If AdBlock will be on the warpath

Hello, habravchanin, and hello to you, guest reading us. Surely you have AdBlock installed long ago and you install it to all your relatives and friends. After all, this is a very convenient browser extension that saves your eyes from flashing colorful banners, unnecessary links and other things.

This article summarizes the possible methods of exposure of advertisers and their representatives to our favorite extension.

We have two premises, the truth of which is proven a priori.
')
a) Many large Internet companies get most of their income through advertising (Google, Facebook, etc).

b) AdBlock. Beautiful, free, popular. Removes all ads from pages.

The conclusion suggests itself - AdBlock is a threat to companies of this kind.

Despite this, as long as the companies relate to the existence of the extension quite well - the same Google AdBlock can be downloaded and installed directly from the official directory of extensions. After all, anyway advertising on the web is enough, it means that a not so critical percentage of its total number is being blocked.

But if companies find that a real threat emanates from AdBlock, they will have the following leverage in their hands. I will give an example of the funds mentioned in the source with a few comments.

Firstly, here (as almost everywhere else in our time) the non-perceptible mention of copyright and copyright reappears. After all, the page code can be considered an author's work (if you drag it by the ears as a “computer program”). For the original page contains a code showing ads on the site, and the installation of AdBlock changes this code, providing the user with a modified version of the author's work. In my opinion, this is quite absurd, because then it will be possible to write off all the extensions that allow the user to change the user-style of the page. And all sorts of clippers and “cleaners” of the text will fall under the distribution.

Secondly - established traditions in the field of commerce and trade (along with these types of rights, not only in the Russian Federation, of course).

Here it is proposed to focus on using third-party software to interfere in contractual relationships. That is, the advertiser and the site owner entered into an agreement between themselves, according to which the site owner undertakes to unscrew the advertisement in exchange for a cash reward and / or a percentage of the advertisement. And the use of AdBlock forcibly cuts off the displayed advertising from the site, thereby preventing the implementation of the activities specified in the agreement.

Also, the reason for filing a lawsuit may well be the fact if some of the popular browsers will include AdBlock in their standard functionality “out of the box”.

Personally, I continue to hope that, despite the popularity of the extension, the existence of such a functional will not be the beginning of the same endless wars, as with file sharing, for example.

History reference

1970

TV studios file a lawsuit in which the legality of the use of VCRs is actively challenged. Say, a person can record a broadcast film on a tape, and then, while viewing the recording, simply rewind the advertisements to hell (I caught this time and often did exactly what the studio was about).

The court rejects the claim, explaining its decision by the fact that, firstly, the advertisement is still recorded on film and technically it is there, and secondly, the rewinding process is rather tiresome, that is, the vidak does not provide any significant relief.

2002

Progress did not stand still - ReplayTV DVR appeared. Chip technology was that when recording the signal advertising was ignored.
Studios did not need to be reminded twice - they rushed to file class claims against the manufacturer.
No precedent was created, for the company went bankrupt during the trial.

2003

The case against the file sharing service Aimster.
The judge considered that in this case, the provision of recordings of programs without advertising leads to a reduction in the income of the copyright holder from displaying their programs, since "free" television projects have no third-party funding, except for money received from advertising.

A similar question was raised in the CBS, Fox and NBC vs. Dish Network case. Dish also developed a system that clears the air from advertising. The studios explained their position by the fact that they intend to “actively defend the future of free television”.

And now, here the court partially satisfied their requirements, recognizing that the advertisements violate the studios copyright, as the technology gave the end user a modified stream of broadcasting.

That is, without advertising.

via