Is it stealing to block Web ads?

Are these people CRAZY? AdBlock doesn't just stop annoyances, it blocks add leading to potential phishing sites, viruses, malware, and other harmful things. As EEF states, the user owns the computer, and should always have the right to make the decisions about what does and does not display. I choose not to put my machine at risk to these things, so I use AdBlock, UAC, and a good virus/malware suite.

Mike Lankton is out of his mind. Here's a hint: if you cannot afford to run a website without advertising in such a hope and pray manner, than you cannot afford to run said site in the first place. The people that block these ads are not going to click them anyway, that's one of the reasons they choose to do so in the first place!

No, it is saving me the hassle of pop ups, spam, adware, spyware, and other annoyances that come with these somewhat unscrupulous pay-per-click advertising companies. Their 0.02c isn't worth my time and effort to try and remove these from my machine. Of which, I use SpyBot and AdAware, both also conviently free. I pay 60$ a month for my internet, they can manage to spend X for their webhosting. I pay what...10$ a year I think. Gimme a break.

I for one use AdBlock just as a means to control unsightly ads and annoying flash videos of product X. Besides, being on limited bandwidth makes it much more than just convenience to block ads. It saves bandwidth and time spent loading webpages.

I get so annoyed at all the ads! AdBlock and similar products are essential to stop the barrage of unwanted advertising from what I go online to see. It's akin to running commercials during a TV program! I agree if you can't afford to run a site without the ads then perhaps you should reevaluate whether you need to be running the site.

Ah, how I long for the good old days, pre Flash and Java. No pop ups, browser redirects, etc.

So by this reasoning, when a commercial on the TV comes on and we flip the channel to another show until the commercial break is over, we are stealing from all the companies that paid millions of dollars for the 30-second TV spot.

Adblock and other pop-up/ad-block utilities are a great way to cut out the muck of some heavily ad-infested sites. Not to mention cut down on the potential risk of phishing, malware.

Now if there was only a data-mining blocker...

Tell the advertisers to get rid of pop-ups, browser redirects, data miners, etc., and we'll talk.

Typically if users are going to block your ads, they don't give a crap about clicking them, so you wouldn't get revenue from it in the first place. The fact that we're blocking them should send a message: we don't care about ads, we care about the website content itself. Amazing that these hosts can't seem to grasp such a simple concept.

Or, ya know...they could design ads that are less flashy and intrusive so we don't have to block them. Just a thought

If I don't want to see or be bothered with ads, I should have the right to block them. I pay for my internet usage and should be able to view or not view whatever I want. If I visit a website with a lot of ads or pop-ups i probably won't return to that website. If I choose to purchase and use a pop-up blocker that is also well within my rights since I pay for my internet and I paid for my computer, nothing illegal, just trying to stop those annoying ads!!!!

There will always be pop-up blockers and ad-blockers. I guess I like stealing money. I think I will go to Connected Internet's website with Firefox all day and "steal his money". sir, you are only the AV Editor. I would hardly call that "Your Money".

Stealing you people are grasping at straws. IT IS MY RIGHT TO BLOCK ANYTHING I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ON MY COMPUTER. Stealing So you through everyones RIGHTS to please your own. If you cant deal with the heat then get out off the kitchen. I cant believe this !!!!!!

As much as I hate to admit it, the website owners are probably right. Its like a condition of service. By viewing the site, you implicitly agree to put up with the ads or whatever other funding mechanisms go along with it.

It's my computer. If I want to block the ads I will. My other alternative is to go to a web site and ignore the ones that are screaming about me blocking their ads. Enough people do that, then they will not have to worry about who is blocking the ads.

You don;t like me blocking your crap ads??? Pound sand yourself and get a real job....

I would like to thank Mr. Lankton for helping to publicize Skipshare. It's an extension I've not been familiar with, but I've just installed it. If it's as effective as the AdBlock that I've been using for years now then I'm looking forward to an even better browsing experience.

The problem is not advertising in general, the true problem is when ads pop up, redirect, or hijack your browser. I have no problem with ads that simply display discreetly inside a web page and not pop up, pop under, or take over the center of my screen. It's extremely annoying when you have to click on the "close" button or "X" in order to close the ad that is blocking the content behind it.

If ads were less obtrusive and intrusive, then I would not mind them at all. I know that web site owners rely on ads for revenue, but the owners must realize that the annoying types of ads don't help their site.

Going Green is God's will
Blocking the work of the Devil is your duty to humanity
Wasted CPU cycles will warm Earth to the temperature of Hell

Absolutely not! In order to steal something, the origin must first posess what was stolen. Just as the web page administrator can choose what is displayed on the page and which scripts will run, the user has the right to determine what they will see and which scripts will run. In a world where everyone is trying to make a fast dollar, it becomes the users best interest to protect themselves as much as possible. If this blocks your advertisements, then try hosting a site that actually has a purpose and generates revenue.

I want my minute it took to read this back!

It's simple: No, IT'S NOT STEALING!

What if a user has a text only browser (terminals at libraries?)...
What if I don't have Flash, JS, or Java installed or enabled?..
What if I turn off images in the browser (available since IE 1.x)?...

What then, about the author of the comments above accusing me of stealing's total lack of foresight about how 'the internets' actually work makes me a thief or criminal?

That's not a crime, or stealing; this is the mad rambling of an idiot who doesn't deserve to be mentioned by name on CNN.com.

Anyone who blocks the ads isn't going to click on them anyway. And bloggers don't get revenue from the ads being there, they generate money from ad clicks. The argument is dumb. If Mozilla were automatically blocking the ads for everyone that would be different. But this is something that people have to set up themselves, and anyone who sets it up wasn't going to click on the ads anyway.

Next up, the Cable Companies are filing suit over people who record their shows and fast forward through commercials

If they just used a banner ad across the top like the old days it would be fine. But like others have stated, all this other garbage is way to far. Plus it makes web surfing so much faster because I don't have to wait for all this garbage to load. Advertising sucks!

You people need to get a grip on how web hosting actually works. First off, I hate the annoying and intrusive ads just like the rest of you. Unfortunately unless you charge a subscription or run on donations, running ads is the only option for non-commercial web sites to exist.
For example, one of the web forums I like to hang around at has around 25,000 registered users worldwide. Obviously that doesn't cover just the casual traffic from unregistered users but I think that gives a pretty good idea on what kind of daily traffic they are getting. Now the guy that pays for the hosting is kind enough show what the website's finances are for the year. This year’s hosting fee was $2,570.40. If you can figure out a way to pay for that without using ads or making users pay subscriptions be my guest.

So before you start demonizing a website owner for asking you not to block the ads, ask yourself how would you feel every website on the net required a monthly payment?

Many of you are correct, it is totally your prerogative to block whatever you want from appearing on your computer. It is also the web site provider's prerogative to deny you access if you do not accept their advertisements, which they make money from showing to you.

This is a quid-pro-quo system; you get your content for free, advertisers pay the content provider to display ads. I agree that many of the intrusive pop-ups, pop-unders, re-directors, and browser-delay systems piss me off, and content providers should stop using these methods. However, actively blocking all ads will only force content providers to move to subscription-based systems like Rupert Murdoch's plan in order to survive. The information these people generate costs time, which is worth money – if the advertisers won't pay, you will, or the content will die.

As the saying goes: "there's no such thing as a free lunch".

The day every presenter of these ads is made fully legally and financially liable for any damages done knowingly or unknowingly by any of the ads that they present, is the day that we can start this discussion. Until then, STFU and let the crybabies deal with it.

Reality is, the more technology grows and becomes more inexpensive the more we will be seeing advertising everywhere, not just on your browser. Augmented reality is right around the corner, will we have a blocker for that? This is an issue the Advertising industry is going to have to overcome. I mean lets face it, we love and hate ads; during the superbowl they are awesome, while on your browser they aren't well appreciated. Where do we draw the line?

