Is using an ad-blocker a form of piracy?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian Howell

unread,
Sep 30, 2015, 7:33:43 PM9/30/15
to Ipse Dixit
Much of the internet's content is, of course, ad-supported. And without this—often sole—source of revenue, publishers are would have to seek other means of covering their costs—most likely charging for their products—or simply go out of business.

Apple recently introduced its iOS 9 operating system software for its mobile devices. Among the many features it gains over its predecessor is the ability to use ad-blocking tools with Safari (Apple's in-built Web browser). This has made many content providers very nervous. Ad-blockers are already well established on desktop machines and they are becoming more prevalent every day. Now providers are faced with losing much, if not the lion's share of mobile revenues as well; iOS accounts for nearly 60% of all mobile traffic. And this is occurring while many are reeling with an existing gradual but persistent decline in cost per-impression and per-click rates. 

It's not surprising that ad-blockers are becoming popular. Content providers are ever increasing the number and variety of ads on their sites as they strain to extract every last iota from their constituencies. Pages can now take many seconds to load and annoy users with self-playing audio and video, and flashing, spinning or sliding ad content panels.

But the key issue here is whether using an ad-blocker is in fact a form of piracy—as it was described in an article I recently read on the topic. Among the definitions of piracy in the OED is "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work." Now I haven't read a lot of web sites' terms of use, but last I had, none of them had a proviso that I had to view any incorporated advertising content. So is my viewing, say, of Salon with an ad blocker enabled constitute an unauthorized use? If not, then is it ethical? To this question I add that users of VCRs and DVD players have always enjoyed the freedom to fast-forward over trailers and other irrelevant content. (That is not true for Blu-ray players, though: discs played on players supporting the BD-Live standard can require the viewer to sit through an arbitrary period unrelated content before allowing playing of the principal content.)

Secondary question: can the Internet as a general concept shift to a customer pay-per-view model for third-party content? Tertiary question: and, if so, what harm (or benefit) will that do to people who will no longer be able favored sites because they cannot afford to pay for those sites' contents.


Scott Hotes

unread,
Oct 1, 2015, 11:04:47 AM10/1/15
to Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit
Is the use of ad blockers ethical?

Yes, I think so.  The most compelling argument against it being ethical that I have read is that when I visit a site there is an implicit contract between the publisher and I:  they provide content and in return I agree to be exposed to the ads they place on the page.

I disagree with this argument.  I don't believe I ever agreed to this contract.  I think it goes back to how the Internet itself evolved and whether by using ad blocking software I am "staying true" to the ethics that developed around this.  Here I think the "contract" looks more like this:

As a "publisher", I am free to put out onto the network any content I see fit (excluding of course illegal content such as child porn or whatnot).  I am also free to require that to access that content you pay me.  As a "consumer" of content, I am free to access whatever content I want, and "curate" it as I see fit.  That is, collect headlines, search for key words and only return paragraphs that have the word "Bieber", etc.  If it's text, I can use whatever font I want, I can use software that translates words into links to an online dictionary, etc., etc.  In my mind this would clearly include pulling out just the content I care about, and ignoring the ads.

One clarification:  by "pay me", I mean here in the normal, traditional sense.  That is, to access this piece of content, you pay me money, which could be a subscription fee, a one-time fee, etc.  I do not accept that a form of payment includes a certain amount of my attention.  That may be the deal you want to make, and think is fair, but I do not.  And yes, you could argue that thus that simply means I should then simply not collect the content, by the argument given above I disagree.

Also, I do think in certain cases, maybe most, that it is unethical to go about, collecting content, repackaging and reselling that content without consent from original publishers.  I am guessing that is out of scope for this discussion.

Another argument that I believe holds weight here is to consider the implications of making this kind of thing illegal.  It leads to a kind of destruction of value or promise that the Internet gives.  Basically allowing publishers and service providers a kind of control or ownership of the devices and software we use to consume content.  Zittrain did a great job of laying out this Draconian future in his book:  The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It.

Scott

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/721f6de9-046b-4617-bcd3-7199d5a7e2ea%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Craig Good

unread,
Oct 1, 2015, 12:44:33 PM10/1/15
to Scott Hotes, Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit

On Oct 1, 2015, at 08:04 AM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is the use of ad blockers ethical?
>
> Yes, I think so.


Is it ethical and legal to TiVo television shows and skip the commercials on playback? Yes, I think so. An ad blocker isn’t circumventing a pay wall, it’s editing the content presented to me according to my instructions.

Still, it will be interesting to see what shakes out of this Apple vs. Google war. Some smaller sites may be hurt.



--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com
Craig Good: Hypnopompic and loving it

jack saunders

unread,
Oct 1, 2015, 1:50:15 PM10/1/15
to Scott Hotes, Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit
I agree with Scott. 
If I steal a copy of the Chronicle from a news rack, I am violating the law. 
If I buy the paper and ignore the ads, I'm merely disposing of my purchase as I see fit.
 

From: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
To: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Is using an ad-blocker a form of piracy?

jack saunders

unread,
Oct 1, 2015, 1:57:56 PM10/1/15
to Craig Good, Scott Hotes, Brian Howell, Ipse Dixit
The optimists see ad blockers as a forcing function that will push advertisers toward ads that serve, rather than ads that hunt.
Subtle difference, but, in principle, it could  be much more efficient.....kinda like an opt-in ad market.
The tricky thing is getting sufficient pay back from an ad buy that targets only people who want to have their houses painted, or find a new dentist.
Most times ads pay off only if they nudge folks who haven't thought about such things yet.
Therein lies the nuisance factor.


From: Craig Good <clg...@me.com>
To: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 9:44 AM

Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Is using an ad-blocker a form of piracy?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/DB9D9EAB-01AE-4C0E-8121-8F7E4C822C16%40me.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages