Adblocker plus is theft

Dr Who said:
Adblocker does not block any funding of TB on Youtube etc, he gets paid based on thumbs up or down. (which I click on every video I watch to ensure credit payments).

Adblocker blocks only know tiled ads or other ads you choose to block individually. I never ad any sites to adblocker, as I assume that those that havent been blanket blocked are at least appropriate to what I am watching, and not just random carp from an advertising corporation.

Adblocker does not block any ads on OCUK for example.
Click to expand...

Ah I see, I had no idea about the thumb thinging = payment, I thought they were paid based on some kind of page impression from the amount of people that had the advert appear on their screen (whether they clicked the ad or not). I always just use "like" on youtube to increase the chances of the vid appearing in a search. Good to know it actually gives them some money.

EDIT: I just read page 1 and TotalBiscuit confirms in there that if an advert is not shown on the page he doesn't get money, so they must pay by some page impression when the ad loads.
 
Last edited:
Well I have to say I don't see what the fuss is about. For me, the web is about community and sharing of information, with the opportunity for some e-commerce thrown in.

Regarding 'omg you stole my content': Rubbish. If you don't want me to view your content for 'free', then either block AdBlock (several sites do this effectively) and force to choose between reading your stuff with ads, or not visiting (it'll be the latter, trust me) or else go to a pay model like the Times Online. Better yet, throw on a "Buy me a coffee" button, I do tip those as often as not if it's really useful stuff.

Regarding the idea that online commerce would suffer if AdBlock proliferated (as if it isn't already one of the most popular addons?): Again, silly. Do you go into OcUK and get told "Oh, hai - you can shop here but pls first you have to be watching this tampon advertisement or I won't let you buy stuff, please-thank-you-come-again"? Of course not. Word of mouth and new products/services going viral online is highly effective - provided the content is actually worth anything. Me blocking 'GILFS like you wouldn't believe - FREE!!11!*" banners doesn't change that.

I don't recall ever seeing a Facebook, YouTube, Ubuntu, Onion, 4Chan or other advertisement - ever. They still seem pretty damn popular though. If someone wants to charge, as I said that's fine - ask me for money up front and I'll consider if you're worth it, or else I'll go to another source of information that isn't after my monies.

Don't let me click a link on Google so you can whine on Twitter about how I'm robbing your children when I see your content ad-free. I've spent hundreds of pounds tipping everything from "How to get MultiMedia running on Debian 4" pages to various Linux distros, to blogs to... well lots of stuff. That's because they didn't ask, didn't bombard me with ads or moan that I wouldn't look at them, and that they actually had content worth my change.

Frankly if the web's ad-funded services disappeared tomorrow I doubt I'd miss any of them. JMHO.
 
Serious question to the THEFT!!! people:

If I mute the TV, or get up and make a sandwich when the adverts are on my favourite TV program, am I stealing from the TV network?

What if I fast forwarded through them on my PVR?

What if my PVR automatically fast forwarded through them?
 
growse said:
Serious question to the THEFT!!! people:

If I mute the TV, or get up and make a sandwich when the adverts are on my favourite TV program, am I stealing from the TV network?

What if I fast forwarded through them on my PVR?

What if my PVR automatically fast forwarded through them?
Click to expand...

The TV stations get paid based on predicted viewer numbers AFAIK, so during prime time (the time when there are the most viewers), ad time costs more. They have no way of knowing how many people actually watch each advert.

However on the internet they know exactly how many people are viewing an ad, therefore they don't have to rely on predicting numbers and can pay per ad view. Therefore if you don't view the ad on the site, the site owner/content producer will not get paid and you are in effect consuming their content for free.
 
RationalGaze said:
The TV stations get paid based on predicted viewer numbers AFAIK, so during prime time (the time when there are the most viewers), ad time costs more. They have no way of knowing how many people actually watch each advert.

However on the internet they know exactly how many people are viewing an ad, therefore they don't have to rely on predicting numbers and can pay per ad view. Therefore if you don't view the ad on the site, the site owner/content producer will not get paid and you are in effect consuming their content for free.
Click to expand...

So they get less pay, why should I fund their website just because I visit it, I haven't decided it warrants the money yet.

If I decide the site is worth funding, like I have with many Zam sites I can allow their ads. 1 way of guaranteeing I will do that is provide a great website and make sure the ads do not intrude on my browsing experience.

When they start popping up all over the place on irrelevant keywords, I shall enforce the block, because you care more about money than my experience.
 
Rainmaker said:
Oh noes! :rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

If you are thinking of some huge site like IGN or Facebook then you might think "who gives a ****", but if you think of smaller guys like pro-gamers or game casters who stream their games on JustinTV and get a small amount of money for ads on their channel, then it does make a real difference to them. If you took away all their ad income they would have less incentive to stream and then you would miss out on that entertainment (assuming you are someone who enjoys watching high level games, leagues, tournaments and whatnot).
 
AcidHell2 said:
Is there anyone in this thread that have said it's theft. Think people are miss reading a lot of posts.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was going off the thread title, and the people defending the position put forward by the OP.