I wouldn't care about ads if they did cover the screen untill you hit the little X, the stupid java/flash in-same-window pop up, and the ones that yell at me...CONGRATS YOU HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO RECIVE A FREE IPOD NANO.........

If they were not so obnoxious I wouldn't care seeing them.

Would this include popup blockers to ?

Well you see I don't want to see some stupid ad on my computer and we the people should have a right to block ads on the internet.

Rich your slightly wrong. I have been to several site and not had a single pop up or ad even appear. If a site wants to have the "right" to force me into accepting pop up ads or other intrusive ones they should have a "Enter/Do Not Enter" page saying that by clicking here you are agreeeing to have my site send you Pop up Ads or other ads that force you into seening them. Now i have been to many sites where the ads are banners and pictures ect and i havent had a single issue with them. But by saying your on the web so i have your permission in what is displayed on it is utterly assinine.

Its as simple as this analogy: Blocking ads on a webpage that I go to visit for that page's content on my browser on my computer is just like me putting up a No Soliciting sign on my property so that solicitors can't even come up and knock on my door.

I'm requesting the page from the server and they are feeding me the page – what I do with that (and how I interpret that) is none of their business. Once it leaves their servers, they are done telling me how to deal with it.

If ad-supported sites aren't working, then change the business model – don't cry about behavior that you have no right to control. Be innovative and you'll be rewarded. Don't sit on the revenue generate of years past and cry when it doesn't work for you now.

How can you call it stealing? That is a foolish statement.

I don't have a problem looking at ads, but when the damn things fly around and bug the crap out of you...I usually leave sites that have anoying ads. Can't you get the message across without pissing people off?

When I look at a website I would actually like to be able to see the website. Half of a webpage these days is an advertisement.

If a website wants to have ads that aren't blocked by adblockers and pop-up blockers, then they are free to encode the ad directly into their website. In other words, sell ad space themselves instead of signing up with 3rd party ad resellers that provide "ads" resold by others, and others, and others until most of the "ads" are just money making scams and spreaders of malware.

Want to put an ad on your site, adblockers aren't stopping you. They're just preventing me from the malware and 3rd party advertisers.

It's amazing that we seem to be only hearing 1 side of the story in comments. Whatever happened to the right of the website owner to put what they want on THEIR WEBSITE. The idea that a website should take down content because you don't like it. I didn't see anything in the article or comments about anyone being hijacked to these sites. As I read it, each of you voluntarily went to the particular websites which had pop-ups & ads. If you don't like those then simply avoid the website. Freedom of choice is a two-way street and the website owner has the right to control his content as long as it is legal. Having pop-up ads that only come up when you go to that site is perfectly legal. In case most of you forgot, this site does that as well based on their need for advertising.

If you want to block ads fine, your choice but it is also the choice of the website to have those ads and your choice to simply not visit the website. If you dislike the ads so much, then start your own website free of any ad content.

PS – I don't have a website or host any, I just like to see fair comparisons made on topics like this instead of one side commentary.

Well, I guess then I'm stealing from television broadcasters by watching recorded shows on my dvr, and skipping every advertisement during a break!

I realize that our entire entertainment industry is funded and based on the archaic "ad-revenue" system. Tough titty. Maybe someday we'll find another way to maintain our websites and broadcast stations and tell the advertisers to go away for good.

I thank whoever wrote the Firefox pop-up and script blockers, because nothing annoys me more than IN YOUR FACE ADVERTISING!!11@

If advertising was professional and (more importantly) subdued, then I wouldn't mind as much. Take Google, for example. They put tasteful, quiet ads on the side of the page when you do a search for something that you are considering purchasing. Those are the ones I click.

When I go to a web site that has nothing to do with, say, gambling, and a garish, flashing gambling ad pops up in my face, that's when I wonder why I haven't installed a pop-up blocker... and I rectify the situation immediately.

So those of you who depend on ad revenues to run your sites, I sympathize, but don't blame the users... Blame the ads seemingly concocted by 5 year olds. There are much better ways of advertising that don't drive your visitors crazy.

Exactly! I own a net book my self, and sometimes, even when I have the pop up blocker turned on, some ads manage to evade that blocker! What business is it of MediaFire's that I'm allowed to refuse the right to see their ads?

Emerson October 13th, 2009 2:09 pm ET

I thank whoever wrote the Firefox pop-up and script blockers, because nothing annoys me more than IN YOUR FACE ADVERTISING!!11@

If advertising was professional and (more importantly) subdued, then I wouldn’t mind as much. Take Google, for example. They put tasteful, quiet ads on the side of the page when you do a search for something that you are considering purchasing. Those are the ones I click.

When I go to a web site that has nothing to do with, say, gambling, and a garish, flashing gambling ad pops up in my face, that’s when I wonder why I haven’t installed a pop-up blocker… and I rectify the situation immediately.

So those of you who depend on ad revenues to run your sites, I sympathize, but don’t blame the users… Blame the ads seemingly concocted by 5 year olds. There are much better ways of advertising that don’t drive your visitors crazy.

WELL SAID!!!

Ads are so flashy and most of the websites host some "call girl" ads or "meet singles in your area". I mean how can kids view these ads. If someonw thinks we are stealing. Then do this: "CREATE CENSORSHIP for the internet ads." I will stop using ADblock.

I use Adblock, and for the most part, I don't block very many ads. If ads are kept out of the way and aren't obnoxious, I tend not to notice them. When you start putting stuff on top of the text I'm trying to read, blaring sound files at me, or making fake hyperlinks that pop up ads every time my mouse gets too close, then I start with the blocking. By and large, though, I tend to avoid sites with obnoxious ads like that. If that's what you have to do to make money with your site, your content probably isn't worth looking at in the first place.

Theses website owners haven't a leg to stand on.
If the website owners have a problem with people who use ad blockers then they should block those people from getting access to their website.
Somehow I don't think they will ever do that.

Exactly, not only do the adblock add-ons block unwanted adds, they protect you from viruses and malware. It's my computer and my browser, I can choose to not see these adds if I want to.

I use ad blockers because I have a right to control what I see on my computer screen.

That being said, I do visit some sites that have great information and that depend on ad revenue. As a result, I often use I.E. (which I only use for this purpose) to browse to their sites a few times a week and click on as many ads as I can so that the website owner gets revenue and can continue to fund the websites I enjoy.

As for it being akin to stealing, that is just ridiculous. Does Michael Lankton own a TiVo (or any other form of DVR)? If so, does he watch the commercials or does he FF thru them?

Well... If I pay for....
The Internet Connection I'm Using
The Computer I'm Viewing It With
The House It Resides In

Then what I allow to be seen on that device...
IS STRICTLY MY DECISION!

Its nice that you feel your ads should be forced on the public, as a consequence of surfing your site... Fortunately We Still Live In America.
And are free to BLOCK all the Ads we want ! .... For Now.

I love all these people talking about how much it costs to host a site. Mike says This year’s hosting fee was $2,570.40. A more reasonable fee is 179.40, unlimited file storoage and unlimited bandwidth now add SSL for $29.95 and that brings the total cost up to $204.35. Now add 500 email boxes with 1gig of storage included and the cost is still running $204.35. This is an actual cost breakdown at one of the major web hosting companies on the net that also serves as a domain registrar.

So take your annoying ads and pop them where the sun don't shine. I will block whatever I want on MY COMPUTER AND ON MY BANDWIDTH THAT I PAY $47.95 a month for based on the $17.03 it costs to host a professional web site.

I LOVE AD BLOCK PLUS!!!

It's like Tivo for web browsers – Without it, the average web page looks like an episode of Cartoon Network with all the junk that bounces around the screen. If I can have ABP, then you can keep you stinking web site to your self! Viva Ad Block Plus!!1

It's your right to think I don't own my computer. But 9/10ths of ownership is possession. Guess that means you can pound sand if you think your pop up ads are wanted, needed or tolerated.

If you don't like it, don't publish a website with pop up ads. That way we won't have to block such pathetically retarded and annoying nuisances! If however you DO use pop up ads and we block them, don't cry like a moron. It's a proven fact, pop ups are annoying and retarded!

