Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is blocking ads as bad as piracy?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 25, 2008 1:59:33 AM

I was thinking about it, and a lot of websites get all their revenue from advertisements. If you use ad blocking software (like adblock plus), you're benefiting from their website without viewing any of their ads, and at that rate most definitely not clicking on them (since you can't see them), and absolutely not making them any money. Not only that, but you're also using their bandwidth, which costs more money. Thoughts?
May 25, 2008 4:16:34 AM

Well not everyone uses ad blocking just like not everyone leaves the room to make a cup of tea in the TV commercial break.

I don't block ads because generally they don't bother me and sometimes tell me about things I'm interested in. But if a site has them to the extent that they interfere with my browsing I basically stop going. I've seen this with a lot of sites recently that have sold out to media companies and keep on cramming more and more ads in whilst the quality of content usually declines.

I think if a website has so many ads that people use blockers or stop going they deserve to lose revenue. On the other hand its probably morally wrong to use blockers on good sites that give a good user experience but not the same as piracy.
May 25, 2008 11:58:09 AM

You're seriously mistaken.
The people that block ads are the ones who wouldn't have clicked on them in the first place. Why should I waste my time/bandwidth on loading content that I'll never want to click on?
Ad blocking is a good practice which lowers YOUR BANDWIDTH usage that YOU paid for and it speeds up the loading of the page and reduces clutter and annoyance.
Related resources
May 25, 2008 2:15:03 PM

modtech said:
You're seriously mistaken.
The people that block ads are the ones who wouldn't have clicked on them in the first place. Why should I waste my time/bandwidth on loading content that I'll never want to click on?
Ad blocking is a good practice which lowers YOUR BANDWIDTH usage that YOU paid for and it speeds up the loading of the page and reduces clutter and annoyance.

But from the side of those against piracy, the argument "They wouldn't have _____ anyway" is often scoffed at. Would those who oppose piracy agree that adblocking is as bad, if not worse?
May 25, 2008 3:50:27 PM

Quote:
But from the side of those against piracy, the argument "They wouldn't have _____ anyway" is often scoffed at. Would those who oppose piracy agree that adblocking is as bad, if not worse?

Here we go again :)  But seriously I hope you see the difference. A game producer makes a game with the expectation that EVERBODY who plays it will pay to do so. With a product that generates it's revenue off ads the expectation is that some people MAY look at the ad and MAY buy whatever it's for. If some people completely ignore the ads thats to be expected also. If too many ignore them then you need to make them more effective. What you're doing is trying to equate people who flick through channels durring commercials to people who steal cable through illegal hook ups.
May 25, 2008 5:09:29 PM

Excellently put by purplerat. Being scoffed at by self righteous holy pita legit pu****s is sign that one is on the right track.
May 25, 2008 6:06:59 PM

But I'm not talking about just simply ignoring the ads, I'm talking about using software that essentially circumvents what the developer originally intended to be displayed. Is one form of revenue acceptable to circumvent, but not another, while still benefiting from someone else's work?
May 25, 2008 8:25:06 PM

Quote:
nope, completely different in that you are offered the ad's whilst piracy normally mean taking what isn't offered.

your taking a line of thinking too far without checking if it makes sense.

So you'd say it would be totally acceptable to use a third party program to prevent a developer from earning revenue while benefiting from their work?
May 25, 2008 9:10:44 PM

Quote:
the thing is, how do they know that you are watching the ad's or if you are not?

How does a company know if you're pirating their software or just not buying it?
May 26, 2008 12:25:14 AM

I use Adblock plus and i love it, even before i started using firefox i wouldn't click on any ad's on websites, i hate annoying Ad's on sites and inside videos you watch online. (like on break.com)

Now if only adblock plus would work in video games that have streaming ad's in them like BF2142/ET:Quakewars, maybe then i would try those games out.

