back to article German freemail firms defend AdBlock-nobbling campaign

German freemail sites deny attempting to "trick" Firefox and Chrome users into disabling AdBlock, the popular ad blocking browser add-on. Last week security blogger Michael Büker accused web.de and gmx.net of using what he claimed were "deceptive techniques" in order to hoodwink Firefox and Chrome users into removing AdBlock …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. seven of five

      Re: "Merely...make money"

      The issue was more subtle:

      the message shown on top of the page was made to look exactly like a warning from within the browser, screenshots here:

      http://heise.de/-2125592

      ...which is what was bemoaned.

    2. Amorous Cowherder
      Mushroom

      Re: "Merely...make money"

      Don't give me that tough-luck story! It's not like people who rip-off movies and music, they are genuinely doing something illegal and businesses do suffer, although the jury is still out about the true cost on that one.

      An ad-blocker is not illegal any more than wearing blinkers while walking down the street to avoid seeing billboards or switching off your TV when you know the ads are coming. If they don't like people using them then they can organise a class action and get an injunction banning them from being offered. Otherwise they can either charge more for the service they want to offer, to cover the bills or get out of the business in question.

      These websites sign up to ad services and they simply leave a place-holder in the page with no idea what ads are being pushed through that slot! I'm sure they have a choice of adult/non-adult adverts other than that do you really think they give a shit about about what's being sold through that slot? Give me a break, I have no sympathy for advertising agencies their whole existence is to make you buy stuff. They don't care how they do it and they don't care if you can afford it or even if you need it. They don't care if it screws the planet when it's no longer wanted, they just want you to buy the latest piece if plastic garbage from "Shiity Products Ltd ( tm)", once they have your money they couldn't care less about you! So guess what? I don't care about them, hence why I block adverts at every opportunity.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Merely...make money"

        "An ad-blocker is not illegal"

        It's actually a breach of copyright as you are creating a derivative work of the page (deliberately not loading content) without permission from the copyright holder.

        If you don't want adverts on your web pages, start *PAYING* for the services you use.

        FFS "The H Online" shut down because of assholes refusing to pay (either in cash, or by having ads served).

        1. BristolBachelor Gold badge
          Coat

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          "It's actually a breach of copyright as you are creating a derivative work of the page "

          <sarc mode>

          At last we can get IE6 banned because it does not render pages properly, and is therefore unlawfully infringing copyright.

          </sarc mode>

        2. Gav

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          "a breach of copyright as you are creating a derivative work of the page"

          So if I rip a newspaper page in two, I've breached copyright? Or if I clip an article out of a magazine, for my own use, I've breached copyright?

          How about if I take a black marker and score out the bits in a newspaper I don't want to read ? Or how about if I hold my hand over those bits so I don't see them?

          You've got a fair point regarding ads, but the "breach of copyright" angle just isn't going to fly.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Merely...make money"

            > So if I rip a newspaper page in two, I've breached copyright? Or if I clip an article out of a magazine, for my own use, I've breached copyright?

            Of course not because you have created an additional copy, have you? The clue is in the name "copyright" and in "the right to make copies".

            The act of viewing something on a computer screen is publishing (i.e. making a copy). Technical issues/limitations to one side, you should see the content as the creator intended. DELIBERATELY altering that content is creating a derivative work without license and against the law. This is the same reason why PVRs that can auto-skip adverts (the things that PAY for the content) are not available - breach of copyright.

            Don't like the adverts on a site? Either pay for an advert-free version or stop using the site.

            Simple.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Merely...make money"

              Viewing something on a screen is not publishing, you are quite wrong. Secondly, no one has made any copies, changes or derivatives, simply viewed only part of the content.

              As a website operator you can send all the adverts you want, people are under no obligation to view them.

              Simple.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "Merely...make money"

                > Viewing something on a screen is not publishing, you are quite wrong.

                Actually I'm quite right. Various states use such a defintion to enforce a variety of laws (everything from copyright to child protection). Hardly my fault if you are clueless.

                "Secondly, no one has made any copies, changes or derivatives, simply viewed only part of the content."

                So only one person can view an image at one time? Wrong. Copies have been made. As for partial content viewing, the courts have already ruled on that and once again, you are wrong.

                Three strikes, yer outta here!

                1. Richard Plinston

                  Re: "Merely...make money"

                  >> Viewing something on a screen is not publishing, you are quite wrong.

                  > Actually I'm quite right. Various states use such a defintion to enforce a variety of laws (everything from copyright to child protection). Hardly my fault if you are clueless.

                  No, it is you that is clueless. Whether various states do any such thing is irrelevant as I do not live in those states and therefore those laws do not apply.

                  """To publish is to make content available to the general public."""

                  The web site makes web pages available to the public, viewing them on your computer does not. Even if several family and friends are watching that is _not_ 'the general public'.