People steal things on the Internet???

Shocking.

I was going to close the pop up anyway this just automates the closing for me. wow the world really is full of idiots

yes I'm talking to you Michael Lankton of Connected Internet

Is the solution really to block Firefox users? Really? When you look at the number of users who actually have that extension installed compared to the untold millions who undoubtedly don't.......... blocking the entire population of Firefox users makes zero sense.

When it comes down to it the clever web site owners will find a way to make money, regardless of what ad-blocking technology is implemented.

 
Put a header and delimiter to identify advertising
If you do not actively accept; then cannot proceed to content
Payment in advance - but if you do not like the content; then
Giveback and Payback for time and CPU cycles wasted.

Vandalizing the internet with spyware, spam and popups is the crime !

I started blocking ads because they blinked and moved and made it impossible to read. An ad that is non-moving and non-blinking would be OK with me. Maybe we need a compromise with advertisers?

Yeah it is kind of stealing. I turn off my ad blocker on websites where its one guy running the website. I probably should do that more often. People go on about how its their computer and how hosting costs $1000 or so they can make it back. Yeah and what about the time? People are putting in $100k of effort on some websites and they have multiple employees but I guess its cool to not pay other people the 30 cents. I think if you go to a website enough and you have adblocker plus you should donate. I only don't follow this on big commercial websites which I guess is wrong, but I also know those websites have the resources to advertise to me anyways I guess.

Is this a joke? Stealing to block ads? I tell you this, I will continue to block annoying....flashy...noisy ad. If this is stealing, then pop-ups are trespassing.

I fail to see how it's practically stealing. Using that line of logic, if you were to rip all the advertisements out of a magazine, that would be considered stealing too. Reading further into this, if webmasters are complaining about pop-up ads being blocked, then this argument is even more asinine. Web developers have to implement some sneaky javascript to get around the 'built in' pop-up blockers that are built into modern browsers anyway. If webmasters are complaining about this now, they're about 10 years behind.

Regardless, a webmaster should not dictate how an end-user chooses to view their site. I'm sure the vast majority of their users are not employing any type of script blocker anyway. Only more web savvy users would be blocking scripts, and they tend to be in the minority of users.

Does blocking a certain image or add really prevent a website from obtaining the small paycheck from the ad company for trying to show an image?

NEvermind any specific browser setting, I use OpenDNS on my network and have systematically blocked many common ad-services from appearing on websites. Sites like CNN, Yahoo Mail, and Hotmail now do not have ads shown... just an empty space where it would have been.

Stealing? No. That would be like saying DVR owners are stealing from television shows by skipping past commercials.

The idea of having a site owner decide what I can block on MY computer is just absurd. If one wants to make money on the internet (and anywhere else for that purpose) he will have to provide value to the consumer in the first place. And, value is NOT what the site owner believes it is, but what the site visitor perceives.

ATTENTION ALL WEBSITE OWNERS:

No one is using any ad-blocking software. No one. It's a fact. The people in these comments to say they are, they're lying! There is no such thing as ad-blocking software. It's an absurd concept. In fact, most of us want you to put as many ads on your site as it takes for you to pay the bills.

its not the ads we are blocking themselves, its the slowdown they cause.
Go to a site like tmz and many others and in the backround they have 30 to 40 ads running that arent visible which slow down the browser all together. When they stop abusing us with tons of ads then people will stop using ad blockers,

I want 1$ each time I have to click on my screen to close the window when your add comes up on your website .. Mr. Michael Lankton

I use ad block plus in Firefox. I have no objection to web adverts other than usually disrupt my viewing experience. Slow load times or obscuring what it is I'm trying to view. If they want us to accept their advert, then be reasonable and accommodating. I support Firefox's decision to stand against their threat. What's next, being forced to let my kids be subjected to Porno ads?

Mike

I absolutely will use ad blocking software or add-ons. It is my choice what is displayed on my screen. If the revenue is only paid by clicking the link, then how is blocking a link that I'm not going to click stealing?

I control my browser and what content gets posted to it, either directly by not going to a site, or indirectly by adding filters. If a website owner doesn't like that...too bad.

The people who have ad blockers are intelligent enough not to click on ads/pop-ups in the first place.

..When I'm driving, what if i put my sun visor down to block the sun and I can no longer see billboards, will you sue me then?

Plenty of well stated comments. I'm glad many people feel the same way as I do about having the right to block pop-up, flash ads ect...

What's next tell people that they are not allowed to change channels during a commerical or worse prohibit people from getting up to go to the bathroom during a commerical?

I personally run a website where all of my revenue is made by advertising. But I refuse to allow ads that use pop-ups or the annoying flash ads because I know, as a visitor, I dont' want to see that.

I may a lot less money than many other sites, but I feel that a few (usually 1 or 2) sidebar ads are enough. If someone wants to help support my site then they can click on the link, if not then I'm not going to disrupt their viewing.

"Stealing?" What nonsense. I use AdBlock and frankly NONE of these sites lose any revenue because I NEVER EVER click on ad. Never have, never will, and that's mainly for security reasons I also have a web site of my own, and I actually pay for it instead of using a free host because I didn't want those stupid ads tacked on to MY site by my web host.

I quite happily block ads that flash, screech, obstruct my screen or kidnap my mouse.

I also block ads that are out-of-context. Porn ads on a family site, etc.

Appropriate ads, that dont force themselves on the users, I do not block. Heck, i even read them, and (rarely) click on them!

If you say that adblockers on websites are stealing, then you must also say that using a spamfilter on your email is illegal.
Ludicrous!

The sad thing these web developers don't know, you can block ads the same way without Adblocker and noscript, its pretty simple to do.

No different than fast fowarding (skipping) thru commercials on my DVR.

To all of you with the "I wouldn't click it, so you wouldn't get money anyway" mentality, go research how ad revenue models on the internet work. The site owner also gets revenue for page impressions, which are blocked from being reported if you're using an ad blocking service.

What a whiney, entitlement-seeking culture we have here. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's free.

So, if we can't monitize other than using ads, we shouldn't be in business? Ok, lets pack up the internet and shut it down.

Because people a) hate ads, b) hate subscriptions/paid content and c) hate buying innane products that are there JUST to turn a profit.

I'll take ads over any of the others. Any day.

I can understand the problems that face web hosting companies. Ad related revenue is huge. I can see in one manner how they could actually win the ad fight. If they do things like Google, Bing, and Facebook... that is ads on the side of the screen, or the very bottom, then it isn't intrusive and after all, the user is requesting to veiw data on the companies website. As long as any scripting for the website related to ads is server-side... I think I am going to market some server side ad scripts.... interesting....

I can see both sides of this, from the host's side and the user's side.

If it's the user's right not to view the ads, I think it's fair to say that it's within the host's rights to determine if a user is using a blocking package, and then refuse to serve their content to that user. Just as a business can refuse service to a customer, so too can a web site.

That is, if they can determine a way to identify that a user is using said blockers.

I think it is like the telephone. When websites pay for my access, then I will start watching their ads. With the telephone when telemarketers start paying for my phone, then I will happily take their calls.

Until this happens, I don't want to see the ads. But, if I don't click on the ads or pay any attention to them, what is really the difference? None.

I visited one of my favorite sites recently and received a polite message that it "appears you are using an ad-blocker". The message went on to explain that the site depended on advertising revenue and provided instructions if I wished to consider unblocking the site in AdBlock. I felt this was tactfully done and I did end up unblocking the site. As long as the ads are not offensive I am fine with them, and am willing to view them to support a trustworthy site that provides me with valuable content.

Are users able to sue the site owners when their machinery is corrupted by malware & virus activity? This whole thing is nothing more than autocratic greed.

 
Login access - good fences make good neighbors
Ads and spam need to be tagged, easily identifiable
Dog without a collar is a stray - off to the dog pound

Unsolicited, untagged advertising is littering
A form of denial of service attack
The theft, the crime, is with the unsolicited advertiser

Save the planet by cleaning up the pollution on the internet

I only use Adblock because the ads from a site I frequent were causing major page-load issues. Adblock fixed that. If the ads weren't making the browsing experience so horrible, maybe people wouldn't block them.

