People should counter with a class action lawsuit claiming web sites advertising on mobile is using data on limited plans consumers pay for without consent or compensation.
Actually this is a good idea and frankly is what class action lawsuits should be about. That is protecting the populace at large from corporate abuse.
It is pretty clear that web sites plastering their content with ads is a theft of services. It is especially bad as the ads become more intrusive and often represent far more data than the actual content. What Axel Springer needs is a massive billion dollar judgement placed against them, that might change their attitude.
It is akin to mailing people advertising with postage due and forcing them to pay it. (I know it’s a silly idea, but it’s as silly as his suit.)
Exactly! The problem with web ads is you never know how much of the content will end up being data for ads. It is the lost of this data that is the real legal problem here. It is one thing if the ads represented a small fraction of the content served but lately it has flipped over and ads now represent many times the amount of data represented by actual content.
He could put the money he’s paying in lawyer fees to better use by paying for development of an iOS app so he can control the UX & embed ads in it, and then redirect people with Ad Blockers on to his app store app. Problem solved.
Or just become reasonable with respect to ads. I don't mind a few ads buried in the content I download as I realize the web sites cost money. What I object to is the massive number of ads, often as pop ups, that burn my bandwidth. Ads that burn bandwidth, (that cost me money) are the number one priority for ad blockers. System performance is the next issue that a lawsuit should address.
In any event I have to wonder if there are any lawyers out there that are familiar with what is going on here and thus might have a perspective on the feasibility of such a lawsuit.
I would sue this person for destroying my financial information on computer. How ? Without Ad Blocker, all these pop-up, static or dynamic Ads constantly not only using my computer's CPU resources but importantly churning disk working hard making it fail(MTBF) sooner thus destroying my personal information costing me thousands in lost time,opportunity missed and mental disturbance. Ad Blocker is best things happen to all of us.
Springer already produces high quality content. If they can't make it through their content, nobody can.
IT's more people don't want to pay ANYTHING EVER... And then bitch if the only way to get it is through subscription (because otherwise the company doesn't get paid).
Google created whole notion of free stuff but with Ads. I would say if people want Ads free contents than they pay through subscriptions. If content provides want to give free contents but hope, want to make money through Ads than we have right to block their Ads and still consume contents because we have not sign up for their contents on internet and internet is free..
Their real problem is not only the ad blocking, it is the script blocking and its side effect on e.g. trackers that limit monthly free page views. Not only don't you see ads, you get unlimited free access to content that those watching ads have to pay for in addition.
So now (since they know that German courts have declared ad blockers to be legit again and again) they are trying a different angle, wording it as some kind of DRM hacking (which, of course, is complete nonsense) while previous lawsuits unsuccessfully tried the anti-competitive angle. And since the developers of Blockr are German, they can't really escape the proceedings. Pretty much all German media covering it assume this to go nowhere.
Yea, the best all publishers can do is shun away from writing/mentioning ad blocker stuff at all. Given the ad blocker uptake in iOS so far, that strategy seems to be working. I suspect Apple won't go out its way to promote them on the App Store.
Ads on the TV and billboards are one thing - I've paid for the TV subscription, billboards are free. But someone downloading their advertising content on my personal ISP contract is sucking my bandwidth and making me pay out of my pocket.
Thoughts?
Yes.
It's not theft.
Ads are one way for paying for content. If you do not like this, then don't visit the page. Actually, expecting content for free is more close to theft IMO.
Of course, the issue is more complex as the "all for free" attitude has slowly but steadily led to a decline in quality of web content as well as an increase of annoyance of ads.
I can see that the trend to block browsers that use as blockers will continue big time. Which very clearly will pose the reader to take the decision whether the content he is expecting to read is actually worth paying for.
In the case of Bild I'd be happy never to see their "news" again (Siri news sometimes sugges articles by them). In the case of Welt less so.
Ads on the TV and billboards are one thing - I've paid for the TV subscription, billboards are free. But someone downloading their advertising content on my personal ISP contract is sucking my bandwidth and making me pay out of my pocket.
okay so they are now detecting ad blockers and telling folks to pay or turn them off. fine. if the price is reasonable then many folks will pay. if its not or the content just isn't that grand they will walk away.
Ads on the TV and billboards are one thing - I've paid for the TV subscription, billboards are free. But someone downloading their advertising content on my personal ISP contract is sucking my bandwidth and making me pay out of my pocket.
Thoughts?
Quit whining and just don't visit sites with ads. Hell, AppleInsider is one of the worst offenders with its main home page.