You can't really compare blocking ad's to piracy, people are allowed to block stuff from showing up on their computers, who wants to waste bandwidth loading annoying pictures.
May 26, 2008 1:46:21 AM

There is no end user license agreement when you type in a website that tells you that you must view ads in order to use their product.

There are also no laws which prohibit the use of ad-blocking software.


That is the simple difference, you're reading into it too much.
May 26, 2008 1:59:37 AM

The method used to ignore ads is irrelavent to the argument, just as the method of piracy is. The two things are completely different. I'm not sure why you think that viewing an ad equates to money for the developer. There's basically two ways web adds are generate revenue. Either by how many people click on it, in which case whether you simply ignore them or block them it makes no difference. The other way is ads bought based on site traffic, in which case you are still contributing just by visiting the site. I know of no way that sponser monitor how many people just look at an ad and thus pay-per-view.

But what it really comes down to is in one case you expect 100% compesation for playing a game while in the other case visitors are not expected to compensate developers at all. If a girl scout comes to your door asking for a donation you're perfectly within you rights to tell her to beat it. But if she's selling cookies and you take a box them slam the door in her face without paying it's a completely different matter.

Really Oh Snap I'm not sure if you're trying to play devil's advocate here or if you're just trying to find another way to justify piracy. While I don't agree with much of what you say I honestly wouldn't have thought you dumb enough to not be able to see the difference here.

With that said however, what Pist said about ads in games does fall into a slightly different realm. While it's not piracy you would be in violation of any EULA to block these ads. If a website had a TOS page that you were required to agree to before viewing content then I would also be against blocking any ads they required you view. However I don't know of any sort of expectation on the end of normal websites that such ads MUST be viewed.
May 26, 2008 4:14:27 AM

I already said what I had to say about the piracy issue and what-not, but I must say I do very much like the analogy you draw here, Oh Snap. I know in reality they are two different things, but I do think you have a valid point, however crazy and maniacal it may seem. And purplerat, I can already tell you that Oh Snap will disagree with you about the girl scout cookies, because in the second instance you're physically taking her box of cookies that she could potentially sell to another customer rather than making a ray-gun carbon copy of them. :D 
May 26, 2008 5:12:27 AM

Quote:
I can already tell you that Oh Snap will disagree with you about the girl scout cookies, because in the second instance you're physically taking her box of cookies that she could potentially sell to another customer rather than making a ray-gun carbon copy of them.

Actually I was fully aware of that when I typed that analogy. I intentionally left it there because I don't see how you can split hairs on that issue while trying to make the giant leap from software piracy to not looking at ads. The two things aren't even in the same ballpark. Is there even any outcry against ad blockers? And what kind of rights do you think there are in displaying these ads? If anything the trend would be going in the direction of viewers from having to see them since a. they eat up band width (so if anything the advertisers are stealing from the user) and b. they can often times be harmful. The websites are in the public domain so viewers have the right to be protected. Video games are sold privatly so it's a completely different matter. If you want to use it you're supposed to buy it. Now if a website is private (lets say an adult website) then users are required to following and TOS. Anyways blocking out ads has generally been excepted by both sides. There have been TVs that automatically change durring comercials and VCRs that don't record them. The cable companies obviously weren't too concerned because now they give us DVRs which make previous forms of ad blocking obsolete. Piracy is undoubtedly harmful to the video game industry. Even if you don't believe they are losing sales over it you can't deny that developers have turned to DRM to combat it which in it's self is bad. But please show me something that says not looking at ads is hurting web developers?
May 26, 2008 5:13:22 AM

Woops, double post. All these ads must be slowing down my connection.
May 26, 2008 11:35:16 AM

modtech said:
You're seriously mistaken.
The people that block ads are the ones who wouldn't have clicked on them in the first place. Why should I waste my time/bandwidth on loading content that I'll never want to click on?
Ad blocking is a good practice which lowers YOUR BANDWIDTH usage that YOU paid for and it speeds up the loading of the page and reduces clutter and annoyance.