IT'S MY COMPUTER. PERIOD. EVERY CPU CYCLE COST ME MONEY.
If you are lucky enough to have me visit your website remember this...
While it's on MY COMPUTER "IT" BELONGS TO ME. UNDER MY CONTROL. IF you, the Website owner, don't like that then DO NOT put your stuff on MY machine. Remember this, I don't normally block ads from websites worth their salt. Good websites will put up ads that I might have some interest in. Also Remember you are using MY MACHINE to display your wares.

He gets no sympathy from me. Advertisements are the bane of our capitalistic society. To paraphrase the NRA, you'll get rid of my ad blocker when you pry it from my cold, dead hard drive.

my computer, like my telephone, is for my use.

not the use of advertisers or telemarketeers.

AWWWWW... yes, let's have a pity party for corrupt politicians; lobbyists; serial killers; lawyers; and people who depend on ad revenue. Bye. Go Away. Have a Nice Tumor. WHATever.

glad this was brought to the worlds attention. i just finished installing some nice new software to get rid of nasty ads. screw the advertising industry and this Michael Lankton character seems to have been dropped on his head WAY too many times as a baby. Maybe had his mother been more careful we wouldn't have to pay even more taxes so the government can take care of his retarded mind.

Someone who is blind and uses a screenreader will not see those ads– are they "stealing" if they read a blog's content?
Are you stealing if you flip channels during a commercial?
If I choose to surf with Javascript turned off, am I stealing?
If I use my (ancient) cell-phone's minimal text-only web-browser to read a blog, am I stealing? I won't be seeing the ad images!
A kindle has no-image web access. Is that stealing?

So... the scenarios above AREN'T stealing, because that would be ridiculous. But a plugin that creates the same situation is?
That's not how law works. It's either theft or it's not!

IT MY COMPUTER. TO HELL, lemme repeat, HELL with those who tell me 'they own it'.

I don't care who it is.If you don't want me accessing the net HOW I LIKE TO, THEN GET OFF THE WEB or CHARGE FOR ACCESS.

I don't care who 'owns' the domain. The ONLY EXCEPTION to this is GOVERNMENT servers.

effing panzies! You offer a free bypass and then complain?? take it out, you lame a– es.

The last thing the people want to hear is domain holders complaining about internet users surfing the net. EITHER GET off the net or get with the program.

HELL NO, it ain't stealing.Unless you want to start charging for server access, its the doamin owner's problem if they don't want you skipping ads. STOP blaming users for your STUPIDITY.

Harper, anyone that is not selling something on their website and is paying $2,570.40 a year for hosting. Needs to find a different host for his website, he is paying wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to much.

Anybody remember the internet back in the early 90s? You had to pay extra money to go to almost site that was half way interesting, because there were few ads back then. SOMEBODY has to help pay for maintaining a website, your $20-60 pays for maintaining the structure of the internet itself, not the content. True some ads are annoying, but think about how much information you have access to with the internet, all for one relatively low flat rate. It would be just like cable, imagine if every channel cost something extra, not just HBO.

THESE PEOPLE ARE INSANE!!! HOW THE **** IS THAT STEALING...STEALING IS n criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny. DAM IT DO YOU SEE ANYWHER WHERE IT SAYS BLOCKING ADS IS STEALING

That is BS people are now complaining because some of us choose to keep our computer and private info safe by blocking ads?? Come on.... but also what about these ads that can give your harmful spyware programs on your computer you don't have to click em they pop up and thats all it takes. Nobody cares to see these adds anyways maybe if the add company's would put something more appealing on the internet people would actually click them and buy or use there product. Along with a 100% guarantee that there isn't any harmful programs on the website you would be going too.

Advertisements are getting pretty fancy these days, many of which actual run video within the ad itself.

I go to a site for the content on said site that is relevant to my interests. Advertisements aren't one of these interests.

When advertisements result in slowing the loading of pages, and sometimes even lockups if the advertisement is particularly complex, I do not see how any greed-motivated individual can honestly expect consumers to voluntarily sacrifice their time for the profit of none but the advertiser and the site upon which it is displayed.

Here's to you, AdBlock and NoScript.

I've used Firefox's FlashBlock for several months. Yeah, it blocks ads, but it also speeds up the load time of sites I visit frequently.

I'm a security freak and typically rarely, if ever click on a web banner or ad.

If that's stealing...too bad. "My PC, My Choice!"

Been using it on CNN.com for over a year. I probably wouldn't come to CNN.com as much as I do. Blinking ads, popups, etc. that's not a hospitable reading environment. AdBlocker allows me to dig through the BS and get to the actual content on a page. It's saved me tons of time.

Way to go CNN for advertising this Firefox feature, now you're sure to get more people using it on your site.

-Nathan

Its funny to watch how this story goes from blogger to blogger being more and more sensationalized each time, from going about the real issue being skipscreen covers website's ads with its own ads, to becoming Mediafire wanting to control an entire users experience with legal means. I think the real threat is bloggers saying anything to get more people to their sites. I wonder how they would all be if a plugin covered their ads with its own...

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/browsers/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=220400033&subSection=Browsers

That's why I install questionable software on a virtual PC. It doesn't have an impact on the host OS I rely on. You can delete the virtual hard drive and recopy the orginal in a snap. You should do the same with anything claiming to get you something for free or a deal.

Internet users need to learn that very little is truly free or a great deal. A novice user that thinks they're getting over, is ignorant of the risks, and deserves anything that happens. They don't read fine print, they click things without reading, and make many assumptions that lead to trouble. Stupidity is the #1 reason for shady businesses and marketting on the Internet.

The Internet is a jungle that promotes survival of the fittest and smartest. I like it that way.

If you want to be safe, have full control of your content, and get anything your heart desires, then you need to get educated hands on. Don't rely on college to give it you either. Many of them are just diploma mills selling anything that looks like education. Even the tradional colleges have jumped on that band wagon. Get with an experienced user with a hacker past. Learn.

I would argue that blocking advertisements may increase web traffic. There was a time when some sites gave me maybe one sentence of content and 99% of the page as ads. I left the site until I later heard of adblocker, which allowed me to appreciate the site once more.

What is next, I will not be allowed to turn off my radio or TV?

I would prefer to block content back on the other side of my internet connection. Why should I pay for bandwidth that I don't want including Ads I dont want to look at. I don't pay for magazines or the newspaper because they no longer have enough content to justify sifting through the large amount of crap of advertising companies.

I still don't understand what this has to do with ad-blocking. The informationweek.com article quoted above states that the whole problem was one company covering the ads of another company while allowing use of their services.

A MediaFire spokesperson counters that the company has no issue with scripts like Greasemonkey which allow automation. SkipScreen, the spokesperson said in an e-mail, "puts its own page on top of our page and then shows its own ads to the user effectively preventing the user from using our file sharing system or browsing more files. The only reason Skipscreen shows this page on top of ours is so they can display their own ads (Google ads)."

Basically what the EFF is fighting for is to say, hey, as long as you open source your program, you can make money any way you like, even if it means covering one person's ads with your own.

At the risk of sounding trite, I agree with much of the sentiment voiced above: blocking pop-up ads is my prerogative. In addition, I wouldn't feel the need to block ads if websites (such as Facebook, Yahoo, etc) would listen when I attempt to customize my viewing preferences. I'm a happily married man, and couldn't care less about ads that advertise that "singles in your area are looking for you!". Yet try as I might, I cannot stop this constant barrage of dating website info – so an ad-blocker is my next recourse.

It isn't stealing to block REVENUE. That's like saying, if you don't walk into a store and buy something, (I'm not saying walk into a store and STEAL SOMETHING), I'm saying not walk in at all, is stealing.

