Website owners ready to sue the developers of Adblock extension

[protocol7]

most ads are not payed per impression (or "hit" as you called it) but by how many clicks it receives

Oh. If that's the case then this is even more of a non-issue that I thought. I can't remember the last time I clicked on a web ad.

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

I work on the Internet, it is my job to do a lot of browsing, this includes all sorts of websites. Even porn video sites! To date since 1997 I have not been infected or had to force close a browser yet.

Trust me between 10 and 12 hours a day on the Internet I do a lot of browsing, downloading.

If you are sensible about what you do, if you have enough intelligence to know how to use program such as ad block you should have the intelligence to not need it!

1 hat does not fit all. I don't know what kind of work you do that you visit porno sites at work... you're an obvious case for someone who doesn't need to block ads. Not all websites are created equally and some are just downright blatant.

For those of us who use the internet to get results and are aware, ABP and other tools mitigate a lot of headaches. And this has nothing to do with intelligence; what intelligence do you need to just the view the web as it is with all the crap in it? That's pretty easy. I'm using tools to keep the internet clean for myself - That's intelligent application in my book.

[Vice]

so you want more intellitxt ads all over the site.... umm no thanks

Of course not. Did you even read my post? :rolleyes:

[smooth_criminal1990]

haha, pwn'd

I don't see why they're so bothered as there will always be people too inexperienced to install any sort of adblockers and just endure/ignore them.

While I am not one of them, I might consider disabling adblock if sites started closing down due to lack of revenue (the prevention of which is why I disable it for certain sites).

[Miuku.]

Why I love AdBlock: I no longer have to force-quit my browser because a badly-made Flash ad sends CPU usage to 100%.

And here's a reason why I surf with all plugins and Java off. No more spikes, no more crap.

[-Vivicidal-]

I disable adblocking on sites like Neowin because I have a lot of respect for them, but I think trying to sue the people who made adblock are being unfair - not that fairness plays any part in decisions like these, it's all about the size of your lawyers cheque.

[7Dash8]

But you constantly ignore my point that there are other ways of obtaining funding other than lambasting users with adverts which are a hole for exploits, contain irrelevant material, obscure the very content you want to read and at worse could cause disciplinary action if the content of those very adverts is unsuitable for work.

The only person ignoring points is you. You still haven't answered my question asking why would any webmaster run a site if all it means is having to pay large sums of money each month in costs, having to spend large amounts of your free time in admining and maintaining the site, all for what? A good feeling inside?

Also stop with this RIAA propaganda about how everyone has no sense of value or worth, and steals everything because put bluntly it is bull. A tiny percentile pirate material the rest pay for it, otherwise how would many of these films magically break all previous box office records which were originally set when there was no terrible P2P piracy. Your arguments are flawed and laughable at best. Adverts which are shoved in peoples faces are the easy way out to make short quick cash, the problem is they annoy people. That is a fact. This creates an adverse reaction and causes you to lose users and thus income. Instead a long term solution is needed which is less obtrusive. Asking for help isn't begging by the way, just to address that childish mindless point you made with regards to wikipedia setting goals and asking for the community to donate. I say again, if you create something people want, they pay for it. Address that first, the rest will follow...

There is no RIAA propaganda, it is pure and simple logic. Just because a couple of movies set box office records does not mean that piracy is a "tiny percentage". But of course you'd know that if you actually based your comments on logic and facts rather than blind self-serving arguments. Piracy of some games is now up above the 90% mark - that is, there are 90% pirates vs. 10% legitimate players (e.g. go check out the piracy stats for the non-DRM protected game Demigod, or World of Goo, or Prince of Persia). Some stats from legitimate data services put P2P traffic at above 50% of all internet traffic, most of it illegal, and that's not counting the various other sources of piracy, like the 30% of all internet traffic attributed to direct download (primarily Rapidshare) traffic.

Most people quite simply do not pay or contribute anything to the people whose content they rip off. Adblocking does much the same thing. If you genuinely care about a website, have the decency not to block their ads, or alternatively give them some money, like subscribing. Neobond has already pointed out that only a small fraction of Neowin's active user base are subscribers.

Blocking ads does two things: it reduces income potential for a site (and yes, this also means the site is worthless for resale value by the way), and it also forces the site to look for other sources of revenue. Since you also haven't answered my question asking you to name 3 popular sites which charge users for their content, then I assume you know as well as I do that very few if any sites can actually force their users to pay for anything, no matter how useful or popular they are. This leaves really only one choice for many sites: to accept payments directly from software and hardware manufacturers.

Do you really want hardware review sites which provide positive reviews based on which hardware company gives them the most money? Do you want software and game reviews based on which games company gives them the most cash? Because that's where we're headed. You're living in a delusional dream world if you think webmasters will just accept steadily declining incomes to the point where it costs them more to provide a service than the income they get from it. In the grown up world people usually don't work for free, at least not for long periods, and certainly not as the work goes up and the pay goes down.

Edited June 23, 2009 by 7Dash8

[Boo Berry]

Yeah, this won't go anywhere. They'll have to sue Microsoft for the HOSTS file too I guess, good luck to them getting this atrocity heard in court. Even if it does, the developers can move the development to Sweden or something, haha.

[Subject Delta]

But you constantly ignore my point that there are other ways of obtaining funding other than lambasting users with adverts which are a hole for exploits, contain irrelevant material, obscure the very content you want to read and at worse could cause disciplinary action if the content of those very adverts is unsuitable for work.

Also stop with this RIAA propaganda about how everyone has no sense of value or worth, and steals everything because put bluntly it is bull. A tiny percentile pirate material the rest pay for it, otherwise how would many of these films magically break all previous box office records which were originally set when there was no terrible P2P piracy. Your arguments are flawed and laughable at best. Adverts which are shoved in peoples faces are the easy way out to make short quick cash, the problem is they annoy people. That is a fact. This creates an adverse reaction and causes you to lose users and thus income. Instead a long term solution is needed which is less obtrusive. Asking for help isn't begging by the way, just to address that childish mindless point you made with regards to wikipedia setting goals and asking for the community to donate. I say again, if you create something people want, they pay for it. Address that first, the rest will follow...

That's pretty much a perfect description of why I personally block all adverts on all websites. They are just annoying and obtrusive. That is why I never put ads on any sites I work on any more. I don't whitelist anywhere, and that is not because I want to screw websites over, just that I want to have a clean, readable, and unobstructed page show when I visit a website.

The only person ignoring points is you. You still haven't answered my question asking why would any webmaster run a site if all it means is having to pay large sums of money each month in costs, having to spend large amounts of your free time in admining and maintaining the site, all for what? A good feeling inside?

The problem with people like you is that you appear to be far too money orientated. Some people (myself included) do things like running websites as a personal project for a bit of enjoyment, or in the case of forums just to allow people to gather together and share their knowledge and discuss their favourite subjects in a laid back and informal atmosphere in which millions of people can potentially contribute and share. Life isn't all about making money and turning a profit, sadly that message appears to have been lost on some people.

[revvo]

People who block ads aren't the type who click them anyway.

Besides, a lot of ads are annoying as hell and will give anyone epilepsy

[7Dash8]

The problem with people like you is that you appear to be far too money orientated. Some people (myself included) do things like running websites as a personal project for a bit of enjoyment, or in the case of forums just to allow people to gather together and share their knowledge and discuss their favourite subjects in a laid back and informal atmosphere in which millions of people can potentially contribute and share. Life isn't all about making money and turning a profit, sadly that message appears to have been lost on some people.

And the problem with people like you is that you assume that running some minor little site is exactly the same as running a major site. An average blog or tiny website with little original content takes little time effort and cost to run, so it's easy to absorb the cost and effort involved. Sites like neowin take a lot of time and effort and money. Can you afford $1200 a month to run a site out of your own pocket?

Better yet, imagine a system whereby in your everyday job you had to go to your boss every month and plead with him to pay you your salary. And your boss says "Guess what, I'll just pay you whatever your basic bills are. Show me your rent, grocery and fuel bill, and I'll pay you just that. Anything more than that and you're being greedy! Oh and next month I want you to come in and do more hours... but for the exact same pay". I couldn't see many people working that way, but funny how most people expect the internet to work that way.

The "you should do it for the love of it" argument is all well and good when most people themselves don't go to work for the love of it. There are a lot of people who do a good job and find their work satisfying, and also get paid a decent salary for it which goes well beyond paying for their basic needs. Why should the internet be any different? Why is it ok for everyone to happily operate under a capitalist system in their real lives, but expect the internet to operate under communist rules? Why - because most people consume services on the internet and don't produce them, so it's easy for them to post these sort of arguments because it suits their purposes...