                  """In the United States, publication is defined as:

                  the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

                  To perform or display a work "publicly" means –

                  (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

                  (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

                  —17 USC 101 """

            2. Boothy
              WTF?

              Re: "Merely...make money"

              Quote: "you should see the content as the creator intended. DELIBERATELY altering that content is creating a derivative work without license and against the law."

              Nonsense, the whole point of HTML is that the pages are rendered how the user wants to see the page, not how the author wanted it to be viewed. While the author does have some control, (colours, text scale etc.) the user has control over what font to use, what size, whether to load images or not. These are all standard settings within any Web Browser, and any author of a web page knows this (or should). Just because most people leave the settings at their default, does not remove their right to change these if they so desire.

              If the author wants their content to be viewed in a specific way, then they need use a format suitable for that, such as an image (JPEG etc.), PDF, or a <shudder> Flash site etc.

              If an author chooses to use HTML, then expect your content not to look the same from one user to the next, based on their local user preferences.

            3. Richard Plinston

              Re: "Merely...make money"

              > The act of viewing something on a computer screen is publishing (i.e. making a copy).

              No. You are wrong. It is the web site(s) that is publishing (ie creating a copy that it sends to your screen). In the case where ads are coming from different sites (eg doubleclick) the several sites are 'publishing' and each site has its own copyright (or license) to publish those copies.

              As the primary site has no idea what the ad sites will send there is no overall copyright on the whole page. So blocking ad sites may breach some terms of trade, if it can be shown that you actually agreed, but nothing to do with copyright.

            4. tom dial Silver badge
              Stop

              Re: "Merely...make money"

              "The act of viewing something on a computer screen is publishing (i.e. making a copy)."

              If that is true, it is just one of the things wrong with copyright law as presently constituted. The notion that I should be prohibited by law from installing on my equipment a program to pick and choose what things to display on my screen is simply perverse, much like the idiotic notion that maintaining a copyright beyond 10 - 20 years from the initial creation date provides a meaningful incentive to create new works rather than a disincentive.

            5. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

              Re: "Merely...make money"

              "The act of viewing something on a computer screen is publishing (i.e. making a copy). Technical issues/limitations to one side, you should see the content as the creator intended. DELIBERATELY altering that content is creating a derivative work without license and against the law. This is the same reason why PVRs that can auto-skip adverts (the things that PAY for the content) are not available - breach of copyright."

              It's already been decided that an in-memory, working copy of whatever does not count as a "copy" for copyright purposes. Otherwise, just playing back a DVD would require special permission of the copyright holder. Also, you seem to have a grave misunderstanding of copyright law. Nobody here is altering the content, they are refusing to load 3rd-party content that is unrelated to the page being displayed. Also, you do not need a license to create a derivative use for private use, as you are not actually distributing any copyrighted work at that point.

              That said, I *only* block pop-ups, they are illegitimate in that they load content outside the scope of the page responsible (i.e. in a different tab or window.) Other adverts? No, I don't block them. If a site is too ad-heavy I just don't go to it any more (I haven't had to leave a site for this reason in a while though; I think site operators now realize if they go too crazy with the ads they'll lose too many viewers, and porn and pirate sites have "valuable" enough content that viewers put up with excessive ads.)

              Also, I have a PVR that will automatically skip ads. Why aren't many on the market? Some kind of gentleman's agreement, as near as I can tell.

              1. Not That Andrew

                Re: "Merely...make money"

                As most of you know, websites unfortunately have almost no control over the adverts served by the advertising service they use, no matter how much control they claim to offer. All they can do is encourage users to report objectionable ones.

                And chasing up potential advertisers is far too much hassle for most websites, which is why very few host their own ads.

            6. solo

              Re: "Merely...make money"

              "..something on a computer screen is publishing.."

              You won't stop, right? :(

              By reading El Reg, are you showing your computer screen to everyone in your neighborhood? If not, then how is publishing and not consuming.

              A consumer has every right to consume the product delivered to it in ways he wants, unless he's not spreading it further.

            7. Mike Flugennock
              Facepalm

              Re: "Merely...make money"

              Y'know what's really sad? It's that sometime sooner or later, some pissed-off Web ad-slinging outfit is going to hire a lawyer to try to obtain an injunction against the people who create utilities like FlashBlock, AdBlock and NoScript for just this reason... perhaps copyright nit-picking along with some weak-assed balloon juice about "restraint of trade".

              (only using this icon because El Reg doesn't have an icon version of the classic Captain Picard "facepalm")

          2. BongoJoe

            Re: "Merely...make money"

            "So if I rip a newspaper page in two, I've breached copyright? Or if I clip an article out of a magazine, for my own use, I've breached copyright?"

            Exactly.

            Picture the scene; it's a Sunday afternoon and you're sitting in the lounge reading the Sunday papers with your spouse.

            "Darling. Have you finished with the sports section?"

            "Yes, shall I pass it over to you?"

            "Oh, please darling. But only if you pass the main section, the news analysis section, the London theatre supplement even though we live hundreds of miles away. And don't forget the car adverts and the section which has the holidays and, oh is that the jobs sections too?"