It is my computer, I will choose what I want on it, and I do not want to see half naked women on my computer, because let's face it, that's what most of the ads are these days.

I am a married woman, I don't need to meet single women!

The ads are annoying and the fact that I cannot move them to the bottem of the page is sickening. I am paying so I should be allowed to dictate what I have to see when I am online, on my computer, paid with my money.

I agree with the posts I've read so far. If we don't click on the advertisements or buy their products, is that stealing, too?

If the ads were merely advertising (and not deviously installing bad stuff on our computers) that would be one thing. But since so many of the advertisements are way out of line, anyway, and frankly, ought to be illegal since they are breaking-and-entering into personal property (our computers), then we at least have every right to block them.

There are companies that post legit ads, that are not pop-ups, on their web pages. Those are fine – and the pop-up blockers don't block those, anyway.

I wonder what else Mr. Lankton thinks the world owes him?

I see little difference between pop up ads and telemarketers. They both invade your home and are a general pain in the a**. Due to the backlash against telemarketers, we now have the Federal Do Not Call List.

Maybe its time for a Federal Do Not Pop Up List.

While we are at it, how about a Federal Do Not Junk Mail List? (It will never happen, the Post Office delivers 5000 tons of junk mail a day, its their bread and butter)

Yeah, I was really surprised when I found out there are apparently ads on Facebook...

If I want to block ads, there's nothing the webmasters of the world can do about it. Go ahead, block Firefox. Privoxy allows you to block ads in any browser, and, again, there's nothing you can do about it. If your content really is that valuable, put a donation button on your site, and shut up. Or, yeah, charge a fee. If the $2,500/year site mentioned above with 25,000 registered users charged a fee to cover hosting costs, it would be $0.10/year. Even 10x that would be pretty nominal.

If Wikipedia can be ad-free, with its mind boggling hosting requirements, anything can be ad-free.

On the other hand, Google's text based ads that are actually relevant to content are right on the money. This is what ads should be, and would make adblocker obsolete.

I see their point. The people that put up the ads on the website probably paid good money to have it advertised.

How stupid is this guy? He's got some ego problems to begin with to think he has the right to intrude on people who have no desire to read the crap cluttering web pages just so he can make money...
The best thing about AdBlock is how quick the pages load, how nice and clean-looking and relaxing it is to read what I intend to read.
I even block photos of obnoxious criminals if I'm reading an article and I don't want to look at their miserable faces.
The day this fool wants to consider sharing the cost of ISP and PC purchase then he can talk about forcing people to read (or, worse, hear!) unsolicited advertisement.
Does he also think its fair for millions of people to receive those "free" newspapers wrapped in plastic dumped on driveways?
Between tv ads, junk mail and junk newspapers I can at least easily remove adverts from my personal computer. I also do what I can to stop junk mail and stop the newspapers but they don't make it easy....

Bad drives out th good
Most advertising is misleading or annoying
Hence the need to block

Ad blockers prevent the internet version of "the Tragedy of the commons" –( overgrazing, until a resource is destroyed)

I flip channels when commercials come on. I block craptastic ads on the web. I don't want to see the ads, Im NOT GOING TO CLICK ON THEM ANYWAY!
I was not born on this earth to serve as a continual target for marketing.

I block Flash unless I click on it, and on occasion I black Java/Javascript, but I do not block ads. I do indeed think blocking them is morally wrong. I wouldn't call it stealing, but it's dirty.

Flash or heavy Java on the other hand hijack system resources and can be very intrusive. Flash definitely will not run without my permission.

To echo everyone else....it's my browser! If i choose to block or skip ads it's my choice. I respect their right to have the ads on their site. They on the other hand need to respect my right NOT to see them if I choose and to automate the process if i so choose. I also use Adblock and am very glad the it and programs like it are around to automate and block potentially hazardous ads which unfortunately can contain some form of malware. If MediaFire is going to send out a legaleze letter claiming damages to their site, they need to have done their homework and not just blow smoke in the hopes that they can bully someone to do what they want. The bottom line is that I bought and paid for my computer and it's up to me what is displayed on my screen!

Lankton, YOU go pound sand! I agree with everyone else on here, I don't want stupid annoying ads popping up and ruining my internet experience!! Its MY computer, not yours. I will determine what runs on it and what doesn't, NOT YOU!!

Urgh... It all boils down to 'its not stealing'. Its not, not at all. The second you put something on the internet people will see it. If you want to protect the content put a login on it and charge a subscription. I understand that people want to make money off of their sites, not my problem. If its that big of a deal come up with a better way to monetize.

The hard reality of things is many times per day the sites are being hit by webcrawlers, spiders, bots, etc which dont give a rats ass about what ads you serve on your site. Mobile browsers and text based browsers. People who have js or java disabled... The list can go on.

Either way, though, its a moot point. The internet can be considered a kind of public square to display things. You put up your site and hope people come and look. Since its completely open and public, then you lose control over how people view it.

I'm sure you could come up with ways of blocking people who aren't viewing the ads. I can think of a couple of strategies for this just off the top of my head. Doing so will have consequences which are yours to deal with though.

Pretty much if your site cant generate enough traffic without the people using ad blocks its not very profitable in the first place. Suggesting that the onus is on the visitors to make sure that you get your piece of the pie is not only naive, but almost insulting to those of us who understand how these things work.

Instead stop being lazy, either:
a) fix your site so its worth visiting, and maybe even worth paying for.
b) hire someone to do point a for you.
c) get a real job then you wont need 2 cents per click.
d) spend some time and energy coming up with a novel way to monetize
e) open a lemonade stand
d) go to college (in the long term this works)
f) STOP BLAMING OTHERS FOR YOUR PROBLEMS – if your product is not profitable it is not he consumer's fault.

Absolutely I would and do. I almost exclusively use Firefox and have all the flashblocks and adblocks enabled. It improves browsing speed and let's me concentrate on what I want to see. I also use a netbook and CPU speed and screen size are a premium. Loading and displaying Flash and other animated banners slows the machine down.

well, everybody else has my e-mail address, why not CNN.com?

i'll use adblock til the day i die.... you people complaining about it can stuff it.

stealing money. WOW. you guys have a server sitting there, just collecting money all day from ad revenue. if you can't handle it, take your server down.

take some advice from the rest of the commentators and i. without us, you are nothing.

gmax October 13th, 2009 1:10 pm ET

Would this include popup blockers too?

And aren't popup blockers BUILT IN to browsers now? Seems to me that we are not the only ones who find this annoying.

My community is considering free wireless internet for the residents. If we partook in the free internet, then we should have to endure the ads. It's a way for us to pay for the service, by them making money on a pay-per-click basis. However, since I am paying in excess of $60 per month for my little bit of broadband access to the http://WWW... I build my own computers... I should be able to browse how I choose, and interact with websites how I deem appropriate, so long as I am not breaking any laws or infringing upon the Constitutional Rights of others in the process.

The Ads on the websites can be compared to fishing bait. You throw it out there and hope that you get a nibble, or better yet, hook someone. If you do, Hooray. If not, too bad, cast somewhere else. We fish can swim how we want to.

One other point that I have not seen broached yet is the simple fact that I pay my ISP for my internet connection every month. Since it is my pipe that I pay for, it's my say as to what comes over it. If website owners bulk up a 1M page with 5M of flash adware, can you not also make the case that they are stealing my bandwidth? If I have an ISP that caps my usage for the month, this becomes even more of an issue.

Just like my house, I have the final say as to who comes through my door and who doesn't.

These blog comments demonstrate how little people understand about how advertising funds their entertainment sources.

You will never eliminate advertising from any arena classically defined as entertainment/event.

That means sports games, theater, films, television, etc.

In the 1500's you were a painter and you needed a rich Patron to pay your way.

Nowadays you're a programmer with not a lot of money left after design, upkeep and server fees. And advertisers are happy to step in, as they have with radio, television, film and sports.

Pay attention to history people.

Tell you what Mr. Lankton, why dont you give me your MAC Address and let me Flood Ping your computer with Pop-Up Ads and let's see how you get any of your business done!