[jakem1]

The problem with people like you is that you appear to be far too money orientated. Some people (myself included) do things like running websites as a personal project for a bit of enjoyment, or in the case of forums just to allow people to gather together and share their knowledge and discuss their favourite subjects in a laid back and informal atmosphere in which millions of people can potentially contribute and share. Life isn't all about making money and turning a profit, sadly that message appears to have been lost on some people.

(Y) (Y)

[Subject Delta]

And the problem with people like you is that you assume that running some minor little site is exactly the same as running a major site. An average blog or tiny website with little original content takes little time effort and cost to run, so it's easy to absorb the cost and effort involved. Sites like neowin take a lot of time and effort and money. Can you afford $1200 a month to run a site out of your own pocket?

Better yet, imagine a system whereby in your everyday job you had to go to your boss every month and plead with him to pay you your salary. And your boss says "Guess what, I'll just pay you whatever your basic bills are. Show me your rent, grocery and fuel bill, and I'll pay you just that. Anything more than that and you're being greedy! Oh and next month I want you to come in and do more hours... but for the exact same pay". I couldn't see many people working that way, but funny how most people expect the internet to work that way.

The "you should do it for the love of it" argument is all well and good when most people themselves don't go to work for the love of it. There are a lot of people who do a good job and find their work satisfying, and also get paid a decent salary for it which goes well beyond paying for their basic needs. Why should the internet be any different? Why is it ok for everyone to operate under capitalism in their real lives, but expect the internet to operate under communist rules? Why - because most people consume services on the internet and don't produce them, so it's easy for them to post these sort of arguments because it suits their purposes...

Ask Neowin's staff how the site started out. Do honestly you think they imagined in their wildest dreams that the site would be this successful when they started it? The fact is you make the assumption that everyone runs everything like a business, and in the real world things just don't work like that.

Inevitably the staff at Neowin where faced with a choice presented by the success of the site, they chose to keep it running despite the cost. Although they still have corporate backing from Stardock, I think you will find they still either make a small loss, or at best break even. Most of the staff here are volunteers and apart from people providing news articles and editorials, they don't get payed, they just do it because they enjoy being part of the community. You ask the staff seriously why they would keep a site running that barely breaks even, the answers may surprise you.

Despite what you think I am not a leecher, and although I am not wealthy I try to contribute to websites in other ways, I just pity people like you with your sad obsessions with money and making profit. The nature of the Internet is that most of its users consume more resources than they put back in, and it is not necessarily always a matter of greed.

[lunarworks]

I work on the Internet, it is my job to do a lot of browsing, this includes all sorts of websites. Even porn video sites! To date since 1997 I have not been infected or had to force close a browser yet.

Trust me between 10 and 12 hours a day on the Internet I do a lot of browsing, downloading.

If you are sensible about what you do, if you have enough intelligence to know how to use program such as ad block you should have the intelligence to not need it!

I should have the intelligence to not need it? Sure I do. But not the hardware.

My computer is about 6 years old. Quite a few flash ads, with heavy animation and effects in them, send my CPU to its limits. Occasionally I do encounter one that bogs everything down so badly that I have to force-quit my browser. Most, though, still cause unnecessary slowness. It's a matter of marketing ********s with whiz-bang Flash authoring software and a fetish for special effects who are out of touch with the fact that lots of us are still running old hardware.

Sure, if I had a newer computer these ads wouldn't be an issue, but I honestly can't afford one.

[7Dash8]

Ask Neowin's staff how the site started out. Do honestly you think they imagined in their wildest dreams that the site would be this successful when they started it? The fact is you make the assumption that everyone runs everything like a business, and in the real world things just don't work like that.

Incorrect. I never said anything about running this or any other site as a business. You are the one making rather unfounded assumptions. The very founder of Neowin itself has posted in this thread indicating that he wants more income so that he can pay contributors more, which in turn increases the quality of the site. It is not greed to want more income, you and many others simply assume that everything must be free and any push to earn more is greed.