            "Yes, dear.. And there's also a broadsheet which appears to be an advertisement for frozen foods. Would you want that too?"

            "Yes please, darling. I wouldn't want to get prosectured for breach of coyright by 'publishing' my own newspaper out of these parts here on the lounge coffee table."

            "Oh, you are ever so clever and adorable. Aren't I fortunate to live with such a person who can guide me through the complexities of copyright law."

        3. Mike Smith

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          "It's actually a breach of copyright"

          Wha'evvuh. Is this face bothered?

          "If you don't want adverts on your web pages, start *PAYING*"

          Sure. Just as soon as the tat promoters start paying me for the computing resources (CPU, disk cache and memory) their unwanted crap is consuming.

          Because it's my system, I'm the admin and I say what goes on it.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          You sir are an idiot.

          Nothing is being created only certains parts are being seen.

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          I think I might have come across your website - is it that one that if it detects Adblock it brings up a message telling me that I'm breaking the law by stealing your content and its breach of copyright?

          If so then you really do need to get out and get a life and understand how the real world works.

        6. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          "If you don't want adverts on your web pages, start *PAYING* for the services you use."

          To start: fuck you. With a bronzed goat. Sideways. Covered in a lovely capsaicin and piperine salve. Just so that I can set the tone of my complete and utter contempt for your position.

          When and where the opportunity to pay for a service is offered, I'll gladly do so. I will not allow advertisements through. If a website has a problem with that they can offer me the option of paying a subscription or of simply denying service altogether to those who use privacy and anti-malware defenses such as adblock, noscript and so forth.

          The information has been published. I am within my right to make a derivative work. Just like I'm within my right to cut up TIME magazine, apply some glue and glitter and make art. The difference is merely one of result: Instead of arts and crafts I am protecting my privacy and preventing my system from getting pwned by malware. It has the added benefit of protecting myself from the increasingly sophisticated psyops that is modern marketing.

          My rights to privacy, security and independence of thought come before the highly dubious and outright outrageous "rights" of commercial entities to claim copyright on the rendered output of a webpage.

          If you want me to stop you are going to have to kill me, because that is the only way I will cease and desist using privacy and security protections on the internet. You can send men with guns to my house to attempt to drag me away on trumped up charges. I will not comply.

          I do not recognize the authority of any entity - neither person nor government - to tell me that I must suborn my privacy, security and independence of thought to the "right" of a corporation to make money. It is so completely unethical that standing up against that concept is something I consider worth dying for.

          A world where law can dictate what people must see? A world where the individual is tracked by government and corporation through every interaction of their life? A world where it is legal for corporations and governments to spend billions on researching and developing the most complex models and techniques for individual and group manipulation that has ever been developed and where it is illegal for an individual to defend themselves against this manipulation?

          That's a fucking dystopia. One I refuse to help build. It is a world I absolutely do not countenance and one I will fight against with every tool at my disposal.

          Fortunately, the best way to fight against this particular psypocalype is to spread knowledge. The free flow of information, tools, techniques and technologies are the greatest threat to the clowns who believe they have the right to tell the rest of the world what to think, what to say, what to do and what to believe.

          If you want to get paid, put a script on the site that detects adblock and throws up a paywall to those users. You offer a good or service and you receive money in return. That's fair and just. Demanding our privacy, security and independence of thought as payment for anything is neither.

          So with that, I return to my original statement: fuck you. With a bronzed goat. Sideways. Covered in a lovely capsaicin and piperine salve. And that goes douuble for the rest of the entitled fucks who believe the same as you. Our privacy, security and minds are not your playthings...and you've no right to ask for them in payment for anything.

          1. Mike Flugennock
            Pint

            Re: "...with a bronzed goat"

            What a mental image that is.

            I'm gobsmacked -- in a good way.

            Sadly, I can only give this post one (1) upvote.

        7. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          ""It's actually a breach of copyright as you are creating a derivative work of the page ""

          Nonsense. I make a derivative work of my TV picture during adverts by turning the sound off and reading something, must be a bad person.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. BongoJoe

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          Explain to me how you would provide a free email service without ads, and then we can have a sensible discussion. Ranting about advertising agencies is not an argument, it's just a rant.

          I wouldn't. I pay for my eMail seperate from my web hosting which is seperate again from my internet connection.

          Or if I had to then I would make sure that the adverts were appropriate, non malicious, non obtrusive and generally didn't get in the way of the site. I have done this before in the past for sites which were free and I wanted to serve specific adverts to the viewer.

          I did this with an .asp add-in on to the page and because I did it properly I had no complaints.

          But the point is it doesn't matter what the service is: the adverts quite simply get in the way. If there were a reasonable number of adverts then we wouldn't need Ad Blocker. The advertisers have spoiled it for everyone.

          I guess that you're in the advertising trade then, AC?

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. solo

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          "".. free email service without ads.."