I have my Firewall, and my Webroot Spy Sweeper set so that crap is blocked. When I enter those websites that do that crap, I just cut and paste the pop-up sites into my "Blocked" folder and let Spy Sweeper do the rest. I don't want to look at your ads.

Like other folks we may enter websites for specific reasons such as purchases, or other such business. The "Follow This Link" junk gets cancelled and blocked on my systems.

As for stealing? Actually you are stealing from the folks whom are not interested in your other junk. What are you stealing? Our time. So since my company's billing rate is $150.00 per hour with a 4 hour minimum, I will calculate the minutes I spend blocking your crap, and send your company a bill, and a collections warrant.

I think that sounds pretty fair don't you?

Get real Bud!

You are the one who is stealing, not the folks blocking your crap!

I pay for my computer. I pay for my broadband connection. I pay for the electricity to run it. I will chose what content is loaded into my computer. I use pop-up blockers. (Firefox & ABP are great). These idiots who claim it is their right to spam my computer are WRONG! I will continue to use every available tool to block them and fight for the right to block them.

i am just fine Not looking at the AD or NOT Clicking the AD but when the AD intrudes or slows down the page Via High Graphics Video, or opens up to cover the ENTIRE page, or has AUTOMATIC AUDIO!

ADS NEED LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS!

1. No automatic Audio Play
2. Toned down Graphics
3. No or SMALLER Flash Video
4. The Ad must be in Small Box, Banner or side top/bottom Length Banners!
5. The AD must NOT come out of the area designated, meaning it cannot EXPAND upon opening the site to COVER the page for you to hit the X to close it!

ADS NEED SERIOUS RESTRICTIONS! They Slow down Websites, Crash peoples Web Browsers and Guess what! When the AD pisses me off or Intrudes on my web experience, i am even MORE Inclined to make sure i NEVER buy or visit that site! The More ADS of the same product i see, i am More likely to Never want it!

I really mean it when I say I'm simply not interested in any ads on any webpage. Therefore me blocking them doesn't change anything now, does it? While we're at it, I'd love to watch Spike HD in the morning without being forced to watch 3 hours of Extendze commercials.

Ads are far more annoying now than before. While we pay for computers, internet connections, and software to use on our computers; Ad-buyers spent money to draw attention to their products. So one has to appreciate their concerns- they aren't getting their money's worth for an ad placed. The sites to which we navigate for free are supported by ads.
Perhaps a market-solution is simplest: the sites with the most annoying ads will get their sites blocked: and maybe those sites and their ad-buys will stop those obnoxious flash-ads that change in size (moving all the other text down), and other really annoying ads. That would require FF to report to the site that their ad has been blocked.

Then again, they might not figure it out: after-all- they keep making pop-up ads and ways to get around most pop-up blockers. (I use Safari, and if an ad beats the blocker- I submit a bug report for that site to Apple; a rare event for me) But maybe this new blocker on FF will clue them in that the audience is ticked off at their ads.

I went to http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/ on my Mozilla Firefox browser with adblock enabled. I then refreshed the site about 20 times or maybe more. That a-hole doesn't own my computer!

I then went to the sites the writer actually runs on his own:

http://aventhusiast.com/

http://pseudoexpert.com/

I then blocked all the ads adblock didn't block on it's own and then refreshed my browser about 50 times each.

No, it is not stealing. If anything the ads steal from us. Bandwidth, system resources, etc etc. It's also a form of harassment, when you have to click click and click, or have a rapid cycle of flashing colors(seizure risk). I agree with others. I pay a large amount of money for my computer, the internet service, and if I dont want to see certain content then I dont want to see it, and shouldnt have to. Some ads are extremely harmful, automatically uploading to some machines malicious code. If website owners want to force us to view such content, then make the internet access fast, and free. Or pay me to view each one, per minute, or compensate for the harassment, and risk to the security of my system. they can have their ads on the site, but keep them on a ads labeled(correctly labeled, no trickery) portion of the website, that one could go to if one wished to, while leaving the mainstream site free of such annoyances.

Nope, and boohoo to those who think so. If you don't want to see ads you have the right to block them, and the beatiful thing about the internet is that unlike tv you don't have to pay a monthly fee to be able to skip them or fast forward through them. Long live ad block!
Wish CNN would have followed suit with BBC's choice of fewer ads!

These comments are all missing the point. Many Web sites DO, in fact, generate a massive amount of their of their revenue through online advertising - among them, Google. When you agree to visit a Web page, you agree to put up with the ads that fund it - just like when you visit a movie theater, you need to put up with previews, and just like when you watch TV, you need to put up with commercials. Instead of accusing people of needing to 'get a job' or being 'crazy,' you should consider that these people DO have jobs - bringing you the content that you seem to love so much.

Things like TiVo are different because the live ads themselves are not blocked; you are instead recording the broadcast - live ads INCLUDED - and then watching it at a later time and skipping through them. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one that courts have recognized.

I'm stealing from YOU??? No, YOU are stealing from me. You are stealing my bandwidth to pull up these crappy ads, that I DON'T WANT TO SEE!!

Now it's time for you to pay for your lousy web design. Get rid of the pop up ads, side bar ads, pop under ads. You don't deserve anything from us visiting your site, other than the specific reason someone visits it – and it is not for the ads!

I use ad blockers to not only get rid of malware but to save time. On several popular sites clicking a link can waste two to three minutes waiting for various ads to load – and I'm on DSL. On a dialup the delays are intolerable. A TV station that broadcast commercials twenty percent of the time would have few viewers. (One station takes three hours to show a 90 minute movie!) Webmasters should show some discretion and not grab every ad they can.

Is it also stealing to get up and use the bathroom during a TV commercial break? This is the most stupid thing that I've read all day.

Regardless, you can't get over the simple fact that the people who run the blockers are not going to click the ad's anyways. End of story.

Would these same people say that I'm stealing TV by using my DVR to record what I want to watch and then fast-forwarding past the ads. I don't think so.

I have to wonder about Mr. Lankton's lack of creativity and greediness. Somehow, I manage to run 4 successful, fairly high bandwidth websites for about $240 a year, without a single ad.

I personally hate ads. I have ever since the late '90s when animated annoyances became the norm. I refuse on a fundamental level to subject any of my users/viewers to them.

If I can't figure out how to sell my content without annoying my audience, then that's *my* problem – not theirs.

No, I don't agree to view the ads when I visit a site. There is no disclaimer that says I must agree, no pop-up that requires me to click yes. Where is this implicit agreement stated anywhere? What a crock.

Is it stealing to fast-forward past commercials in the shows you've recorded?

"No, I don't agree to view the ads when I visit a site. There is no disclaimer that says I must agree, no pop-up that requires me to click yes. Where is this implicit agreement stated anywhere?"

Well, technically this may not be true. The site may have a Terms of Service page which specifies this. You may not have read the terms, but they still apply.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the notion that advertising has gotten out of hand, whether it be on the web, on TV, or a million other places.

Here's an idea- eyeglasses with advertisements etched into the inner side of the lenses! (About as useful...)

What law states that web ads have to be annoyingly intrusive and potentially dangerous to our computers? Whatever happened to simple visual ads that just delivered a message and didn't play unwanted videos, annoying animation or sounds, pop-ups, etc...

This is about greed and a desire to control how consumers experience media (RIAA, anyone?). It's about fighting progress and sticking to a dying business model rather than rolling with innovation.

Actually, sad to say, there have been proposals in the Congress to legally block a DVR/PVR from skipping commercials, fro the exact same reason: The advertisers felt that the people who skip commercials were "stealing" a free TV show. No kidding. It's also one of the reasons why you now pay a fee for a DVR from Dish, DirecTV, or your local cable provider.

Pressure from the industry is why we don't have DVR/PVR's that automatically skip ads, a technology that was proven to exist. It uses the same digital ad signaling that the equipment at the TV provider uses. This signal is how you get local ads during a National show. At a certain signal, the cable/satellite provider or local TV station's computer starts the local ad or ads, for x number of seconds.