Blocking the ads won't mean they're not downloaded, just that they're not displayed.
May 26, 2008 12:57:19 PM

Well, someone thinks ads are nonsense, just like this thread http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/26/... Its crazy to even think blocking ads is anything more than a choice. Just like pirating, its a choice. If it has consequences then so be it. But Im betting I wont be going to jail if Im caught blocking ads LOL
May 26, 2008 1:18:44 PM

oh snap got a point there. The only diference from piracy, is that, Ads arent regulated. Far from that. Many have Keyloggers, Trojans and other kind of malware. A simple Cookie ussually isnt one. Anyway...

Just plug NoScript for firefox and youll see the sheer amount of publicity you are being forced to see.

*inserting GTA Radio Jokes type comment*

Since i have no script installed, i dont even see Google Ads.
May 26, 2008 1:35:15 PM

ovaltineplease said:
There is no end user license agreement when you type in a website that tells you that you must view ads in order to use their product.

There are also no laws which prohibit the use of ad-blocking software.


That is the simple difference, you're reading into it too much.


This is the essence, there is no agreement in which you accept the ads as part of your right to view the webpages.

Oh snap, can you explain how we can tell this is a serious exploration instead of an attempt to confuse people?


In one of the piracy threads someone (maybe it was you?) brought up a more interesting principle, in that the seller of specific goods has to take the minimum of precaution as to safeguard the situation where people are not even aware that they are violating the law. I think we can reasonably state that it is very clear to anyone who is violating computer game copyrights is doing so knowingly and willingly. The question is, are the publishers doing enough (obviously not, measured in terms of success of hampering piracy), and are they doing it right (not violating anyone else's rights in the process of protecting their property)?


May 26, 2008 4:42:05 PM

The thing I hate the most is intelitext. Any website that uses that is an absolute disgrace.
May 26, 2008 7:26:46 PM

I just think it's funny how so many people have no problem bypassing advertisements that someone running on a site relies on for income, but everyone is so opposed to hurting game developers' income. There is no EULA if you're pirating the game, because you're not agreeing to it. You can argue legality, but that's not really my point. You're just getting the content for free without supporting the developer. Since so many of you think there's no problem with disabling ads while still using a site's bandwidth (you as an individual most likely have unlimited bandwidth, a website has to pay for bandwidth), let me follow up with this:

How many of you think it would be acceptable to disable ads in a game that doesn't charge for the game itself, but simply relies on the income generated from the advertisements?
May 27, 2008 9:47:14 AM

Oh Snap said:
I just think it's funny how so many people have no problem bypassing advertisements that someone running on a site relies on for income, but everyone is so opposed to hurting game developers' income. There is no EULA if you're pirating the game, because you're not agreeing to it. You can argue legality, but that's not really my point. You're just getting the content for free without supporting the developer. Since so many of you think there's no problem with disabling ads while still using a site's bandwidth (you as an individual most likely have unlimited bandwidth, a website has to pay for bandwidth), let me follow up with this:

How many of you think it would be acceptable to disable ads in a game that doesn't charge for the game itself, but simply relies on the income generated from the advertisements?


You're the one that is funny, as in weird. Selling and buying a product or service is an agreement, and the legal framework we invented to standardize agreements and make sure that it is very clear what is expected from the selling and the buying party.

Just as I can browse the web, and can disable whatever part I like when doing so, I can also watch television without watching the ads. I'm not violating any service terms. Sure the advertisers wont like it, and they may not buy as much advertisement space as they used to, so the networks wont like that but it is all well in overal perspective.

If I have to agree to not block ads, in order to get access to certain website or parts of it, and I accept those terms, then I will be violating the law when I still block the ads after agreeing to those terms. Not a chance in hell I will ever get caught doing it, but yes I am violating the terms when I do that, I am not a trustworthy person anymore because I agreed to it before accessing the site.