          You serve just the images and texts and I am fine with the ads. Even AdBlock allows them. When it came to your mind that advertising cannot be done without strip-searching you?

    3. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: "Merely...make money"

      I'll accept this just as soon as I get a refund for ad providers that notice I am using an Android phone and push a ~400K .apk with each page I looked at. When I noticed, I'd burned through a meg and a half. So I'm paying for your crappy adverts... Thanks, but given a choice I'd block this rubbish.

    4. Fihart

      Re: "Merely...make money"

      Don't mind ads per se (except ones which flash annoyingly).

      Do mind the pause while the bloody ad server delivers the ad.

      Websites who don't want people to use ad blockers should insist that advertisers have hardware and connections which are up to speed.

      1. vagabondo

        Re: "Merely...make money"

        @Fihart

        Websites who don't want people to use ad blockers should serve the ads from their own web-site and leave out all the third party spyware.

    5. BongoJoe

      Re: "Merely...make money"

      If you had read, for example, this blog:

      http://labs.bromium.com/2014/02/21/the-wild-wild-web-youtube-ads-serving-malware/

      You will see how an advert could have installed something nasty on one's machine. The malware clearly came from doubleclick.net so this one case is justification alone to block adverts.

      There are other good and valid reasons; as someone else has commented above me that the downloading of the real content is delayed until the blasted adverts are delivered. If the adverts arrived after the information that one wishes to see then it wouldn't be so bad.

      Thirdly, some sites charge a fee for access and they still load it up with adverts. The financial site ADVFN, for example, is almost unreadable without an ad-blocker and I have paid my subscription fee.

      So, no. Until the advertising business starts to behave and deliver adverts that I can trust and after the main page's content then there is no reason to have the adverts delivered. And, anyway, I refuse to click on an advert served to me so I am not 'stealing' from anyone.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Merely...make money"

        > If you had read, for example, this blog:

        Web pages also have drive-by download malware. Do you block the Internet? No. You just don't want to pay a fair price. You are a freeloader. That is why companies are going to the all.

        > content is delayed until the blasted adverts are delivered.

        Nothing wrong with that, the advert is PAYING for the content because you don't!

        > Thirdly, some sites charge a fee for access and they still load it up with adverts.

        Don't use those sites then, or pay more.

        1. BongoJoe

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          > Nothing wrong with that, the advert is PAYING for the content because you don't!

          You make little sense.. I have paid the going rate for the subscription sites because that is the rate charged by the vendor. Therefore, you are contradicting yourself - if I am paying the going rate for the data then why aren't I getting what I want first?

          > Web pages also have drive-by download malware. Do you block the Internet?

          Not every web page. Perhaps I don't go onto the sites which contain these items of malware but that doesn't mean that the advertising agencies on those sites have the right to dish out malware.

          Do you really revel in all that crap these advertisers send to you? Perhaps it makes you feel important that these people are sending you pop-up adverts, pop-under adverts and obstructive adverts that generally get in the way; I don't. I find it clogs the bandwidth, slows down the browser because of another poorly written Flash advert shows the brower to a near terminal halt and, quite simply, the advertiers have gone too far.

          Do you also read all the blow-in rubbish that you get in magazines? Do you read with enthusiasm the latest offer from Micheal Parkinson on a funeral fund, or perhaps you delight in hearing about the new Thora Hird 'Stairway to Heaven' stairlift before filling in the latest in somewhat uncertain lotteries which you have managed to win a cruise to the Bahamas or was that a banana?

          I run a website which charges a subscription fee. And guess how many adverts I have on there? None. There's a good reason for this; I charge the going rate which I have determined and, as a consequnce, I don't feel it is right or appropriate to pester the members with unwanted adverts.

      2. Boothy

        Re: "Merely...make money"

        @ BongoJoe

        Hence why the following is always added to the hosts file of all my PCs, home and work:

        127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net

        Speeded up loading times no end :-D

        1. BongoJoe

          Re: "Merely...make money"

          Boothy, absolutely.

          I have a rather extensive HOSTS file which I share out to chums. As you say, it makes loading times a lot easier and it allows me to get the data for which I ask.

          And as I say; if the advertisers wish me to see their adverts then all they have to do is to rein in their wares to a respectable volume, don't dish out Flash and no malware.

          I've been over to the US a few times and have had the misfortune to try to watch their television shows as they are broadcast. Open show for a few minutes, advert, title credits, adverts and then a series of adverts interrupted by programme. I am not condoning the practise; but this is why people download programmes because an hour show there can be 21 minutes of 'stuff'.

          Some adverts? Fine. Too many and you spoil it for yourselves and everyone else.

          1. Richard Plinston

            Re: "Merely...make money"

            > an hour show there can be 21 minutes of 'stuff'.

            If it wasn't for the adverts people would starve to death.

            ps: I recall that when particular programs have been on the electricity distributors could tell when an ad break started and many switched on the kettles at the same time.

