|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Who deleted this page??? Hypocrites
The benefits of ad filtering are listed, but the negatives are not listed. I inserted a sentence explaining the negatives, including the impact it can have on the viability of free websites, and it has been removed. Congratulations, another biased article on Wikipedia. Someone justify why the negatives of adblocking should not be including in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There likely was not as much advertising in the net in 90's but there was still free content. But trying to make that comparison is already bit biased since the whole thing was new and people where more excited and enthuastic about putting up content. Some might have been motivated by possible future advertising profits and some even maybe just latched on advertising when they saw other people do it and talk about getting money of it.
Anyway, what the article lacks is information on automated filtering of ads from sound stream or atleast making them less obnoxiously loud. Since ads tend to air in radio/tv perhaps slightly louder (with less dynamic range) than the rest of the content it should be possible to detect this. I'm primarily interested in a program/vst/directshow codec to do this in PC but haven't found any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Ad blocking saves energy
Ad blocking can save energy. See- http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/ebusiness/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212201818
- Went ahead and added it, although I'm not sure about the comprehension of the study. 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Is ad filtering legal?
Is ad filtering legal?
- There is no law in any countries that I know and I am not aware of any court decisions so everything else is just speculations, read with caution.
- It has been argued that it may violate copyright or terms of service of certain sites but so far this has not been clarified in courts anywhere that I am aware. Ad filtering can be viewed as a form of Content-control software - and sometimes is required by US government to improve internet safety for children or other vulnerable persons(http://surferbeware.com/privacy/privacy-child-safety-guide.htm).
- Enforcing TOS would require some kind of more or less explicit agreement from the user. Applying copyright would require that the resulting page is copied/provided to a third party - which would be copyright violation anyway. It seems that filtering webpages for own viewing does not touch any copyright issue.
- Another view is that ad-blocking is basically a technical limitation of the used browser or internet connection. Certain/most types of advertisements must be fully expected to be not viewable on text only browsers, other are so large that they would never pass through some types of internet connections and it is probably in the best interest of the copyright holder that at least the "basic content" of the page arrives at the end user. In many cases active content filtering is necessary to preserve connectivity, functionality or security. The design of HTML includes concepts of user control of display properties, tweakability, graceful degradation and limited control how page is rendered on user devices as fundamental principles. Content filtering is just one example of applying this principles, arguably when publishing HTML the copyright holder is fully aware that all this will happen. The copyright holder also has the choice to publish eg a jpeg picture of a page including all advertisements which would make it technically much harder to filter ads and legally much easier to enforce copyright.
- Accessibility is another issue, braile readers would not work with the typical ad-loaded webpage. Users with risk of epileptic seizures must take precautions to avoid flashing images - ad blocking software is of great utility here.
- Ads have been known to link to obscene, illegal and or malicious content, directly contain malware, track computer users in illegal ways and behave in ways that common computer users (or even the FCC) would regard as computer sabotage. Applying copyright law to them would require that they are integral part of the page and the copyright holder assumes responsibility for the complete page, including damages done by ads, illegal links or malware. In reality most webmasters have little or no control what ads are displayed. Richiez (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- But it is still Copyvio. Instead let's put "the legalities of Adblock is a highly controversial topic.-- 16:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- It might be Copyvio if you distribute the resulting page. If it is for private use than in my understanding it is the same like if you take a printed newspaper and discard the 50 pages of ads into garbage without even looking at them. In fact you might even give or borrow "the resulting newspaper" to someone else, not heard anyone would claim this is copyright violation.
- If there is a third party distributing ad-filtered pages commercially then this may apply - this happens regularly as most mobile operators offer proxies that reduce traffic by various means and rather often filter certain ads simply because they are too large, contain flash movies or content not suitable for cell phones. This may be close to copyright violation, however in the 10+ years this has been practiced I am not aware of any legal actions regarding this practice. Opera-mini for mobile devices does something similar as well though I did not look at the details.
- AdBlock btw has absolutely no builtin filter rules (afaik), it can be used for filtering anything or nothing, obscene, advertising, religious or atheist content, whatever the rules. Pretty much every sinlge http proxy has very similar capabilities, they are just slightly harder to configure for the average user. So legally the producers of such software are perfectly fine, whoever uses them is responsible for the configuration.
- Is it legal for me to go to the bathroom when a commercial comes on my TV, or change the station on the radio? If I don't absorb every commercial, am I stealing? If someone delivers a free newspaper to my door, is it legal for me to cut out the ads? Is it legal for me to alter data I download onto my computer from a free website? As far as I know, all the answers are yes. And I am grateful. -- Dronthego (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- If it hasn't been specifically and unambiguously declared illegal, then it surely is legal. Surely it's not a violation of copyright as no copying is being done to filter the ads. Even if advertisers managed to persuade a politician make a law declaring the practice of ad filtering illegal, the software could still be legally published and it would be the user's responsibility to decide whether to use it for illegal ad filtering or not. Even if a user was filtering ads while there were a law making that illegal, it would be the advertiser's responsibility to detect such an action and launch court proceedings and collect some initial evidence. As ad blocking software can work fully passive, such detection and gathering of evidence would be difficult. Furthermore, I may ask, is it legal for the advertisers to increase my bandwidth and electricity bills by making my computer work more for displaying their ads and forcing my router to download them? Shouldn't I receive a payment by the advertisers for the increases in my power and bandwidth bills caused by their advertisements? Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
One issue that is not mentioned here is the freedom from psychological manipulation by advertisers. Avertisement is designed to appeal to emotion and subtly bypass the rational decision making process. Protecting oneself from that is a valuable effect og adblocking. Nobody likes being manipulated. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)