RationalGaze said:
The TV stations get paid based on predicted viewer numbers AFAIK, so during prime time (the time when there are the most viewers), ad time costs more. They have no way of knowing how many people actually watch each advert.

However on the internet they know exactly how many people are viewing an ad, therefore they don't have to rely on predicting numbers and can pay per ad view. Therefore if you don't view the ad on the site, the site owner/content producer will not get paid and you are in effect consuming their content for free.
Click to expand...

In both cases, I'm making a conscious decision not to look at an advert.

Are you saying that it's only theft if they know I'm choosing not to watch the ad?

If people didn't want their content being freely consumed, they shouldn't make it available to anyone with a telnet client.

*edit* follow on question: am I stealing their work if I use lynx? What if I disable javascript (many ad trackers require this to work)?
 
growse said:
Are you saying that it's only theft if they know I'm choosing not to watch the ad?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's theft, I was just clarifying the difference between not watching a TV ad (there is no way for advertisers to know this so they have to just pay the TV station based on predicted number of people watching the channel at that time) and internet ads, where they can tell exactly how many people viewed the ad and pay accordingly. So in theory the site could get absolutely no money if every visitor blocked ads and they would shut down.
 
RationalGaze said:
If you are thinking of some huge site like IGN or Facebook then you might think "who gives a ****", but if you think of smaller guys like pro-gamers or game casters who stream their games on JustinTV and get a small amount of money for ads on their channel, then it does make a real difference to them. If you took away all their ad income they would have less incentive to stream and then you would miss out on that entertainment (assuming you are someone who enjoys watching high level games, leagues, tournaments and whatnot).
Click to expand...

As it happens, I'm not. But I think I get your gist. The point remains. If a small individual or community effort springs up for MY benefit that I want to use, then I'll be the first one to put my hand in my pocket to pay towards the small costs involved. Just as I did donating to the Linux Mint forum, NZBMatrix, and many other community projects.

I won't, however, be punched in the face by thirteen ads because 'OMG it's free!'. That's just me.

As an aside, if such game streaming was to be popular nothing stops it being done over P2P using distributed (free) platforms. Even Skype fields calls over a similar structure although I realise it's now 'evolved' into a paid model.
 
Rainmaker said:
As it happens, I'm not. But I think I get your gist. The point remains. If a small individual or community effort springs up for MY benefit that I want to use, then I'll be the first one to put my hand in my pocket to pay towards the small costs involved. Just as I did donating to the Linux Mint forum, NZBMatrix, and many other community projects.

I won't, however, be punched in the face by thirteen ads because 'OMG it's free!'. That's just me.
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't implying you were a game-watching person, just English doesn't have a good impersonal pronoun anymore (it used to be "one" eg. "assuming one is someone who enjoys watching games"), so I had to use "you" which makes the sentence sound like I am talking about you specifically. :)
 
The trick is to use the ad blocker yourself but don't tell anyone else about it or install it for them. :D Let the rest of the mugs pay for the content.
 
1. The bandwidth you pay for is simply the connection to the Internet. It is not a right for you to have free access to all content. Lots of content costs money. Your mo they ISP bill is not paying for this.

2. If the majority of users start to use ad blocking software then more big sites will go behind pay-Walls or add more intrusive ads. Small sites and independents media outlets such as Twit.tv will go out of business.

3. This thread is full of bad analogies about TV advertising. Completely different setup to how Internet advertising works.

4. I don't know what sites some people go to but I've never seen a pop over or pop under or virus laden ad on any mainstream site. If one has one don't go back (or put a complaint in if it has a virus)

Using emotive meaning laden words like theft and stealing is as bad and stupid as it is in the piracy debate. What you need to know is that sites need to be paid for and when push comes to shove blocking adverts damages the smaller outfits far more than the big guys.

From what I can see a lot of people on the Internet are freeloaders expecting the world because they pay £7.99 for their bandwidth each month so that means they can just take take take.

It's your choice, just don't complaint when the hand than feeds you gets tired of being bit.
 
RationalGaze said:
Sorry I wasn't implying you were a game-watching person, just English doesn't have a good impersonal pronoun anymore (it used to be "one" eg. "assuming one is someone who enjoys watching games"), so I had to use "you" which makes the sentence sound like I am talking about you specifically. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah I figured. :) My point stands though. Such a hobbyist simply sharing his exploits for his fans/fellow enthusiasts has a myriad of free p2p-based video streaming methods to use.

The 'it's free so you need to see ads to pay me' argument is spurious at best. Either stay FREE and share your knowledge, or if you have to at least have the honesty to ask for money up front.

Quite relevantly, this wasn't there last week:

adblock-itv.jpg


Which is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Now I can CHOOSE to view ads, or go elsewhere. I'll go elsewhere. :)
 
Rainmaker said:
The 'it's free so you need to see ads to pay me' argument is spurious at best. Either stay FREE and share your knowledge, or if you have to at least have the honesty to ask for money up front.
Click to expand...
Why are you equating 'free' with 'advertisement-free'?

If looking at ads denotes some sort of currency exchange then methinks billboard companies 'owe' me a lot of money up until now... :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom