4 ms·

"The publisher can also choose to circumvent the ad-blocking program and still present the ad." "'if users opt-in to having advertising subsidizing the experie

by logn 11y ago

"The publisher can also choose to circumvent the ad-blocking program and still present the ad." "'if users opt-in to having advertising subsidizing the experience, we can serve that ad, [and if an ad blocker continues to block the ads] then that would be illegal'" Wouldn't unauthorized use of my browser to download content over my ISP, against my wishes and for the benefit of someone else, be a federal crime?

wutbrodo 11y ago
In the scenario you just described (ie opting in to seeing ads)? I don't see how it would be. You could make the same argument in the following scenario: I buy a product with my credit (or debit) card and then ask my card issuer to not let the transaction go through (while not claiming fraud or anything). If the resolution was that the transaction was legitimate and is fulfilled, isn't that "unauthorized use of your account against your wishes for the benefit of another party"? Do you think that would be a crime (theft)? When you're a grownup, when you agree to pay for a product (again, this scenario is opt in, by contrast to a lot of current content delivery), it's not a crime or unauthorized to enforce your end of the transaction that you agreed to. I never thought I'd have to explain that to someone over the age of ten.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >"The publisher can also choose to circumvent the ad-blocking program and still present the ad." That is not opting-in. That's the publisher forcing ads on the user without their permission.
- logn 11y ago
  That's not the scenario I was referring to. The second quote was just to show the hypocrisy (of the scenario in the first quote). What you're describing is covered by contract law I guess. Contracts can also be trumped by law. E.g., if you reply to this comment and don't click this link for a free iPad, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/innervu/news/win-a-free-ipad http://www.vanderbilt.edu/innervu/news/win-a-free-ipad , then you owe me $100. If a site wants to detect an ad blocker and block their own page too, fine. But if they want to circumvent it and silently download whatever resources they want and thwart all countermeasures they encounter, then that's cyber crime IMO.
DannyBee 11y ago
If you opted in to having advertising subsidize the experience, you are consenting, so no. This is also not an entirely sensible question, as it works the other way around, too: "Wouldn't unauthorized downloading of content, using your ISP, and then deliberately extracting certain parts of it, against the publishers wishes, and for your own benefit, be a federal crime?" (Note: The question of whether this is copyright infringement, which is the common claim, is separate from the question of whether it may fall under some crime)
- logn 11y ago
  The article described essentially four options for the user after Sourcepoint detects an ad blocker: 1. encourage users to enable ads on publisher's site 2. register an account with the publisher for free 3. view certain number of ads to unblock publisher's site 4. publishers can also circumvent the ad-blocking I assume the opt-in would happen in option 2. It's option 4 that I think is illegal.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    FWIW: I don't believe option 4 is illegal under any current criminal law i'm aware of. Also, even if option 4 happened after the opt-in, you may get bound to a TOS or something that allows them to do it, etc. Note also that all of this may run afoul of various civil codes, of course (it's hard to say, a lot of them are pretty vague, so until someone tries it, it's not easy to say what the actual end result would be)
- kuschku 11y ago
  No. It’s been solved in court in the past (and some horrible misdecisions were made, like saying that if no one links to something, it isn’t public), but in general: if you make something available for me, I can ALWAYS for private-only use remix it as much as I want. I can copy my CD collection a thousand times, I can burn a hundred clones of a videogame – for private use. Which is the case here. The publisher has no right to expect that users actually see ads. Even with TV, all recording devices since the time of VCR skip recording ads completely. And with live TV, people switch the channel.

by logn 11y ago

wutbrodo 11y ago

In the scenario you just described (ie opting in to seeing ads)? I don't see how it would be. You could make the same argument in the following scenario: I buy a product with my credit (or debit) card and then ask my card issuer to not let the transaction go through (while not claiming fraud or anything). If the resolution was that the transaction was legitimate and is fulfilled, isn't that "unauthorized use of your account against your wishes for the benefit of another party"? Do you think that would be a crime (theft)? When you're a grownup, when you agree to pay for a product (again, this scenario is opt in, by contrast to a lot of current content delivery), it's not a crime or unauthorized to enforce your end of the transaction that you agreed to. I never thought I'd have to explain that to someone over the age of ten.

Nadya 11y ago
>"The publisher can also choose to circumvent the ad-blocking program and still present the ad." That is not opting-in. That's the publisher forcing ads on the user without their permission.
logn 11y ago
That's not the scenario I was referring to. The second quote was just to show the hypocrisy (of the scenario in the first quote). What you're describing is covered by contract law I guess. Contracts can also be trumped by law. E.g., if you reply to this comment and don't click this link for a free iPad, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/innervu/news/win-a-free-ipad http://www.vanderbilt.edu/innervu/news/win-a-free-ipad , then you owe me $100. If a site wants to detect an ad blocker and block their own page too, fine. But if they want to circumvent it and silently download whatever resources they want and thwart all countermeasures they encounter, then that's cyber crime IMO.

DannyBee 11y ago

If you opted in to having advertising subsidize the experience, you are consenting, so no. This is also not an entirely sensible question, as it works the other way around, too: "Wouldn't unauthorized downloading of content, using your ISP, and then deliberately extracting certain parts of it, against the publishers wishes, and for your own benefit, be a federal crime?" (Note: The question of whether this is copyright infringement, which is the common claim, is separate from the question of whether it may fall under some crime)

logn 11y ago
The article described essentially four options for the user after Sourcepoint detects an ad blocker: 1. encourage users to enable ads on publisher's site 2. register an account with the publisher for free 3. view certain number of ads to unblock publisher's site 4. publishers can also circumvent the ad-blocking I assume the opt-in would happen in option 2. It's option 4 that I think is illegal.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  FWIW: I don't believe option 4 is illegal under any current criminal law i'm aware of. Also, even if option 4 happened after the opt-in, you may get bound to a TOS or something that allows them to do it, etc. Note also that all of this may run afoul of various civil codes, of course (it's hard to say, a lot of them are pretty vague, so until someone tries it, it's not easy to say what the actual end result would be)
kuschku 11y ago
No. It’s been solved in court in the past (and some horrible misdecisions were made, like saying that if no one links to something, it isn’t public), but in general: if you make something available for me, I can ALWAYS for private-only use remix it as much as I want. I can copy my CD collection a thousand times, I can burn a hundred clones of a videogame – for private use. Which is the case here. The publisher has no right to expect that users actually see ads. Even with TV, all recording devices since the time of VCR skip recording ads completely. And with live TV, people switch the channel.