For the record, there is a difference between "pay per click" ads where the advertiser only pays the site owner when the ad is clicked, and "pay per view" ads where the site owner is paid based on unique page hits, or 'views" of the particular ad.

I would like to cordially thank MediaFire for their complaint and request for SkipFree to be removed. Why? Well simply, now that they made such a ruckus, I have been able to LEARN about such a great app! Thank you MediaFire! I have now downloaded and installed this app into my Firefox browser thanks to your wonderful advertising!

Would all you financial wizards decrying the "archaic", "dying", "intrusive", etc..., etc..., advertising based revenue stream for presenting media please release your new and improved model already. The industry has only been looking for alternatives for about a hundred years now.

Seriously folks, what part of "it costs money to run a website" don't you understand?

As mentioned, without advertisements, you need subscriptions or some other pay per view model so that the website owner can continue to own and operate the website. Now, unless you come up with a way to turn good intentions into cold hard cash, kindly check yourself before you criticize and deride.

Perhaps the real solution is to create adblockers that prevent you from seeing it, but don't clue the advertiser in that his/her ad was blocked. Without hard numbers, blocked ads go from a hard line on a budget, to a general "cost of doing business".

When I visit a site I don't mind the occasional advertisement banner shown, this is how lots of sites generate revenue. However, when the add is a full blown streaming movie clip or flash animation that downloads data, I consider that stealing. I pay a price per megabyte download, so that advertisement clip costs me money.

So you see Michael Lankton, the coin flips both ways, you feel duped, but so do I.

Many of these websites (Yes CNN too) are using mouse over popups complete with super loud audio.
You can bet your monitization I will seek a way to block that noise.
I look at and even get interested in some of the ad's down the sidebar but stop putting popups in the middle of the text of an article or mislabled links in the body of text.
As a Network admin I capture those links and block them for my whole network.
A little common sense and these folks wouldn't be blocking your ads

I have never blocked ads. However, I will be doing so VERY SOON. I am extremely annoyed at one of the latest adds. It is an add from Orkin. I log into a website that I frequent, and all of a sudden I see HUGE roaches crawling on the right side of my screen. After a second or two or sheer terror, I realize that they are not real roaches, but just an add for Orkin. After that mess, I will be blocking adds.

Pop-ups should be illegal. They are actually mini viruses that bend the current laws. In response to Shawns comment about limiting his adds...I say kudos!!! I would actually pay him to keep me add free at his site.

Any half minded webmaster knows that all you have to do is detect the kind of browser and then restrict access to all firefox users. Simple fix. If the visitor wants to see the website bad enough then they will have to use their built in IE browser if so equipped. Otherwise too bad! Ads are what drives the internet. It isn't a free handout. Deal with it!

Can you say denial of service attack.

I'm a gamer, a heavy web user. I don't object to ads and supporting these sites. What I do object to is the security or lack of, not to mention content. A lot of the gaming sites I frequent have been targeted by hackers to load viruses, malware and trojans in an attempt to steal my game account for profit. Some ads are also very obtrusive. FULLSCREEN IN YOUR FACE WITH FULL AUDIO IN STEREO! Quite annoying. If there was better control of what ads come in, how its formatted, and if it was secure, people probably wouldn't object so much.

While I agree with a lot of opinions stated here in the comments, I can't help but feel that both sides are right to a certain extent. Users have the ability to choose which websites to access and which websites to stay away from, so you are able to stay away from the sites that have ads that bug the heck out of you. However, as it stands right now, there are WAY too many malware "advertisements" coming from ad vendors which feed the content to that site. The users don't want to see ads, but some websites needs to generate ad revenue. Much like TV commercials, it's become commonplace.

This reminds me a whole lot of when Tivo first appeared on the scene and took off. Advertisers didn't appreciate the fact that they could potentially be paying thousands of dollars for a TV spot during a popular program without people even having to see that commercial. Obviously Tivo still has a fast forward option, so advertisers lost that little spat. However, Tivo started letting advertisers get a bit more creative and advertise within the Tivo menu. It's not annoying and pretty unobtrusive, and not many people seem to mind it. Think of it as the "Anti Popup", because after a while you tend to forget it's even there.

Another argument that can be used is the legal agreement or terms of service you are bound by when visiting the site. Much like regular computer software, you can't just modify it to your liking after you purchase it. Read the fine print while installing it; 99% of agreements state that you may not modify and/or redistribute that software, regardless of whether it is free or purchased (open source projects do not adhere to these rules, as they are meant to be modified and made better by users as they see fit). So technically, you can't open and edit the source code to a certain piece of software if it has a feature you dislike. Sure, you may never be caught doing this if you don't redistribute the software, but it doesn't make it any less a violation of the agreement. If you don't like what a piece of software does, then you are free to uninstall it or suck it up and continue using it. Likewise, if you don't like the content of a certain website (whatever that content may be), then you are free to either a) not go to said website or b) suck it up and deal with it. You can't have it both ways.

So, what do I think should be done? I think there needs to be an independent committee that governs and safe-harbors both websites and consumers, while also getting rid of all pop-up ads and scripts that refuse to let you have a good experience on the internet. This committee should take points from both parties and create a finite outline to what constitutes a safe and enjoyable environment while also allowing websites to generate much needed ad revenue for their bandwidth costs. Most importantly, these websites NEED to be held responsible for the content showing up on their site, just like cable channels are held responsible for what airs on their network. That is really the linchpin to this entire idea and the only way to actually get websites to monitor these ads from a consumers perspective rather than a business perspective, as they are currently doing.

Honestly most web designers are moving away from Ads because most website viewers are trained to skip over ads in their view now anyway. Then theres the other group of users (like myself) that simply use an ad blocker.

If you want to pay for your site make a move away from ad generated revenue. Its bad business to strictly rely on it anyway.

Second, to view anything from someone's website your computer has to download the info to your computer. As many have said, its my computer and I will choose what goes on it. If I don't want to put my computer at potential risk for a virus or malware I'll simply block the ads.

Like most intelligent people that have posted comments here, they know customers don't have to change for a business, the business needs to change for its customers.

A. Not all of us who want high speed internet have access to it in the US. The US is actually way behind most industrialized countries in this respect. At $5000 a mile for a line minimum it's likely I will never have access to more than 500kbps. When you have 20 scripts running on your page, I can't reach your content. Just as it's good business to design your page for people with small monitors, it's also good business to design your page to work for people who have either slow connections or who have to pay for bandwidth.

B. I am not against advertising. I am against needless cross-site scripting, automatic reloads, flash loops, loud noises, sites that disable the "back" button, masked urls, behavior tracking cookies, fake games, popups, facebook apps, automatic downloads, and sites that can only be viewed with scripts turned on (which is why I don't bother browsing Artfire).

C. Use simple jpg images with html links and people can't block your ads. If they don't grab attention without noise and animation, they are designed badly. Period.

if they make adblockers illegal, we'll just change the hosts file. mine is several thousand lines long and blocks more than what the adblock locks out, and yes, it kicks out data miners too.

Crazy crazy crazy! Why is it that website owners think that if you want to control the bandwidth of your connection by blocking annoying ads and pop-ups in order to speed up the page load times that we are stealing? It isnt like I am charging them for my time when I visit their sites.

I run roughly 25 different web sites, most of which have advertising on them. The sites are a mix of commerce and free information sites.

HOWEVER...

I am very particular about the size and placement of those ads. Ads are placed at the bottom of the page or in the limited-size (125px) margin.

I do not, and will not, accept flash trash anything on our sites for advertising. I find it to be annoying as hell and the color schemes look like a 6-year-old dumped their paint box.

If one of my site guests choses not to view the ads, whether by AdBlocking or shift the browser window or what-ever, so be it. It's their machine.

And, I don't rely on ads to be a real revenue generator. We display thousands of ads every month, but few are clicked on. Any income that we may see from advertising I consider gravy.

