On 8/18/07, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(a)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.