victory]

I am going to go start my own nation. Anyone want to help?

Nation? What? I'll help if you explain what exactly 'nation' falls under

Any it is in no way stealing. If I was looking to buy something I'll look at ads, but considering that so many innocent ads lead to porn sites I never click them

Now on a reliable site I still refuse to check them out because they have never once sparked my interest, ever

Anyway advertisers pay sites to advertise, not to have little pop-ups that can slow down your computer, hinder research and place cookies on my computer.

 

[snex]

i think some of you underestimate the power of a capitalistic society.

first of all, ads are so pervasive because they work. companies do not spend millions of dollars on advertisements unless they expect to make even greater returns on them.

second of all, customers refusing to watch ads or buy products seen in them is good. when customers boycott products, it shows companies that they are wasting money on ads that not only do not work, but actually have a negative effect. companies will respond by making ads that are more effective, and this benefits both the companies and the consumers.

capitalism is about competition. competition is what drives progress. people who cry and moan that people dont want to see their ads are just sore losers. if they cant hack it in the competition, they shouldnt be there.

 

[Mic_128]

People totally do! It's scary! Ads are everywhere because people click on them and buy their products.

One of my friends' grandmothers is an infomercial *****. She buys just about every gadget and do-hickey that you see being sold for "Only $19.95". It seems hard to believe, but ads like that really do work.

I would never buy a product from any infomertial. Should I be made to watch them regardless of that?

 

[KevinM]

I was thinking along the same lines Mic

Its also as you said yourself Alt, if people are going to buy things off ads wouldn't that mean they wouldn't block the ad in the first place.

If i'm blocking it, i don't want it period.

 

[AltF4]

I'm not really trying to argue in favor of outlawing ad blocking. Just trying to make everyone aware of the consequences of what might happen if it goes too far. It's really an impossible argument to try to say "yes, you should be required by law to watch ads".

Like I said, you can configure your firewall right now to block Doubleclick from tracking you. If the bunch of us talking in this forum do it, it's not such a big deal. If a large enough portion of internet users do it, it will be a big deal.

Given the option, I would rather a system of free internet with ads, than a subscription service without. You can't have it both ways.

 

[snex]

you are assuming that there is "going too far." you are failing to grasp that if we all collectively blocked ads, ad companies would find new ways around it.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I really ought to rephrase the title of this thread, but I can't think how to do it. Stealing is a word reserved for removing a possession from a possessor in such a manner that the original possessor no longer has the possession. This thread is an intellectual property type issue.

 

[Zjiin]

I fully condone the blocking of advertisements. Few years ago, i was a true insomniac (not just the kind that people say to be cool) and i would usually spend my many hours at night watching bad Tv and infomercials. I really didn't have the energy to make smart decisions and would buy knife sets and cleaning tools on a whim. Later after i would eventually get rest, i would regret those purchases. I would gladly install a program on my television that would block those ad from myself.

 

[Crimson King]

I fully condone the blocking of advertisements. Few years ago, i was a true insomniac (not just the kind that people say to be cool) and i would usually spend my many hours at night watching bad Tv and infomercials. I really didn't have the energy to make smart decisions and would buy knife sets and cleaning tools on a whim. Later after i would eventually get rest, i would regret those purchases. I would gladly install a program on my television that would block those ad from myself.

Fellow insomniac here as well. Though that sounds exactly like the narrator from Fight Club. I've gone about a week without sleep from time to time and never bought stuff I didn't want or need.

As for this topic? Nah, it's not stealing. Advertisers who pay sites to promote them just want to be seen. I do survey work for various websites and I know that they pay quite well if just one user clicks and signs up. Last month, I made $52 from my survey taking and that's not as hardcore as some people actually go with this stuff. They know you probably aren't interested, but if they can get one customer to become a lifetime member, their revenue spent on that one person just tripled. One person will tell 3 people how great his experience was. Assuming those three are the ones who want to try it out, that's three more people who will be happy with the service and continue spending money and spreading the name.

 

[Zjiin]

Fellow insomniac here as well. Though that sounds exactly like the narrator from Fight Club. I've gone about a week without sleep from time to time and never bought stuff I didn't want or need.