Ads aren't the problem. The serving up of more than one or two at the same time is the problem.
Ads are becoming worse than intrusive. One site had three ads on the screen at the same time. They would not clear until repeated attempts were made. Then, they popped up a video ad, then another ad. Use bandwidth I pay for, wastes time and irritating.
I couldn't agree more.
Initially ads on iOS were just a narrow ribbon at the screen bottom, not causing a big problem.
But recently ads have been taking over my screen. such that I shut off my iDevicesfor the rest of the day,
Fortunately on my Macs, the most ads are much more limited and I'm left with time to read my source.
Apple has to get involved with this excessive ad problem else their iOS device sales will go down significantly !
You choose to go to their site.
They choose to throw ads at you.
You choose to block the ads.
They choose to continue serving page content to you.
These’re probably the four stages of process that will come up in a legal discussion. I think the end responsibility is on the site owners.
I agree. But I was responding the Sumergo's accusation that it was theft to serve up the bandwidth hungry ads in the first place. Greedy, yes. But theft, no.
Sure it is, they are using bandwidth that I pay for! There isn't any other way to look at this, especially when ad data usage is often many times the content usage.
Ads are one way for paying for content. If you do not like this, then don't visit the page. Actually, expecting content for free is more close to theft IMO.
It is up to the content owner to figure out how to pay for the content they are delivering.
Look at it this way if you are running a brick and mortar store and people reject your latest Strawberry Jam, you don't continue to sell it if you want to make money selling jam. Instead you find a way to appeal to your customers.
By the way most of us aren't saying that all ads are bad what we are saying is that many sites go overboard and cause real harm to the users by stealing their bandwidth and more so by impacting their machines usability. Every user has a right to keep their machines secure from such exploitation.
Of course, the issue is more complex as the "all for free" attitude has slowly but steadily led to a decline in quality of web content as well as an increase of annoyance of ads.
I don't know about that "all for free" attitude. I is more of a question of people not want to get screwed over by these destructive practices.
I can see that the trend to block browsers that use as blockers will continue big time. Which very clearly will pose the reader to take the decision whether the content he is expecting to read is actually worth paying for.
In many cases former readers will simply tell the site to go to hell.
In the case of Bild I'd be happy never to see their "news" again (Siri news sometimes sugges articles by them). In the case of Welt less so.
Quit whining and just don't visit sites with ads. Hell, AppleInsider is one of the worst offenders with its main home page.
Apple insider is not an example of the problem many of us see. In fact I wouldn't block ads from Appleinsider at this point. There are vastly worst sites that really do screw up ones machine with excessive ads impacting the machines performance and usability.
Ads aren't the problem. The serving up of more than one or two at the same time is the problem.
Even one ad is a problem if it takes over your screen and blocks content. One ad can also be a problem if the bandwidth cost to you as a user is many times the amount of data the actual content uses.
I was by coincidence discussing ad blockers with a legal counsellor and he said that an ad blocker, by removing the ads from a page, actually modifies the page without the consent of the owner of the page. In other words the ad blocker violates the copyrights of the content owner of the page. As such he thinks that the content owner has a valid case to go to court. Of course a lot depends on the national law that is applicable in the country of the content owner, but he would not be surprised that a German judge orders Apple to block ad blockers from the German App Store.
Ads shoved in my face everywhere irritate me, to shove them in my face on my 4" screen, magnifies my irritation. If my use of an ad blocker irritates them then that can only be a good thing. They'll just have to find a better model.
Comments
It is pretty clear that web sites plastering their content with ads is a theft of services. It is especially bad as the ads become more intrusive and often represent far more data than the actual content. What Axel Springer needs is a massive billion dollar judgement placed against them, that might change their attitude. Exactly! The problem with web ads is you never know how much of the content will end up being data for ads. It is the lost of this data that is the real legal problem here. It is one thing if the ads represented a small fraction of the content served but lately it has flipped over and ads now represent many times the amount of data represented by actual content.
Or just become reasonable with respect to ads. I don't mind a few ads buried in the content I download as I realize the web sites cost money. What I object to is the massive number of ads, often as pop ups, that burn my bandwidth. Ads that burn bandwidth, (that cost me money) are the number one priority for ad blockers. System performance is the next issue that a lawsuit should address.
In any event I have to wonder if there are any lawyers out there that are familiar with what is going on here and thus might have a perspective on the feasibility of such a lawsuit.
If the web site as regulated in that way, ad companies would be forced to abide by rules that prohibit them from conducting business the ways they do.
