Maybe YOU ought to look up the definition of stealing. It says "given to or characterized by theft" in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
In Ohio, theft occurs when a person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, knowingly obtains or exerts control over either the property or services in any of the following ways through deception, threat, or intimidation.
I don't see any deception. I don't see any threat. I don't see any intimidation.
The bottom line? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink; you need to salt the oats. I fast-forward through some ads on television; others, I back up and play a second time.
And I don't have any problem with you putting unblockable ads on your pages. What I DO object to is Internet Solutions, popping up a window on my screen when I do a WHOIS that gives a "not a recognized protocol" message, and every time I try to close it, up pops another window with the same message, That's taking control of my computer beyond authorization, which would be a federal crime if I did it to them....
David Risley
· 1 year ago
I fail to see how the legal definition of theft in the state of Ohio is really relevant to the discussion.
And, yes, any ad that messes with the user's computer is VERY bad and unacceptable. But, that does not constitute the majority of banner ads you see on the Internet. Most ads are simply JPEG images.
Harl Delos
· 1 year ago
David, you said: "Using an ad blocker might be advantageous for the end user, but keep in mind that you are basically using the fruits of somebody’s else’s labor while going out of your way to make sure they see nothing in return. In the dictionary, that’s the definition of stealing. Look it up if you don’t believe me."
If the definition of stealing wasn't relevant, why did you challenge your readers to look it up? I took you up on your challenge, and I looked it up. I don't believe it's stealing in ANY state to refuse to waste your time, waiting for images you don't want to download.
A few years ago, presidential candidate Gary Hart issued a challenge to the press, saying "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored." So they followed him around, and sure enough, they found out that he was engaged in monkey business with Donna Rice aboard a boat named the Monkey Business.
I don't have time to make every mistake myself - I have to learn from the mistakes of others. Apparently, you expect to live a few more centuries than I expect to live.... But if you issue a challenge, you should expect that SOMEBODY may take you up on it.
archer9234
· 1 year ago
I agree that sites need ads to pay the bills. I have a simple rule: if the site has normal ads that only show pictures, and don't make you change the article page, every paragraph, to just those ****ing ads on each page, I will not block them. However, if the site switches to animated, or pop up ads, I will block the site ads forever.
archer9234
· 1 year ago
I agree that sites need ads to pay the bills. I have a simple rule: if the site has normal ads that only show pictures, and don't make you change the article page, every paragraph, to just those ****ing ads on each page, I will not block them. However, if the site switches to animated, or pop up ads, I will block the site ads forever.
justinleon
· 1 year ago
For sites like Myspace, YouTube or Facebook I will block ads without hesitation. If it is a independent site, I will probably allow them and maybe even click on ads that are of course relevant to my interests.
Still I don't think using a Ad Blocker has to do with stealing. Most advertising has gotten to the point of making my web experience annoying. I have no choice but to block them.
Aravind Jose T.
· 1 year ago
Advertising has its need to sustain the internet businesses. There is nothing wrong in placing ads.
People get annoyed when they see ads JUST EVERYWHERE. They resolve to using an AdBlocker, when they feels that the sole aim of the blog/site is to make money. If you ever create a feeling like that in the minds of a blogger, you can dead sure that, they wont see your ADs anymore.
Yes. I've ads on my blog. No ADs on the front page. One on top of the post and one at the bottom. I've made sure that it doesnt interfere with my content.
jacky
· 1 year ago
Basically the advertisers/merchants pay the website owners, this means the web designers dont work for free, but advertisers are paying them.
If everyone was to block ads, then advertisers would no longer pay webmasters because there is no need for ads........... so guess what, you the user will have to pay to view each and every webpage(pay 20p to check each email).
So would you rather pay to view each website? Or let the advertisers pay for you, and have to put up with targeted non-intrusive ads alongside your content. Which you actually would click. I click ads all the time because they are relative to my content. Affiliate links make up half the links on the web, you are missing out on a lot of good information. The fact that the link is being payed for does not always mean the link will take you somewhere you don't want to go.
Yes many websites use intrusive annoying ads, simple, dont go to those sites, those sites generally go out of business anyway because no one goes to them.
Without advertising how would you know about new movies coming out, new resteraunts to go to, the best locations to go on holiday? You would have a very boring life. The internet is a place advertising can live a rich life, bad advertising is easy to spot, so avoid those sites and enjoy the good advertising and the ability to browse the internet for free.
I am a webmaster, personally if all ads got blocked and advertising died, I could make a lot more money by charging people for viewing my website when that becomes the normal thing to do. But I don't want that, I believe in freedom. But then I could also do with a new house and car, so if you want to pay for it, keep blocking ads.
Colleen
· 1 year ago
It burns me that these rabid ad blockers are almost always guys with very highly paid secure jobs. The thing is those guys are virtually immune to advertising anyway and wouldn't actually click an ad, let alone buy anything because of advertising.
What I would like to have is nanodonations on my site: as in: I have no ads in this site. Would you care to chip in $0.01 -- worth a read $0.05 -- very nice read $1.00 -- THIS BLOG POST WAS VERY HELPFUL $20.00 -- THIS BLOG POST TURNED MY CAREER OR LIFE AROUND
If you tracked this on a post by post basis, you'd soon find out which your good posts are.
bluenut
· 9 months ago
"Advertising on the Internet is a common way to generate revenue. It is no different than watching commercials throughout a television program. If you want to skip the commercials, you pay some money for a DVR like Tivo. Well, on PCMech, if you want to skip the ads, you pay for the membership."
this is a fallacious statement. buying a DVR to skip TV ads is not the equivalent of buying a membership to your site to avoid seeing ads. buying a DVR to skip tv commercials still HURTS the network bcuz you're not necessarily buying the DVR from them as a trade-off to avoid commercials. why didn't you use the analogy of buying an ad blocker to avoid ads? yes, why didn't you use that analogy?
bluenut
· 9 months ago
also, blocking ads is NOT stealing. i am sick and tired of liberal-minded admins crying "THIEF" bcuz someone is preventing them from bringing in revenue they way they specifically want to. i am not stealing from you bcuz i am blocking ads. stop crying and charge a fee. if your site is worth the fee then people will pay you money. if not, your site will die a quick, agonizing death. deal with it. it's the future now. this is now things simply work.
robcthegeek
· 1 year ago
I'm with you man, Advertising has its place. This is provided its not in your face, obtrusive ad's (which I am sure they are not). In my younger days I would do everything I could on the net to get stuff for free. Blocking ads being one of them.
Now, I have a very different opinion. I am a firm believer in royalties. If you get something for free, and in order for it to be free it needs to be ad supported, so be it.
If I use the site/service so much that it annoys me, then on principle alone I should upgrade.
I think advertising only becomes a problem when it becomes obtrusive, unavoidable (i.e. not removed for paying members) and taking up more screen estate than the site content.
If I ever have a problem with a sites advertising system, I mail the guys running it. If they dont sort it, I then make a decision, stay? go? pay? Its not rocket science :)
All Comments
In Ohio, theft occurs when a person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, knowingly obtains or exerts control over either the property or services in any of the following ways through deception, threat, or intimidation.
I don't see any deception.
I don't see any threat.
I don't see any intimidation.
The bottom line? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink; you need to salt the oats. I fast-forward through some ads on television; others, I back up and play a second time.
And I don't have any problem with you putting unblockable ads on your pages. What I DO object to is Internet Solutions, popping up a window on my screen when I do a WHOIS that gives a "not a recognized protocol" message, and every time I try to close it, up pops another window with the same message, That's taking control of my computer beyond authorization, which would be a federal crime if I did it to them....
And, yes, any ad that messes with the user's computer is VERY bad and unacceptable. But, that does not constitute the majority of banner ads you see on the Internet. Most ads are simply JPEG images.
"Using an ad blocker might be advantageous for the end user, but keep in mind that you are basically using the fruits of somebody’s else’s labor while going out of your way to make sure they see nothing in return. In the dictionary, that’s the definition of stealing. Look it up if you don’t believe me."
If the definition of stealing wasn't relevant, why did you challenge your readers to look it up? I took you up on your challenge, and I looked it up. I don't believe it's stealing in ANY state to refuse to waste your time, waiting for images you don't want to download.
A few years ago, presidential candidate Gary Hart issued a challenge to the press, saying "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored." So they followed him around, and sure enough, they found out that he was engaged in monkey business with Donna Rice aboard a boat named the Monkey Business.
I don't have time to make every mistake myself - I have to learn from the mistakes of others. Apparently, you expect to live a few more centuries than I expect to live.... But if you issue a challenge, you should expect that SOMEBODY may take you up on it.
Still I don't think using a Ad Blocker has to do with stealing. Most advertising has gotten to the point of making my web experience annoying. I have no choice but to block them.
There is nothing wrong in placing ads.
People get annoyed when they see ads JUST EVERYWHERE.
They resolve to using an AdBlocker, when they feels that the sole aim of the blog/site is to make money. If you ever create a feeling like that in the minds of a blogger, you can dead sure that, they wont see your ADs anymore.
Yes. I've ads on my blog. No ADs on the front page.
One on top of the post and one at the bottom. I've made sure that it doesnt interfere with my content.
If everyone was to block ads, then advertisers would no longer pay webmasters because there is no need for ads........... so guess what, you the user will have to pay to view each and every webpage(pay 20p to check each email).
So would you rather pay to view each website? Or let the advertisers pay for you, and have to put up with targeted non-intrusive ads alongside your content. Which you actually would click. I click ads all the time because they are relative to my content. Affiliate links make up half the links on the web, you are missing out on a lot of good information. The fact that the link is being payed for does not always mean the link will take you somewhere you don't want to go.
Yes many websites use intrusive annoying ads, simple, dont go to those sites, those sites generally go out of business anyway because no one goes to them.
Without advertising how would you know about new movies coming out, new resteraunts to go to, the best locations to go on holiday? You would have a very boring life. The internet is a place advertising can live a rich life, bad advertising is easy to spot, so avoid those sites and enjoy the good advertising and the ability to browse the internet for free.
I am a webmaster, personally if all ads got blocked and advertising died, I could make a lot more money by charging people for viewing my website when that becomes the normal thing to do. But I don't want that, I believe in freedom. But then I could also do with a new house and car, so if you want to pay for it, keep blocking ads.
What I would like to have is nanodonations on my site:
as in:
I have no ads in this site. Would you care to chip in
$0.01 -- worth a read
$0.05 -- very nice read
$1.00 -- THIS BLOG POST WAS VERY HELPFUL
$20.00 -- THIS BLOG POST TURNED MY CAREER OR LIFE AROUND
If you tracked this on a post by post basis, you'd soon find out which your good posts are.
this is a fallacious statement. buying a DVR to skip TV ads is not the equivalent of buying a membership to your site to avoid seeing ads. buying a DVR to skip tv commercials still HURTS the network bcuz you're not necessarily buying the DVR from them as a trade-off to avoid commercials. why didn't you use the analogy of buying an ad blocker to avoid ads? yes, why didn't you use that analogy?
Now, I have a very different opinion. I am a firm believer in royalties. If you get something for free, and in order for it to be free it needs to be ad supported, so be it.
If I use the site/service so much that it annoys me, then on principle alone I should upgrade.
I think advertising only becomes a problem when it becomes obtrusive, unavoidable (i.e. not removed for paying members) and taking up more screen estate than the site content.
If I ever have a problem with a sites advertising system, I mail the guys running it. If they dont sort it, I then make a decision, stay? go? pay? Its not rocket science :)