As for this topic? Nah, it's not stealing. Advertisers who pay sites to promote them just want to be seen. I do survey work for various websites and I know that they pay quite well if just one user clicks and signs up. Last month, I made $52 from my survey taking and that's not as hardcore as some people actually go with this stuff. They know you probably aren't interested, but if they can get one customer to become a lifetime member, their revenue spent on that one person just tripled. One person will tell 3 people how great his experience was. Assuming those three are the ones who want to try it out, that's three more people who will be happy with the service and continue spending money and spreading the name.

Yeah, stealing implies ownership, and just like fliers you receive in the mail, the only thing they own on that is the copywrited (my computer tells me that's not a real word?) slogans and logos. Ignoring advertisements or having TiVo skip over them is just a way of flexing you right to not have ideas and thoughts forced upon you. If you consider blocking an ad for a new car as stealing, then it would be only a step away from fines for not buying it either.

Annnnnnnnnd **** Fight Club for being a good movie but making insomnia a trend and not an affliction.

 

[Crimson King]

Fight Club was a much better book before it was a movie. I loved the movie because I could relate exactly to what the character was feeling. Of course, I am on medication for it now.

 

[Lesheik]

If skipping commericials aren't a form of a stealing... why should blocking ads be?

 

[Eight Sage]

Ads are 100% voluntary, and viewers have every right to avoid them. How is it any different from viewing the ad and refusing to purchase?

That's what I was thinking, how could be blocking ads a thief-act? Just think about it, it's like we were going to the road and criticize the ones who don't read the publicity posters! The difference is that web pages impose ads, giving you no other option than seeing them. So, if you don't want to be "attacked" by the ads, blocking them is a way to do it.

Nowadays you're entering to a music site and adult ads pop up from everywhere suggesting you to go there, a child could see this, so blocking ads is a way to prevent them away from those pages. Let me ask, could this be a form of stealing? or is more like a way of defending?

I'm seeing this in the users side, but if you're a web developer, you must know that everyone blocks pop up ads. Just put the publicity in corners of the page, that way your add is viewed and can't be blocked.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Ads have always been an inherent risk. Only recently have advertisers felt threatened into extinction (which is absurd) because they choose to litigate and defend their ads rather than create advertising content viewers actually take interest in.

 

[adumbrodeus]

i think some of you underestimate the power of a capitalistic society.

first of all, ads are so pervasive because they work. companies do not spend millions of dollars on advertisements unless they expect to make even greater returns on them.

second of all, customers refusing to watch ads or buy products seen in them is good. when customers boycott products, it shows companies that they are wasting money on ads that not only do not work, but actually have a negative effect. companies will respond by making ads that are more effective, and this benefits both the companies and the consumers.

capitalism is about competition. competition is what drives progress. people who cry and moan that people dont want to see their ads are just sore losers. if they cant hack it in the competition, they shouldnt be there.

I wish to clarify a point, it's not so much that the ads WORK per say. Not every person who sees the ad will buy something, generally it's only a tiny percentage.

However, they work in terms of a cost benefit analysis, enough people buy the product based on the add that it produces a profit ultimately. The more insignificant the advertising cost per consume, the lower the number of people required to buy the product for it to be cost-effective.

Take spam e-mail for instance, only about 1 out of every 5,000 (I think) spam e-mail is effective. However, they can send millions of these e-mails out for mere pennies. So, even if one person responds, the advertisement is effective hundreds of times over.

That's the type of ratio these ads work under, though not as extreme.




As far as the legal argument goes, the "honest webmaster" is dead wrong, case law spells this out very clearly (which I could actually reference to), this out very clearly. A person is never guaranteed the right to an audience, individuals have the right to ignor you at any point in any way that does not interfere with contractual obligations, does not harm your work, or does not harm you directly (and them not listening to the message is not considered harming you, legally).

You can of course, make not ignoring the content essential to receiving whatever service you provide, but you cannot stop them from ignoring the message if you chose to.


As a further point, the webmaster should realize that the people who block the ads are the people who would never click on them, they're not in the target audience anyway.