If someone wants to sell me a game for $0 (for free, but it is not giving, because there are terms involved that have to be accepted) that will require internet access and will show ingame advertisements and in the terms is included that I'm not allowed to block the ads because that is part of the business model then fine, I should not block them, or simply don't play the game.

If you ask me, is it a sound business practice to trust on the decency of your customers? In the case of mass consumers I'd say no, in the case of business to business it is very common that (bigger) businesses trust each other (because if they violate that trust, they know there will be consequences). Is that a reason for me personally to get involved with piracy because so many others do it? No it is not.

I hope that more and more companies will go the route that Stardock and others do: they will listen to their legit customers, and will try to enhance the product satisfaction of their legit customer base. There is one thing in these piracy debates that have become clear: people are willing to part with their hard earned cash if they get value for money (at least that's what most self-admitted pirates on these forums say). The hard part is in determining the actual value of something when production costs are nil (which is why piracy is such an interesting proposition in these cases).


May 27, 2008 1:45:49 PM

Quote:
You're just getting the content for free without supporting the developer.

You're either totally missing the point or trying really hard to troll for an argument on piracy. Getting free content without supporting the developers is perfectly acceptable when viewing a website. As a matter of fact right now I have may browser narrowed as to block all the ads on the right. I will not click on them, view them or otherwise support any of the sponsers. Now you can go report me to a moderator and see what they think. With video games you are expected to pay to get that content. Not to support the developers though. You're supposed to pay because that is the terms of service set by the people selling it. All this noble "Support the Developers!" BS is getting old. If content is a for sale product then you should either buy it or not use it at all. If it's free then it is free and use it if you want. There's no responsability on the users end to support any body when it comes to free material. You Oh Snap seem to have this completely bass ackwords. You want the pay for content free while you think we should all be responsible for supporting free content developers.
May 27, 2008 2:14:33 PM

Just something else I want to throw into this discussion; Forced viewing of ads does not work. Just look at what happened with the free ISPs that tried using it. They all failed. Just as did free hosting services that forced ads. And those are just internet examples. There are tons of examples where somebody has offered a free service with the stipulation that users HAD to look at ads. It just about always fails. Viewers are not going to be more likely to buy something that is actively forced upon them and sponsers know it. The trick is to make people want to see them or use other marketing techniques to promote your product. The reason sponsers aren't screaming about ad blockers is because they know those types of ads do not work on the type of people who would be blocking them. If anything forcing these ads on people who don't want them would make them less like to support the sponser. There are other ways of targeting these viewers. For example on a site like this where users are slightly more savy/aware sending sample products to the site for review is probably more effective then shoving a pop-up down everbody's throats.
May 27, 2008 3:14:34 PM

Oh Snap - don't even make the EULA argument, because while you are correct, EULA is not the issue. Copyright law is the problem. You are taking a commercial product whose copyrights are owned by a person or company and using it for your own benefit without fair compensation to the copyright owner. There is no copyright law being violated by ad-blocking software. Your argument is just flat wrong - you are comparing a legal, personal choice not to view commercial ads with a felonious act of copyright infringement, and to continue to try and argue trivialities to obscure that fundamental difference only makes you look foolish.
May 27, 2008 4:57:16 PM

I wasn't making the "EULA argument", I was just responding to someone else who brought it up.

Purplerat, you didn't answer my question :) 
Quote:
How many of you think it would be acceptable to disable ads in a game that doesn't charge for the game itself, but simply relies on the income generated from the advertisements?
May 27, 2008 5:19:53 PM

Oh Snap said:
I wasn't making the "EULA argument", I was just responding to someone else who brought it up.

Purplerat, you didn't answer my question :) 
Quote:
How many of you think it would be acceptable to disable ads in a game that doesn't charge for the game itself, but simply relies on the income generated from the advertisements?

Yes I did. I didn't direct it specifically to you but I don't feel I should have to repeat myself.

