I find it curiously hypocritical that tech sites complaining about fair use are starting to go down the potential slippery slope that has plagued RIAA and MPAA; namely, it starts with calling their customers thieves.
This isn't about finger pointing nor are we focusing entirely on tech sites. We're talking on a broader level here.
It's a matter of principle. If a publisher is willing to offer an ad-supported service, they know full well that the ads are what puts money in their pocket to help keep that service running. They trust that their consumers will allow those ads to be displayed. Wouldn't you, as a consumer, feel obliged to honour that moral agreement? I suspect that's the "contract" that Underwater Mike is hinting at. It need not be in black and white and signed at the bottom.
The concept of "stealing" is subjective, and I can understand - in fact, I was expecting everyone to have a different definition and opinion of it. I should mention that there's a difference between labelling something as an act of stealing, and labelling something as analogous to stealing. My original post specified the latter. In the real world, if you steal something, you suffer the legal repercussions. That's not going to happen when you use an ad blocker, but it doesn't detract from the fact that you're taking something for nothing.
Personally, I feel that if a consumer chooses to enjoy the benefits of an ad-supported service, they should at least help the publisher out by allowing those ads to be displayed. Especially the smaller publishers - it might actually go beyond helping them keep the service running and actually helping them put food on the table for their family.
__________________ Want the latest news, views, rants and raves? Visit our portal. Wish to contact me? Send me a private message or e-mail.
How on earth can individuals blocking ads be construed as stealing - utter crap! I'd like to see advertisers try that arguement in court when I turn off adds in PocketPCThoughts allowed under my subsription!
Advertising is all very well - but as far as I am concerned its an invasion of my privacy and uncontrolled advertising is just SPAM! Next we will be told that it is illegal to block SPAM - after all they are in most cases advertising!
How on earth can individuals blocking ads be construed as stealing - utter crap! I'd like to see advertisers try that arguement in court when I turn off adds in PocketPCThoughts allowed under my subsription!
That's different, though. That's a subscription benefit, which you paid the publisher for.
An advertiser is not the same as a publisher. Advertisers provide the ads, and pay publishers to publish the ads; with dynamic ad content, there's usually an ad server acting as an intermediary to channel funds between the two parties, and also to ensure that the ads displayed are of relevance.
If you disable ads, whether through a subscription benefit or ad-blocking software, the advertisers aren't paying for that. They're not liable to pay the ad server, and ultimately, the publisher, for ads that never get displayed. Therefore, the advertisers are not going to take you to court because of it... although, I have seen stranger things in life before.
So, this notion of disabling online ads is one that primarily affects the publisher. If a consumer pays them for the privilege, they're still pocketing money to keep the service running. No harm done. If a consumer uses ad-blocking software, they're enjoying the benefits of the service without offering anything in return. That forces the publisher to find other avenues to keep the service running, or shut it down when the cost becomes too great - and this point actually highlights the vicious cycle present here, because a consumer also has something to lose when their favourite ad-supported service has been forced into retirement.
Of course, there is rarely a legal agreement involved in any of this. Most publishers simply trust that consumers will do their bit to help keep their favourite ad-supported service running.
__________________ Want the latest news, views, rants and raves? Visit our portal. Wish to contact me? Send me a private message or e-mail.
Darius did such a good job of elaborating that I won't restate all his points. The only question I will pose to those people who take issue with the implied contract in ad-supported media -- and, obviously, I'm not talking about something over which you'd go to court -- is this: Is your desire to avoid ads great enough to lead you to pay for the content you consume? If the answer is "no," then you see why there are ads all over the sites you visit.
WRT intrusive forms like pop-ups and -unders, interstitials, roll-overs, etc., advertisers pay for what works, and those forms, in the aggregate, offer better yields than simple banners or inline text ads. You may find them annoying, but they do what they're supposed to do.
Darius did a good job of explaining things in this thread, so I'm not going to jump in with my own opinion, but it seems I should finally go ahead and write up an article (likely on my personal blog - I'll link to it form here) about how online advertising works. There's unfortunately a great deal of ignorance about this topic, and that ignorance ends up helping no one.