I also know for a fact that neowin and other sites want an income, because by the very act of placing ads on their sites, they are demonstrating this. If neowin or any other site didn't want or need income, they could just remove all their ads. But they don't, they have them there for a reason - to provide much needed income. And it would take a real hide to suggest that neowin is covered in obtrusive advertising. In fact most major tech sites just have basic ads, and most people just blanket block all advertising using adblock, so there goes the argument that it's just to block obtrusive ads.

As an interesting aside, have you ever noticed that the true defenders of the "share and share alike" argument/smokescreen - the piracy sites - are the most ad-covered sites on the entire Internet? Ever noticed how the most malicious and annoying ads are found on warez sites? Tells you right there what the real problem is, it's people like you who hide your selfishness under the hokey argument that it's all about sharing and caring.

Inevitably the staff at Neowin where faced with a choice presented by the success of the site, they chose to keep it running despite the cost. Although they still have corporate backing from Stardock, I think you will find they still either make a small loss, or at best break even. Most of the staff here are volunteers and apart from people providing news articles and editorials, they don't get payed, they just do it because they enjoy being part of the community. You ask the staff seriously why they would keep a site running that barely breaks even, the answers may surprise you.

The answers wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, but perhaps they may surprise you. I know for a fact that neowin staff here post as much because they enjoy doing it as anything else, because they've said so in this thread and in other places. However they have every right to earn more money if they do quality work, and I promise you they would be more than happy if that happened. What right do you or anyone else have to deprive them of the possibility of additional income? As I already provided in an example regarding the way people work in their day jobs, do you get paid a salary which only covers your bills? do you wear a loss at work, whereby you actually get paid less to do your job than it costs you to do it? So what makes the Internet so special that everyone and anyone on the Internet must work for free or at a loss, just because you and other leechers say so? It doesn't matter whether it's in a day job or on the internet, hard work needs to be rewarded both morally and financially.

Despite what you think I am not a leecher, and although I am not wealthy I try to contribute to websites in other ways, I just pity people like you with your sad obsessions with money and making profit. The nature of the Internet is that most of its users consume more resources than they put back in, and it is not necessarily always a matter of greed.

I appreciate your pity, and indeed it is warranted. I appear to be the last of a dying breed of people who actually believes in contributing to the people who provide the content I enjoy, even if it is something as simple as not blocking the ads they place on their site. You and many others on the other hand seem hell bent on driving the Internet towards a model whereby amateurish hobby content is the only viable method of running a site, and once a site starts to grow, the webmaster has to start panhandling and begging his users each month for change just to stay afloat. Good luck with that vision of the future, I doubt it will work out, but I'm sure it makes you feel good knowing you're one of those special people who "isn't greedy".

[i_was_here]

So what makes the Internet so special that everyone and anyone on the Internet must work for free or at a loss, just because you and other leechers say so? It doesn't matter whether it's in a day job or on the internet, hard work needs to be rewarded both morally and financially.

Well whats special is that websites can make money in an indirect way (advertising). It's rather difficult to force people to view ads in exchange for the sites content.

With tangible goods in a store, you directly exchange currency for the good.

[Solid Knight]

Question: would it be unethical to uninstall/not-install flash so no flash ads could be served to you? Is it unethical to browse the internet with a text-only browser? Is it unethical to surf-the internet with a browser that doesn't support frames? How about without Java? How about if images are turned off? How about surfing the internet with access to white-listed sites only (security)? How about with Javascript turned off? What about a third-party tool that dumps the content of a site into a program or widget? All of these mitigate the display of various ads. Are these all unethical to use as well?

[7Dash8]

It's not so much a question of ethics or morality, it's more whether you want your favorite sites to get better or worse in quality due to a lack of resources. All the things you mention might not be "unethical" as such, but they will contribute to a loss of income for the people who are providing the content you enjoy. At the end of the day if you're doing things which deprive original content owners of their ability to earn an income, you have to ask yourself whether that's a viable proposition for them to continue operating and prospering. In other words you have to think about the world outside yourself and your own immediate desires, and how your actions impact on the bigger picture in the long term.

[Redmak Administrators]

Inevitably the staff at Neowin where faced with a choice presented by the success of the site, they chose to keep it running despite the cost. Although they still have corporate backing from Stardock, I think you will find they still either make a small loss, or at best break even. Most of the staff here are volunteers and apart from people providing news articles and editorials, they don't get payed, they just do it because they enjoy being part of the community. You ask the staff seriously why they would keep a site running that barely breaks even, the answers may surprise you.