  2. mafoo

    /sigh

    Its so much easier to just put up a message, like ITV has, saying "We need advertising revenue. Please dissable adblock to continue to use this page."

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: /sigh

      Or find how to trick Adblock rather than Adblock users.

      1. wowfood

        Re: /sigh

        Ars Technica did that a while back as an experiment.

        They changed their page so that if adblock was enabled, not only were adds removed, but so was all the content. Apparently the idea was to start a debate on pretty much this kind of topic. Users were given 3 options, pay subscription, whitelist the site, or deal with it. Apparently the 'deal with it' crowd were rather vocal.

        However not long after they did this, adblock changed the extension so it worked around the content strip.

        This brings about two thoughts for me personally

        I actually somewhat approve of this system, it seems... fair. Either pay for ad free, or don't and deal with adverts. I'll agree that sites need to get funding from somewhere. But I can also see a level of potential abuse, namely getting the most annoying adverts ever, and effectively pushing people towards paying protection money, i mean subscriptions to avoid them.

        I grabbed adblock personally because I was getting peeved going to sites which had those banner ads that popped out and covered half the screen (normally funnily enough right as you clicked on something) or the ones with audio. Right now I have adblock set to allow unobtrusive adverts and that works for me. I still don't generate any revenue because I never click the darn things, but still.

        1. monkeyfish

          Re: /sigh

          I tend to just run flash-block rather than ad block (or if using chrome/opera set flash to 'ask me' in the settings). That gets rid of the most annoying and slow to load ads, while leaving static pictures and text in place.

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: /sigh

          "They changed their page so that if adblock was enabled, not only were adds removed, but so was all the content"

          TuCows did the same thing many, many years ago. All the download links went via their ad server. If you blocked the ads you could no longer download any software from them. I used other sites instead. TuCows have gone.

          I blocked the ads because they switched from static ads to pop-ups, pop-unders, noisy, animated and every other nasty trick to grab your attention away from the reason you were on the site in the first place. Adxvertising is like an arms race and the people they want to attract are the ones they are pissing off.

        3. Oninoshiko

          Re: /sigh

          sound is what got me, I run ad block solely for that. I do NOT want web page in a background tab making noise all the sudden at work. I feel kind of bad for it, but if networks won't limit themselves to reasonable ads, what else can I do?

          Personally I always liked the project wonderful ads from a couple of web-comics I have been known to read. They are unobtrusive, and pay for the time they are on the the site, not per click.

          All that said, considering Trevor_Potts response above, I'd kinda like to see his response to the Ars Technica "experiment."

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: /sigh

            Go read the comments section of that article on Ars and you'll see my response. I was absolutely not fond of the fact that it came without warning, but I bought an Ars subscription and held it for quite some time. Their science reporting was the best on earth, and well worth the money.

            When I eventually swore off Ars forever the reason was that I had - and have - some significant moral objections to how they handled the discovery that Snowden was one of their commenters. Their actions were not remotely "okay", a far greater moral issue for me than the concept that they want to be paid for their work.

            To save you the trouble of hunting down my responses, my view on the issue is this:

            Ars has a history of doing things that could under most circumstances be if not "cool", then at least justifiable...but executing them in such a godawful way as to alienate their own core readership.

            How they handled subscriptions was a fantastic example. The rationale "we want to be paid for our work" was entirely understandable. The out of nowhere blocking with inclusion of nasty message was not. They could have engaged their readers over the period of a few weeks. Let us know what was coming down the pipe, eased us into the idea then initiated the block. That would have caused less of an explosive reaction.

            It's like they get all the hard things right (science reporting) and screw up all the easy bits (applying the bast 150 years of science in group dynamics to manage a readership.) How you handle people matters. While I agree with Ars' reasoning, their approach in that instance was uncool.

    2. Schultz

      Re: /sigh

      The whole concept of creating a revenue from people using adblock is a bit stupid. Ads make money when people buy things. People install adblock because they made a conscious decision that they do not want see ir buy advertised wares. Forcing them to see ads generated zero income. (more views maybe, but less value per view)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: /sigh

        The whole concept of creating a revenue from people using adblock is a bit stupid. Ads make money when people buy things. People install adblock because they made a conscious decision that they do not want see ir buy advertised wares. Forcing them to see ads generated zero income. (more views maybe, but less value per view)

        I know people find this hard to believe, but no matter how advertising-savvy you actually are, the ads will have a measurable effect. At the very least they will increase awareness of a specific brand/product/category, and that will always have value to marketers.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: /sigh

        "Ads make money when people buy things."

        True. But it's not just the click-thu's. Just seeing the ads is creating a brand awareness too and that's also valuable to the advertisers.

        As someone else posted, I also use flashblock and a pop-upblocker. I don't mind ads, but when the cover the content or flash and jump to distract from the content, then I simply don't want to see it. That, in me, creates a negative brand awareness.

    3. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

      Re: /sigh

      you mean.... like... being honest? from an advertiser?