Quote:
With that said however, what Pist said about ads in games does fall into a slightly different realm. While it's not piracy you would be in violation of any EULA to block these ads. If a website had a TOS page that you were required to agree to before viewing content then I would also be against blocking any ads they required you view. However I don't know of any sort of expectation on the end of normal websites that such ads MUST be viewed.


The crux of that argument is that there is an implied agreement between the user and developers which I'm sure would be covered by any EULA or TOS. With a free website there is no agreement implied or otherwise. Please show something that implies that either side - users or developers- have any sort of expectations or agreement that all ads will be viewed. If there is such a thing my opinion would be different. Conversely if game developers didn't expect people to pay for their games piracy wouldn't be an issue no matter the method.
May 27, 2008 5:44:35 PM

Oh Snap,

You seem to be dodging the major issue that makes your argument so weak. That is the 0% expectation of compensation for free websites versus 100% expectation of compensation for pay-for games (or any content). In one case it's perfectly acceptable to take full advantage of free content without supporting the provider while in the other it's completely unacceptable to take advantage of any of the content without fully paying for it. If anything they are complete opposites. Even legally speaking if sponsers or developers want to go after anybody for blocking ads it would have to be the software vendors who supply the method not the users who are perfectly within their right to ignore ads. With piracy it should be the users who are held responsible for unlawfully distributing content, not the P2P software providers who simply make it possible but take no further part. If you want to argue the validity of blocking/ignoring ads then fine but it really has nothing to do with piracy.
May 27, 2008 6:40:01 PM

It's surprising to me that so many people who claim to be in favor of supporting the developers of content they enjoy really don't see a problem with hurting their revenue unless they were to click an "Agree" button on a popup with an agreement they don't actually read through. Interesting stuff.
May 27, 2008 7:21:55 PM

You are the one who keeps making this about "Supporting the Developers". I don't buy games to "Support the Developers". I buy games because the people who created them set a price which I am willing to pay to use their product. I don't buy a car because I give a crap about some guy in Detroit any more than I buy a game because I want some programmer to prosper. If something is free and I want it I'll take. Maybe the developer will benefit, maybe they won't. The point of it being free is that enough people will take advantage and SOME, not ALL will compensate the developer back. When something is for sale it's expected that fewer people will take advantage of it but ALL will pay. Your views Oh Snap are purely idealistic and thus will always fail. Sorry but I'm much more of a realist.
May 27, 2008 7:26:21 PM

So why do you oppose piracy?
May 27, 2008 7:52:00 PM

Oh Snap said:
So why do you oppose piracy?

Because I see piracy as having a negative effect on me. DRM sucks and is obviously a direct result of piracy. Fewer games and higher prices sucks. More mediocore or "casual gamer" targeted titles does me no good. Basically all the actions taken against piracy, and rightly so, suck for me. So the less prevailent piracy is the better for me. Yes a large part of that is the ability of developers to prosper. That's how capitalism works, but the end result is I'm concerned about myself. Honestly if I knew that in 2 years I'd be living with my family in a wilderness bunker with no technology for the rest of my life I'd probably pirate everything not caring what would happen. But back to the original topic, I don't see blocking or ignoring ads that you wouldn't otherwise look at as hurting free websites or myself. If they were to take adverse action against doing so (likely requiring you to pay or some sort of ad DRM) I might care. But like I explained in an above post that's not the way marketing and advertising works. You can't force people to look at ads and expect them to work. It's a completely different situation from piracy or copyright infringement. You can argue either topic but to argue for one to justify the other is silly and doesn't work.
May 27, 2008 10:49:32 PM

Oppose piracy if you wish, just don't get in anyone's way.
May 28, 2008 12:09:45 AM

modtech said:
Oppose piracy if you wish, just don't get in anyone's way.