In the beginning, we had the 88×31and 468×60 sizes. Then, along come the Internet Advertising Bureau and their standards. They have specs on 18 different image sizes! And they all support up to 15 SECONDS of animation.

Get real!

As far as stealing the content because I block ads, that argument makes as much sense has stealing the road because I don't read the billboards along it.

One more thing, I also do consulting on web site design. I tell all of my clients to avoid pop-ups, loud background music and 1960s psychedelic color schemes like a plague. If they want the stuff available on their site, it must be relevant and it must be the site guests choice to see it. Otherwise, they will lose more than they gain.

The best solution to this issue is for complainants to be as vociferous as they can be, letting everybody know who they are, and why they think I should accept their advertising.

Then, I can simply not use their services.

So, other than the two who posted here, who are these businesses that I should boycott?

My computer. My browser. I can block ads if I want.

Is it stealing to block Web ads? No. It's that simple. Desperate entrepreneurs took to make easy money – they dream of that moment where you don't really need to work any more. Online success – meet Mr. Cheesy. Just like Whole Foods saying because you walked in the door, if you keep your eyes closed, your stealing from us – stay away!

Internet success has some people believing they have the right. Damn, my chicken is burning... Provide value and you'll succeed. But don;t take an attitude because I don;t want to look at your ads. What = you don;t have anything else of value on your web site – ah, no wonder.

Yeah so it must be stealing to go to the bathroom while commercials are on TV too.

Is it stealing to flip the pages in a magazine and not look at every ad? The advertisers are subsidizing my reading of the magazine after all.

By this perverse logic I must be stealing too if I'm not clicking on the ads on some web site – because many sites are compensated by click-thrus. not views.

chris, it sounds like you've never built a website before. these ads come from google and they have made it painfully clear that they will take anybody's money with no regard as to the content of said ads. in general, there are far too many ads everywhere not just the internet. if i can get a few moments of no ad time, an hour of nobody trying to push some over-priced, non-functional crap on me then i'll do it. you're third paragraph assumes a eula on websites. mostly, there isn't one. we are under no obligation to view ads or accept content we don't want, especially with a good possibility of malware.

People, People People, you want everything for free. If you think it is cheap and easy to run a free website then do so and shut up about ads. The better a site the more it costs in time and money.

Get a life you say in stead of runnig a web site? There are a lot of sites out there with no ads. I saw a comparison to televsion and saying that you have to watch their ads? Don't you get it you have already been tapped as a fool? We are paying for sattelite TV and calbe and everyting else all full of ads. I would make a suggestion that if you like a site so much offer to pay on your own and have the ads just blocked on your computer and those that do not pay extra get the ads.

Remeber Net Zero that used to be free if you received the ads? That did nto work and now you have to pay even for a service that still calls itself Zero

As far as I'm concerned, this is a pointless showdown. If you don't like the ads a site uses – go elsewhere.
Now popups on virtually every TV network in the US – That's worth discussion and Boycott!!

It is simple, redesign your advertisment model .. Instead of popup ads which everyone hates. Look at other sucessful sites and how they run them with their advertisements which are not intrusive and annoying. yahoo, cnn, google, msn etc ..

Easy to view IF the person chooses to view them, easy for us that ignore ads and do not want to click a button to close your ad. sorry most of us do not need viagra ..

It is no more stealing than going into the kitchen for a sandwich while watching a tv show.

You want to see advertising out of control, look no further than infoplease.com. It's covered in ads. Or look at National Geographic's web site. It has video ads everywhere and a popup from Netflix that appears behind the window, even when you have popup blocking enabled! Michael Lankton and his sort can pound sand!! Thanks to slimeballs like him, I'm inundated by ads by companies like Pheedo. We get bombarded by advertising from the time we wake up till the time we go to sleep in this country. It has to stop somewhere. Our computers are our property and what we block is our business. Pound sand advertisers!

I don't mind ads, it's the heavily animated graphics I detest. They use up huge bandwidth and slow everything down throughout the net. If you cannot sell me something in one image then your not worth following in my opinion and I have been websurfing since '92

So, consider slashdot. A techie linux site. But it covers all sorts of tech. They get hundreds of thousands visitors a day. Recently, they upgraded their servers and in a fit of overkill, they probably have a dozen servers in a technically complicated setup. Quite a bit of money.

So, they have ads. But the audience is pretty judgmental about ads. So their ads have minimal impact. And the ads are relevant to the audience. Now I have excellent karma there, sort of a meaniless word karma, but at times people have liked what I have to say. (There is a moderation system.) So I get the reward of turning off the ads that are there. The option is prominently featured for me. And if I do not have excellent karma, I can pay a little and subscribe and that blocks the ads..

As I say, the audience is judgmental about ads, are vocal, and since the best part of the site is the comments IMO, they have a way to complain. There were some complaints when slashdot first talked about introducing ads, but now there are simply no complaints.

So I think it possible to moniterize a web site througy ads with out making people unhappy.

Stealing to block ads? How about breaking and entering to display anything on, under,over my browser, put anything on my computer of any sort, that I have not explicitly agreed you may do?

Owners of websites have the option of paying Ad Block to un-block their sites.
I believe this is fair for both sides and as a end user it is my computer to allow and disallow anything and everything I want with what ever technology that exists at the time. My rights will not be given away.

For a site to pay then that means their content is of quality and that they believe in it. This puts harmful sites at a disadvantage.

Most AV/Firewall programs have ad-on's that filter website searches and ranks them as to ads, spyware/malware/tracking cookies/viruses/identity theft, are you going after them....no!
Some are good reports others tar and feather a whole range as like what Norton did to my Geocities site because I was in a certain address range.
This was unfair but since Geocities was going down I simply moved my site and deleted my account.

So with that there are ways to make a site work.
Click through has gone the way of Geocities.
People will not click on your/the ads anymore due to bad experiences.
If you want to sell your product do so in a un-obnoxious way that does not intrude upon "me your visitor"!

Is it stealing when you enjoy your TV show but you always take bathroom breaks during commercials?
That idiotic website owner sure thinks so.

I personally use a modified HOST file to redirect a vast majority (17,000 ish) of sites to my loopback address. This has the benefit of removing ads and popups. Granted it reduces the money generating that the site will use but it also prevents rogue ads from infecting my machine. Just about every ad service gets hit with rogue ads now and then and after getting hit twice, I say no to all ads. Those plugins and manual approaches are fine but HOST file redirecting is a time savings and has sped up my surfing by many times what it was.

Absolute individual freedom to see or not see is paramount to a free Web. Search engines have all but eliminated being directed to non-commercial websites. At Google, I can get 1000 of several million links. I never can get further than the 1000 dot coms. Dot com is a hint (or maybe an ad?) to activate -Allow ads- for the site if you choose. Or, not. As an afterthought,maybe the advertiser's should pay me for the screen space they steal from me when I am using a service I paid for.

AdBlock is bull and should be shut down.
If you choose to go to a website, you are obviously looking to gain something.
Information, goods, entertainment ... and to not allow the webmaster to control his environment is a joke at best. You get what you want, and he has to be censored by your b.s. plugin.
People seem to think everything is for free online ... but everyday we're learning that online is in fact the real world.
How would you feel if somebody took the sign off your business or the neon beer sign from behind the pool table at your bar?

If you want to live in an ad free world ... get off line and go live in a cave hill billy.

it's real simple, guys: i decide how many instances of my browser run at a given time and also which servers my computer sends http requests to. i browsed to http://www.gamerheaven.com, not pagead2.googlesyndication.com or adsense or clicksor. i have every right to block http requests to those domains.

so here's a simple solution: you want me to view your ads? then YOU host them on YOUR domain. that way, in order to block your ads, i have to block your site. this means i won't waste your precious bandwidth by consuming your content while blocking your ads since i wouldn't be able to view your page in the first place =).

my my, how simple things can be if you just stop and think for a while.

I think it is time advertisers paid you a cent per downloaded ad when their ad is transfered to your Computer screen or Hard Drive.