  3. foo_bar_baz

    Security

    Advertising is a big security risk. Even responsible advertisers are known to leak exploity flash adverts for our consumption. Then there's Java, not to mention all the false virus blocker and download ads. Ad blockers increase security, full stop.

    1. Crazy Operations Guy

      Re: Security

      Exactly,

      I have two problems with modern ads:

      1) I am wasting cpu cycles and memory to have these things shown due to the hundreds or even thousands of lines of Javascript or Flash/ActionScript running from somewhere else, which brings me to:

      2) All that code is hosted on a server that neither myself nor the organization running the website can control and the advertisers don't have much of an incentive to police so long as the money keeps rolling in.

      I wouldn't mind advertisements that were just basic JPGs or GIFs hosted on the website itself. I also wouldn't mind if the website shipped its access logs off to the advertiser to analyze, they already end up with all that information and a lot more with the current ad systems.

    2. solo
      Unhappy

      Re: Security

      "..Then there's Java.."

      I had never thought I'd see Java in such context .. sigh!

  4. feanor

    We block it because we have to.

    The problem here is not advertising per-se, its the fact that pages are covered in high bandwidth animated advertising that makes web pages unusable for a large proportion of internet users. I have to block it or pages take forever to load or timeout.

    As for security, you open up a web page and it sprays http ad connections in all directions, connecting you to who knows where pulling down who knows what to your browser cache - theres your security issue right there.

    If the advertising were low bandwidth and only connected to trusted sources I'd allow it. As it is, not a chance.

    1. jason 7

      Re: We block it because we have to.

      Exactly, had everyone stuck to a world standard for web ads and such like then AdBlock wouldn't be the essential tool it is today. However, I now see AdBlock primarily as a security tool, not just a ad blocking tool.

      I am shocked when I see the web 'as it truly is' when I use a PC not of my own making. Well that's if I can see it under the 15 tool bars.

    2. Wade Burchette

      Re: We block it because we have to.

      Four things piss me off with web advertisements: (1) Ads that track what I click on, where I go, everything. If I had my way, I would ban any tracking or location-specific advertisements of any kind without a warrant, no exception. (2) Ads that have sound that start playing right away. Related to this are videos that play when you load a page. (3) Ads that cover the page you are looking at forcing you to click something to dismiss it. (4) Ads that look like the website you are on in an attempt to trick you to click on it.

      When you annoy your users, the solution is not to annoy them more!

      I no longer use AdBlock. I now use Ghostery. You will simply be amazed how many tracking ads some websites have.

      1. jason 7

        Re: We block it because we have to.

        I use both and Do Not Track Me. So far since before Xmas I have blocked over 34000 trackers apparently.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: We block it because we have to.

        Don't forget the ads that invisibly cover all the whitespace on either side of a page, so when you click to re-focus the browser window, you accidentally click on the ad.

        Someone ought to make a plugin that prevents link clicks done while the browser is defocused from working...

      3. kiwi13

        Re: We block it because we have to.

        Ghostery sells your data to help advertisers

        http://lifehacker.com/ad-blocking-extension-ghostery-actually-sells-data-to-a-514417864

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pah!

    If sited plaster a gazillion adverts on their pages then it is little wonder that people use tools like Adblock?

    I let a few sites display adverts to me because I support their fund raising by this method. NONE, repeat NONE plaster dozens of ads on their pages like some commercial sites.

    As for Popups playing Flash etc, those get blacklisted pretty quickly.

    There is a case for boycotting a lot of these sites. The laws of diminishing returns come to mind. The more adverts the less I want to buy anything. not that I've ever bought anything from an online advert shown on a web page.

    1. jason 7

      Re: Pah!

      Yeah has anyone here ever actually seen a web ad and thought "hey yes I'll have some of that!" and clicked on it?

      Other than porn obviously. But then who pays for that anymore...

      1. monkeyfish

        Re: Pah!

        It's not like they even do a good job of serving relevant ads. I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't base the ad on what I've looked at in the past using my data, base the ad on what I'm looking at now using the websites data! If I'm looking at a particular camera or phone, serve me an ad for that camera or phone, see? Then I might click on it. Serve me some creepy ad based on what I looked last week and a) I'll want to block it for being creepy, and b) I looked at it last week, either I decided I didn't want it, or I bought it already from somewhere else.

    2. Charles 9

      Re: Pah!

      They counter with clickwalls and captive markets. When you're the ONLY source of something popular AND you've created your site such that ANYONE coming with with AdBlock, NoScript, or whatever is firmly told "Access Denied until you turn that crap off," you're kinda left in a Hobson's Choice.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pah!

        That's the point at which you never return to the site. Simples. There's almost always an acceptable alternative source.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Pah!

          Key word ALMOST. Sometimes, they ARE the exclusive source, leaving you, like I said in a Hobson's choice (as in Take It or Leave It). Or ALL the alternatives are similarly blockaded (I've seen that happen). It provokes some thinking on whether or not it's REALLY worth it.

          This is only going to get worse as more and more sites adopt ad-detection-detection and raise clickwalls and other blockades to stop them. I think if it developed into a tech war, the server has the ultimate advantage since they can just require subscription which opens the legal door for data mining.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What's riskier? A chance of someone directly accessing either your computer or the browser add-on site and manually changing the code; or allowing adverts; a certain percentage of which will javascript the malware in remotely.

    I'll stick with the ad-blockers, I think.

  7. smashIt

    "We invited AdBlock Plus to comment on United Internet's GMX and Web.de warnings about ad-blocking technology but have yet to hear back from the US-based developer. "

    Eyeo is a german company

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Meanwhile....

    Downloads of AdBlock spike across Germany.

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm...

      Mr Rice Davies

      She wasn't a Mr, which was rather the point...

  10. DrXym

    The kinds of ads I object to

    I don't really care about the text-only type ads that Google and others throw out. They're not a major security issue, they don't consume many bytes of traffic and they don't interfere with the page.

    The kind of ads I despise are animated banner ads and interstitials and yes I will strip them out. They're distracting, consume large amounts of bandwidth, hog CPU and occasionally offensive (e.g. porn). In these days of HTML5 it doesn't even matter if these ads are flash or not. The HTML5 based ads probably hog more CPU than even flash since they all run on the browser's thread.

    Another modern annoyance are the Facebook, Google, Digg, Pinterest, Yahoo links plastered over every page. They are a serious privacy concern and I block those out too.

  11. Crisp

    Because we all need more of this:

    Click here to find out the one secret trick to avoiding ads that big companies don't want you to know about!

    1. feanor

      Re: Because we all need more of this:

      Can you beleive that anyone is stupid enough to click on these things?

    2. monkeyfish

      Re: Because we all need more of this:

      Loose browser fat with this one weird old trick! Doctors are angry*.

      * Presumably because they're stuck on IE6?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    +1 for Ghostery. I use it in chrome and the list of clart it blocks is sometimes the length of the screen/page on my laptop.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      length of the screen/page

      sir, you must be visiting very, very naughty sites. I seldom get more than 10 "blocks" per page (ghostery), and this includes the porn site! Oh dear, you wouldn't happen to be a visitor to one of them gov.co.uk sites perchance?

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "+1 for Ghostery"

      Ditto. The longest lists in my experience appeare on screen when visiting newspaper websites. Why do they need so many trackers?

  13. Sloppy Crapmonster
    Meh

    George Saunders had something to say about that

    I can't say you should take this in any way whatsoever, but I've read a short story that I believe is over the odds in coming to pass:

    My Flamboyant Grandson

    Freetard link

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I run at the mo the following addons

    Adblock

    Beef Taco (targeted advertising cookie opt out)

    BetterPrivacy

    NoScript

    ShareMeNot (blocks those PITA social network buttons and trackers)

    Ghostery

    Was running a few more but the latest FF update broke them.

    I also have rules blocking most of the ad servers directly including blocking the various wiki whines

  15. Nigel 11

    Advertisers, watch out!

    You know, blocking adverts isn't the worst a plug-in could do to you, not by a long way.

    How about downloading every advert to the bit-bucket and then generating an auto-click on it, with the resulting page also sent to the bit-bucket? Or even heuristically locating your sign-up page and automatically filling it with garbage and submitting?

    Then the site that makes money out of serving ads gets extra revenue, and the advertiser spends money serving bits into buckets with no human eyeballs involved. Those of us with unlimited high-bandwidth broadband probably wouldn't notice any overhead. Eventually the advertisers will notice that the effectiveness of "push" advertising is approaching zero.

    Annoy us too much and someone will actually write that plug-in. (Or maybe they have, and I've just not yet been annoyed sufficiently to go and find it?. Adblock-plus will do for now).

    My personal attitude is that I'm a buyer, not a sellee. If I want something I'll use Google and suchlike to find out where I can obtain it, what consumers think of it, etc. So instead of pushing adverts that we ignore one way or another, how about spending the money on making your product (a) easier to locate when we look for it, and (b) better?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Run by 1&1

    So it shouldn't be any surprise they're doing craptastic anti-user-friendly things.

  17. Old Handle

    I'm sympathetic to people who run ad-supported websites (like this one, for example), so I don't actually run any specifically ad blocking filters. But I do use NoScript and keep the settings pretty strict. I do it to stay safe, but it has the happy side effect of stopping the worst kinds of ads.

    So are they trying to get people to uninstall that too? That would be even harder to pass off as legitimate security advice, but they don't seem overly concerned with that so far...

  18. Lost in Cyberspace

    Useful

    As blockers are great for blocking all those Scammy adverts with the fake download buttons (and the 5 weird old tip scam ads too).

    Just a way to keep your PC safe in my opinion.

    Now we just need the ad blockers to strip out all the Junkware from downloads.

    1. jason 7
      Happy

      Re: Useful

      Try ninite.com if you havent already.

      One of the best sites on the web.

  19. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Oh yeah!

    Oh yeah! I forgot to address the article! Anyway...

    1) Yes, add-ons can be compromised and it's good to let people know about this possibility.

    2) However, it's real greasy if it's just looking for adblock then trying to FUD people. Just be honest, say this site costs money to operate and you'd appreciate people not blocking the ads. And, if you have pop-ups, GET RID OF THEM.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    FUD

    fortunately, MOST of those who ventured into installing one of the blockers, have registered as the Sapiens part of the Home race, which means, that the FUD is mostly met with a shrug.

  21. Robin Bradshaw

    Password fields present on an insecure (http://) page.

    I just had a really cursory check of the web.de website, turn on developer console of firefox and have a look and what do i see:

    "Password fields present on an insecure (http://) page. This is a security risk that allows user login credentials to be stolen."

    They don't actually give a shit about user security :)

  22. rgriffith

    HTML renderer

    A web broser is a rendering application running on the endusers machine. As such the rendering process is under control of the end user application.

    A) fetching of HTML data is allowed simply by having a server provide the DATA out a standard port

    B) there is no requirement that an end user application fetch all referred elements of a page or render the entier page

    C) an HTML page is just DATA. A renderer process the data onto a display.

    D) There is no contract that an HTML page must be rendered nor how it is rendered. Although convetion does suggest that the render standard be followed.

  23. src

    Viva AdBlock

    Once adverts became animated I wanted them gone. Too much of a distraction from the page content. So I use AdBlock.

    I can only think of one website (belonging to a newspaper I started reading over 30 years ago) that I would fork out money for if they disappeared behind a paywall.

    As for everything else if I had to choose between a website disappearing or having to view it with adverts I would be happy for the website to vanish. Plenty of websites I am happy to look at for nothing but precious little I would pay for or put up with the annoyance of adverts to see.

  24. heyrick Silver badge

    "The act of viewing something on a computer screen is publishing (i.e. making a copy)." - Are you sure about that? Making a copy is not logically "publishing" any more than it should be if I photocopy an article in the newspaper. A copyright infringement? Yes. Publishing? Don't be silly.

    "Technical issues/limitations to one side, you should see the content as the creator intended." - I think you completely misunderstand that HTML is a MARKUP language. You provide directives as to how you want the text to appear (simple HTML says "this is a bigger heading", style sheets allow you to specify a type face and size etc) BUT THE BROWSER IS ENTIRELY FREE TO IGNORE IT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE USER. Ever looked in the configuration? Seen the bits about enable/disable scripting? Use preferred styling? Use my colour set?

    Oh, and you can't just disclaim technical limitations aside - if creating a "copy" of your web page in any form other than that which you see in front of your eyeballs on your computer is a super-serious crime, then this means lighter browsers (Lynx, NetSurf, Opera in mobile mode, numerous older mobile browsers) are actively breaking the law by their very attempts to display your content. Please refer to my and others comments pointing out the nature of HTML vs, say, PDF.

    "DELIBERATELY altering that content is creating a derivative work without license and against the law." - really? In this case I trust the original content publisher (you) will be willing to indemnify me and provide full and complete technical support for any and all issues that may arise from whitelisting the entire internet so they all these lovely adverts can be seen. Please also provide appropriate legal support to permit me to request faceless third parties with whom I have no business or contract from volunteering unwanted information and/or tracking my online behaviour.

    No. I didn't think so. Therefore, my policy is everything is blacklisted until it provides a good reason why it should not be so.

    That said, maybe you are stretching the concept of "derivative work" a little far. To block domains and IPs known to be used for advertising is not so much a derivative work as a simply incomplete copy, much as if I tore a page from a magazine and then tore it in half and gave you have a page. I have not altered or changed what was published, I just have not given you all of it.

    "Actually I'm quite right. Various states use such a defintion to enforce a variety of laws" - irrelevant. Not only is American law batshit crazy, but I don't live there. Having said that, one thing Americans are trying to get right is accessibility for disabled people. I wonder how many of your lovely adverts would work sensibly with a screen reader?

    Oh, and under the laws in which I am used to, one is supposed to request permission prior to setting a cookie. In practice this is often unworkable so instead a notification is given. I note that the last time I checked (January), of the four advert networks I see most frequently, exactly ALL of them set a cookie and exactly NONE of them provided any notification of this. Accordingly, places which ignore MY laws get blacklisted. Simple.

  25. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Feel the anger rising within you!

    The interested reader is redirected to THIS DISCUSSION on stackexchange.

  26. jinx3y

    Firefox...seriously?

    For starters, after Firefox became known to have inherent vulnerabilities ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/06/tor_fingers_firefox_for_fail/ ) - never mind that was used to catch Tor-people - why would anyone continue to use Firefox? Hell, the latest update doesn't even work on my machine unless it is in safe mode. Just sayin'...

    So...why bother with going to the email website at all? There are a few worthy email clients out there where you can get "just" the email - no need to even open the browser...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like