If as blockers are illegal, then so are DVRs with commercial skipping.
I hope these tools have to pay blockr for the inconvenience of going to court.
Springer already produces high quality content. If they can't make it through their content, nobody can.
IT's more people don't want to pay ANYTHING EVER... And then bitch if the only way to get it is through subscription (because otherwise the company doesn't get paid).
Google created whole notion of free stuff but with Ads. I would say if people want Ads free contents than they pay through subscriptions. If content provides want to give free contents but hope, want to make money through Ads than we have right to block their Ads and still consume contents because we have not sign up for their contents on internet and internet is free..
Their real problem is not only the ad blocking, it is the script blocking and its side effect on e.g. trackers that limit monthly free page views. Not only don't you see ads, you get unlimited free access to content that those watching ads have to pay for in addition.
So now (since they know that German courts have declared ad blockers to be legit again and again) they are trying a different angle, wording it as some kind of DRM hacking (which, of course, is complete nonsense) while previous lawsuits unsuccessfully tried the anti-competitive angle. And since the developers of Blockr are German, they can't really escape the proceedings. Pretty much all German media covering it assume this to go nowhere.
Yes.
It's not theft.
Ads are one way for paying for content. If you do not like this, then don't visit the page. Actually, expecting content for free is more close to theft IMO.
Of course, the issue is more complex as the "all for free" attitude has slowly but steadily led to a decline in quality of web content as well as an increase of annoyance of ads.
I can see that the trend to block browsers that use as blockers will continue big time. Which very clearly will pose the reader to take the decision whether the content he is expecting to read is actually worth paying for.
In the case of Bild I'd be happy never to see their "news" again (Siri news sometimes sugges articles by them). In the case of Welt less so.
That makes a big difference to do someone on a limited data plan. I don't mind paying for quality content and I have been doing so for some time.
The tracking and profiling also annoys the crap out of me - hence my exit from the Google universe.
Also, I can access the WaPo site fine. Not sure what Gatorguy was talking about.
You chose to visit those websites.
Let’s bounce this all the way down the line!
You choose to go to their site.
They choose to throw ads at you.
You choose to block the ads.
They choose to continue serving page content to you.
These’re probably the four stages of process that will come up in a legal discussion. I think the end responsibility is on the site owners.
Quit whining and just don't visit sites with ads. Hell, AppleInsider is one of the worst offenders with its main home page.
Ads aren't the problem. The serving up of more than one or two at the same time is the problem.
Ads are becoming worse than intrusive. One site had three ads on the screen at the same time. They would not clear until repeated attempts were made. Then, they popped up a video ad, then another ad. Use bandwidth I pay for, wastes time and irritating.
I couldn't agree more.
Initially ads on iOS were just a narrow ribbon at the screen bottom, not causing a big problem.
But recently ads have been taking over my screen. such that I shut off my iDevicesfor the rest of the day,
Fortunately on my Macs, the most ads are much more limited and I'm left with time to read my source.
Apple has to get involved with this excessive ad problem else their iOS device sales will go down significantly !
Look at it this way if you are running a brick and mortar store and people reject your latest Strawberry Jam, you don't continue to sell it if you want to make money selling jam. Instead you find a way to appeal to your customers.
By the way most of us aren't saying that all ads are bad what we are saying is that many sites go overboard and cause real harm to the users by stealing their bandwidth and more so by impacting their machines usability. Every user has a right to keep their machines secure from such exploitation. I don't know about that "all for free" attitude. I is more of a question of people not want to get screwed over by these destructive practices. In many cases former readers will simply tell the site to go to hell.
Even one ad is a problem if it takes over your screen and blocks content. One ad can also be a problem if the bandwidth cost to you as a user is many times the amount of data the actual content uses.
I was by coincidence discussing ad blockers with a legal counsellor and he said that an ad blocker, by removing the ads from a page, actually modifies the page without the consent of the owner of the page. In other words the ad blocker violates the copyrights of the content owner of the page. As such he thinks that the content owner has a valid case to go to court. Of course a lot depends on the national law that is applicable in the country of the content owner, but he would not be surprised that a German judge orders Apple to block ad blockers from the German App Store.
Uh, they HAVE! They've introduced a framework for ad-blockers in iOS9.
That's why this article exists.
Ads shoved in my face everywhere irritate me, to shove them in my face on my 4" screen, magnifies my irritation. If my use of an ad blocker irritates them then that can only be a good thing. They'll just have to find a better model.