On 8/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
TV != webpage cinema != webpage road != webpage
webpage different. Each medium is different. Each has it's own laws. Analogies do not work in the legal sphere.
Yes, webpage is different, but intrusive advertisements are the same as intrusive billboards, and there are laws against intrusive billboards. There are regulations against advertisement tickers taking too much space on a tv screen.
Talking of analogies, if adblock is deemed illegal, should we give the same treatment to pop-up blockers? How about adware removal software?
The issue here is greed. If you have good content, more people will visit your site, but if that content is hidden amongst a plethora of relevant and irrelevant ads, they may as well visit your cleaner competitor. If you have mediocre content, and try to stay in business solely by maximizing the number of ads you serve, you better take a re-look at your business model. This law works as well for newspapers and magazines.
Just as you pay money to watch tv or go to a movie, you also incur cost to use the internet in terms of bandwidth, equipment and time, although the website you use may provide free content.
However, there is no accounting for taste, and I prefer to be bothered by no more than a text based ad placed discretely, no matter what it says. If people prefer .SWFs scrolling all over prime real estate on the screen, let them disable adblock, or use Windows Internet Explorer (TM). But at least do not cast aspersions on a much-needed annoyance removal utility because your cloistered , cliché-ridden business model has been rendered redundant.