I'm not out to try and stop anybody. Just give it up with these ridiculous justifications and excuses as to why you do. Like I said, I oppose it because I view it as having a negative impact on me. Just admit that you are all pirating games for no more noble a reason than to get games for free. Case closed.
May 28, 2008 1:58:38 AM

purplerat said:
I'm not out to try and stop anybody. Just give it up with these ridiculous justifications and excuses as to why you do. Like I said, I oppose it because I view it as having a negative impact on me. Just admit that you are all pirating games for no more noble a reason than to get games for free. Case closed.



qft
May 28, 2008 2:10:06 AM

i hate ads so much that i started my own line of adblock filters (listed on my anime website in my sig)



with adblock, for many websites, the file size of the page can be cut down from over 3MB to just 100-200KB

it makes sites like g4tv.com go from taking 5-10 seconds to load, to around 1 second to load.

firefox also uses much less memory since it is not loading the inefficient content

most website owners who suffer from all users using adblock, bring it on them self

when i am looking for a new heatsink because the stock heatsink on my opteron 170 is getting annoying, i don't need a banner ad telling me how a $100 bottle of weight loss pills will help me loose a few pounds

it has nothing to do with what i am looking for.

when i am looking for a heatsink because the stock crap that came with my opteron 170 sucks, i don't need a ad telling me to get a zune, a zune will not keep my CPU from hitting 70C

if you don't want people to block your ads then show useful ads

when i am searching for something, thats the time i want as many ads as possible, as long as they have to do with what i want

but it is becoming more crappy now. the time you want ads because you are looking for something but have nothing specific in mind, thats the time when they hit you with the mose useless ads.

i generally look for many heatsinks then i check for reviews on them i don't know the exact one I am going to buy, if i am looking for one on your site. if the ads have nothing to do with what i am looking for then theres no point in me wasting bandwidth loading them

ads suck, adblock FTW
May 28, 2008 5:13:16 AM

Think about it like this, you use the phone.. but you don't want telemarketers calling you. You pay for your internet and the whole purpose of websites is for selling, information, or entertainment. If I don't want to see their ads that is your own personal decision. They can use ads to make money but it is not my or your job to provide them money unless it is the item I am looking at on their website right? Piracy is me stealing a product, or information from a site and using it for my own gain. Im not gaining anything from their website and If I am using an Ad blocker, I am basically stating the only info I want to see on your webpage is what you are providing, not an add from another vendor or company.
May 28, 2008 12:56:54 PM

Ill say this, within this community, its more about word of mouth than ads, just look at the forums. And since most of us traverse these forums, as well as others, and other sites,ads are a secondary at best solution. Most gamers are this way, at least pc gamers. So, to me the argument is moot to begin with, with pitiful excuses for piracy atop that.
May 28, 2008 2:10:57 PM

I quit reading posts about halfway through this because they quit being on topic and went to just bashing or supporting Oh Snap. I think the topic itself bears discussion.

Honestly, I thought that most ads worked on a PPV/PPC system, where the website gets paid for each view and then they get paid more for each click through. I was under the impression that that was the standard. Can you point to google ads and Doubleclick terms that specify otherwise? And I know that some if not most ad blockers redirect or flat out block communication with the sites on which the ads are hosted so they are not downloaded and the number of views can be accurately counted.

As for the EULA, if the only reason you don't pirate games is fear of the law, then you are paranoid. An ethical person would not pirate games because of the ethics, which if I am right about how the ads work, are no different. I personally have not used an ad blocking system for this very reason. I respect the websites I frequent and recognize that they get the vast majority of their revenue from ads. If a site is too clogged with ads for the content they provide, I quit visiting.
May 28, 2008 2:21:33 PM

The problem is that whether or not you think disabling ads is bad (I don't think so, but I also do use any software other than what IE7 has) it's stupid to try and tie it in with piracy. The two things are completely independent of one and another. If you are really so concerned about websites developers not getting paid then start a thread about blocking ads and leave piracy out of it. This thread that Oh Snap started looks to be nothing more than another lame justification of piracy and nothing more.
May 28, 2008 2:31:37 PM

Ok, I've caught up now, and as expected, no valid points between where I originally stopped reading and here. I am somewhat surprised about the selfishness exhibited by purple rat. I would have thought that anyone that self interested would just pirate. I had some respect for you, but now... can't say I do.

Fionn2003 said:
Think about it like this, you use the phone.. but you don't want telemarketers calling you.


This is totally irrelevant. We are talking about content that the ads are intended to support. Telemarketers are not at all intended to support your phone service.

For those who cannot see the similarities between ad blocking and piracy... I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than has already been done. Blocking ads removes the pay per view revenue of your visit, which is probably the majority of the websites revenue. This results in the content provider having to load up with more ads to make up for the people viewing the content for free. Aside from the shallow and unimportant legal concerns, I'd say that the two activities correlate very VERY strongly.

Quit trying to rationalize your activity and just fess up that you are an evil person stealing content that someone else was perfectly willing to pay for to begin with and grow up.
May 28, 2008 2:56:34 PM

Quote:
Quit trying to rationalize your activity and just fess up that you are an evil person stealing content that someone else was perfectly willing to pay for to begin with and grow up.

Well said. I assume you mean the same to anybody who ever pirates or otherwise downloads unauthorized copies of games no matter their rationalization (try before you buy et al).

As far as my selfishness, well that extends just as far as does the selfishness of the people selling games or running websites. I know you believe in some sort of utopian world filled with puppies and rainbows where developers create their beautiful works simply for the love of it and we all pay them appropriatly because we all want to see the artist do well and blah, blah, blah. Well I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but that aint the way the world works. There's nothing wrong with looking out for yourself firstly while doing so with a sense of fairness. I'd much rather be like that than be some jack off going around talking about utopian idealism while in reality screwing other people over because you feel shafted by the real world not living up to your expectations.
May 28, 2008 3:52:10 PM

There is no problem with looking out for yourself firstly, the problem arises when you look out for yourself only. And yes, I do think pirates should either quit pirating or shut up about their rationalizations. It is worthwhile for developers and publishers to understand pirates so that they can better target or avoid that segment as they feel necessary, however bull malarky about how piracy is a net positive for the industry is just that, bull malarky. There may be valid reasons for why it is not as much of a net negative as some people believe, but it is definitely a net negative proposition.
May 28, 2008 4:14:42 PM

look on digg.com and you will find hundreds of articles of bad banner ads. mainly due to ad providers using browser exploits which caused ad software to be installed on a users pc if they were using IE

it has even happened to yahoo.com when having malicious ads

people block ads for convenience and ease of use

adblock not only blocks ads, it reshapes the web page in order to make use of the space the ad took, so not only does the web page look better with less clutter, it loads up to 90% faster

it also adds security, no malicious ads to worry about

and for most sites no matter how you put it, the ads are just begging to be blocked. as they never have anything to do with what you are looking for and they are also never trustworthy


how many companies have you seen who said their product was the best?

when toms hardware did a test on many different heatsinks even though all of those companies said their product was best. most of them caused the processor to overheat quickly

an ad will never tell you the truth and no one likes being lied to

if a product is good, then there is no need force ads on people, it will only make people hate your product and not trust it.

90% of the product ads you see on line are for software that will turn your pc into a spambot or products that wont work or for items similar to what you find in the spam folder for your e-mail

banner ads no longer work, the only true way to advertise it to make a good product and it will spread around by recommendations by other users

most popular hardware often has very little advertising but why are they so successful? because the product is good and people are more likely to trust fellow users than a banner ad
May 28, 2008 4:19:32 PM

Razor, that is totally irrelevant.

I do not profess to defend the honor of banner ads. They are irritating and intrusive, however they are also how the website makes its money. If you visit a website without viewing their ads, you are effectively pirating their content. If you are cool with that, more power to you, I however am not.
May 28, 2008 4:27:02 PM

Well the question was as to why I personally oppose piracy, which I expanded on to include why I don't pirate. Viewing the issue as how it hurts me first and foremost tends to bring to light the problems it causes more so than talking about abstract developers where you can easily brand those who deserve your money and those who don't because you'll never meet them and doing so has no personal impact. As far as ad blocking, it is an interesting topic but it's pointless to discuss here because piracy is a different topic which the ad blocking issue is being used to justify. Undoubtedly there are many similarities and correlations between the two. However there are just as many and probably many more differences not the least of which are the legal issues that for some reason you see as trivial.
When looking at complex issues like piracy trying to tie in other complex issues with such differences muddies the water much more than it solves anything. I wouldn't even try and argue video game piracy and music piracy in the same topic because there are so many differences to sort through. What makes this thread even more dubious is the fact that the OP is always the first one to point out such differences when trying to defend piracy. Like I said earlier you can't split the hairs between stealing intellectual property like games versus stealing tangible objects like cars or cookies while at the same time trying to draw a correlation with not viewing ads. If stealing cars and pirating games are apples and oranges then not viewing ads are something like zucchinis. Either they're all food or they are all different (well at least apples and oranges are both fruit).
May 28, 2008 4:29:42 PM

it is not piracy, even commercial software have built in adblockers

zonealarm even has one

astaro, a corporate firewall has one (not officially but you can input a adblock list into it and it will block ads )

most virus scanners have web monitors that will block ads

this started to happen when ads became more annoying than helpful

most commercial software does this because thats the best way to protect users from them self.

most soyware and trojans come from either exploits for the IE browser or social engineering to get the user to infect their pc

while the exploits cant be helped much if the user sticks with IE, the social engineering can be helped.

last thing you need is an employee of your multi million dollar company installing that virus scanner because the banner ad said that his pc could be infected and needs to install a virus scan to remove it

infecting a company computer is a happy dream for a malicious person, due to the amount of personal or financial information that will be passed through. most filtering software used by large companies also have the ability to block ads
May 28, 2008 4:41:19 PM

infornography42 said:
Razor, that is totally irrelevant.

I do not profess to defend the honor of banner ads. They are irritating and intrusive, however they are also how the website makes its money. If you visit a website without viewing their ads, you are effectively pirating their content. If you are cool with that, more power to you, I however am not.


Actually it's completely relevant and it's why the difference in legallity between software piracy and not viewing ads is so important. Currently the web advertising world is a virtual wild west. There are no laws to protect either the advertisers nor the viewers. You can't scream foul because people don't want to view ads that are potentially harmful to the user. If online advertisers and site developers were really concerned with people blocking their ads they would first have to clean up their act. The truth is they are probably perfectly happy with the current climate. The number of less savvy/informed who get caught in deciptful ads and what not probably far out weighs those who avoid them all together.
May 28, 2008 4:48:08 PM

So it's alright to pirate games with invasive, borderline illegal DRM on them, right? Wouldn't it be better to simply not pirate the game with said DRM, or visit the site with invasive advertisements?

"If game publishers and developers were really concerned with people pirating their games they would first have to clean up their act and stop using such invasive DRM."

You're accessing content without providing revenue. Regardless of how you want to try to justify it, it's obvious you guys are all pirates in your own way. You try to come up with all sorts of justifications for why you want content for free, rather than simply not visiting the sites that have ads you find to be "invasive".
May 28, 2008 5:03:58 PM

Oh Snap said:
So it's alright to pirate games with invasive, borderline illegal DRM on them, right? Wouldn't it be better to simply not pirate the game with said DRM, or visit the site with invasive advertisements?

"If game publishers and developers were really concerned with people pirating their games they would first have to clean up their act and stop using such invasive DRM."

You're accessing content without providing revenue. Regardless of how you want to try to justify it, it's obvious you guys are all pirates in your own way. You try to come up with all sorts of justifications for why you want content for free, rather than simply not visiting the sites that have ads you find to be "invasive".



if we didn't go to the sites then we would loose access to 99.999999999999999% of the internet
you will be spending like 50 a month for internet just to go to about:blank
!