Because we love to do it. But that doesn't mean we don't need the advertisement revenue to stay alive.

As Neobond already stated, we ran the site for free for quite some time (without ads). The bigger we got the more expensive hosting got, up until the point we couldn't (wouldn't) pay it out of our own pockets anymore.

No matter how you look at it or what your views are, blocking ads hurts Neowin. In my opinion it's a matter of respect to the people that provide the service to leave the ads where they are. I never ever block ads. If a site has annoying ads I leave. It's most likely not worth going there anyway (ads or no ads)

[guru]

I appreciate your pity, and indeed it is warranted. I appear to be the last of a dying breed of people who actually believes in contributing to the people who provide the content I enjoy, even if it is something as simple as not blocking the ads they place on their site. You and many others on the other hand seem hell bent on driving the Internet towards a model whereby amateurish hobby content is the only viable method of running a site, and once a site starts to grow, the webmaster has to start panhandling and begging his users each month for change just to stay afloat. Good luck with that vision of the future, I doubt it will work out, but I'm sure it makes you feel good knowing you're one of those special people who "isn't greedy".

agree. that's happened to very very well known forum recently. the owner used his own money to host the site for years but lost his job recently and couldn't afford the site anymore. its good that rest of the users pitched in to help out but you are right. it isn't sustainable. a few weeks later, the site still doesn't have ads but as an optional subscription model, my guess in a few months the site will have ads. reality always catches up doesn't it

[guru]

and its not very hard either :p

[+John. Subscriber¹]

Perhaps advertisment companies should consider a different method of displaying advertistments. Static ads are fine, and I only block websites with intrusive adverts. Ads that fly across the page, or stop you from browsing the website until you close them are counter-productive and serve no purpose, other than people possibly becoming annoyed at the displayed product/service.

Digg Ads is a good service http://blog.digg.com/?p=808. The service offers the users to digg or bury an advertisment, based on various constraints. Popular ads stay up, whilst unpopular ads are buried. This encourages the ad companies to come up with creative *and* unintrustive adverts, based on popular votes.

[HawkMan]

Of course not. Did you even read my post? :rolleyes:

yes, and intellitxt qualifies perfectly for your requirements, technically.

It's context based, it's unobtrusive, it's just links that are part of the article, want more, hover or click the link.

The problems with it are more that with injections like these you never know what it could do if something happened. And more importantly, I'd rather have a banner, than have my articles full of "unobtrusive" links. The banner is an obvious ad, and easy to ignore or spot if it's something I'd be itnerested in.

[Vice]

yes, and intellitxt qualifies perfectly for your requirements, technically.

It's context based, it's unobtrusive, it's just links that are part of the article, want more, hover or click the link.

The problems with it are more that with injections like these you never know what it could do if something happened. And more importantly, I'd rather have a banner, than have my articles full of "unobtrusive" links. The banner is an obvious ad, and easy to ignore or spot if it's something I'd be itnerested in.

Well I did not mean the Intellitext advertisements. They are obtrusive because they pop-up and block content.

The type of ads I want, which I was very clear about are the Google ones which reflect the content you are reading. Again, not Intellitext.

I would have no problem with Intellitext if it was just a link without that annoying pop-up. Make the links green so you know they are ads and when you hover over them nothing pops up at you, but if you click on them then they pop up.

[HawkMan]

Well I did not mean the Intellitext advertisements. They are obtrusive because they pop-up and block content.

The type of ads I want, which I was very clear about are the Google ones which reflect the content you are reading. Again, not Intellitext.

I would have no problem with Intellitext if it was just a link without that annoying pop-up. Make the links green so you know they are ads and when you hover over them nothing pops up at you, but if you click on them then they pop up.

I quite honestly find google ads to be among the most obtrusive.

They're banners that don't fit in on any site, banners that only consists of ugly text, usually it doesn't even match the site, since it has to use a special font due to the tiny font size.

I much prefer what soem other sites do where they have more hand picked ads, and the ad banners are required to fit in witht he design of the site in some way.

You'd think google would at least let the sites have a special CSS for the add so they could have the colors match the site or something. they'd still be ugly, but less.

and intellitxt are unobtrusive since they only pop out if you actually hover over them, do you allways move yoru mouse pointer along the text as you read ?