But I have a question is about the stealing comment. If I choose not to view an ad, I don't consider that stealing from the business. If we start to think of choosing not to view an ad as stealing from the business, then it seems that the next step is going to be to require us to watch ads whenever and wherever a business chooses to display them.
Like most interactions online, it boils down to a use of resources. When you visit any Web site, you're using the resources of that server. That server is being paid for by the owner of the Web site. To offset the costs of that server, and hopefully even to make a profit, the owner of the site puts advertising on the site. Because the owner of the site doesn't charge anything to the user (let's say your average tech site here, not something that's subscription-based) he's relying on that advertising to pay for the server, but more importantly for the time of the people generating that content.
So it breaks down like this:
Visitor consumes content + uses server resources
Web site owner pays for content + server with ads
If user blocks ads on owner's Web site, user is consuming resources and stopping owner from generating revenue...and that's unethical (you can call it a number of words, theft doesn't quite line up with what happens, but it's definitely not ethical).
When I had to drop $1200 to get 8 GB of RAM in my server, where do you think that money comes from? Advertising. What do you think allows me to write content all day, do reviews, videos, giveaways, etc? Advertising. People that block ads are denying me my living, and if enough people do that, everything you see on all my sites fades away.
As to your other comparisons (i.e., TV, DVDs, etc.), the ad industry position is that it's just like blocking online advertising and that -- if not stealing -- you are failing to honor your end of the ad-supported publisher/audience "contract."
The WHAT????
See, I think we're starting to see attitudes that make my original comment about being "required" to view advertising whenever and wherever the advertiser chooses to display it, not such a ridiculous idea after all.
I had no idea that the ad industry took this view.
Oh, wait, it just occurred to me, this comment is sarcasm right? Right?
Like most interactions online, it boils down to a use of resources. When you visit any Web site, you're using the resources of that server. That server is being paid for by the owner of the Web site. To offset the costs of that server, and hopefully even to make a profit, the owner of the site puts advertising on the site. Because the owner of the site doesn't charge anything to the user (let's say your average tech site here, not something that's subscription-based) he's relying on that advertising to pay for the server, but more importantly for the time of the people generating that content.
***long quote trimmed by mod JD***
My apologies for making you angry. If you review my original post, you'll see that I made exception for ad supported free sites. And I'm fully aware that the ad revenue is why you can make the site free. But I'm not stealing from you because I choose not to look at the ads. Do you consider me to be stealing from you because I don't *click* on ads that I'm not interested in? If I come to your site and don't click on every ad on the page, then I have used the page without giving you benefit of all the revenue possible from the page. By the definitions used in this thread, that's stealing. But if anyone thinks that I'm going to click through all the ads on a page just to make sure the site owner gets his/her full share of revenue, they're crazy.
It all comes down to balance. If ads weren't annoying, popups for stuff I'll never buy, like online dating, or if they weren't right smack dab in the middle of text I'm interested in, I wouldn't want to block them. The ads on PPCT don't annoy -- I don't have to close extra windows when I'm finished -- I don't have to weed through ads in order to read text. So I'm not blocking them. But if the ads ever get to the point where I can't see the site information because of popups, ads in the middle of text, etc., then me blocking the ads won't be the problem. Not visiting the site at all will be the problem. And isn't one part of ad generated revenue being able to show advertisers that it's worth advertising on your site because of the number of hits you get on your site?
Sorry if this comes accross as a little steamed, Jason, but the tone of your post left me somewhat irritated. I feel like I'm being taken to task for voicing an opinion that differs from yours.
But, here's what I'll do. And what I suggest.
Let's all get rid of our ad blockers. And when you find a site that is just too annoyingly filled with ads, stop going to that site. Completely. Don't use their resources without "paying" for it. Make it so that the in-your-face, annoying advertising doesn't do what it's designed to do (like Underwater Mike said). Then maybe they'll either change their advertising formats or go out of business. But don't hold your breath while you're doing it........
I should mention that there's a difference between labelling something as an act of stealing, and labelling something as analogous to stealing.
True in the sense that there are repercussions for committing the act of stealing and not for doing something that some people view as "like" stealing.
Linear Mode
LinkBacks (?)
