German Court rules that ad-blocking is legal

[LAwLz]

Just another company protecting it's own interests. Adblock has been in the news recently by offering a premium service for advertisers to bypass adblock's screening, a "whitelist" if you will..... So basically this court decision backs adblock's business interests while blocking another company's within this court's slightly limited domain.....Yay adblock.

I thought It'd be better to provide at least one reference rather than be that guys that said that thing....

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-now-whitelisted-on-adblock-plus-10-pay-to-play/

Nice FUD you are spreading.

Here are some actual facts.

Adblock Plus comes with a white list which is enables by default. This can be turned off if you want (or even modified, it's just a text file).

In order for an ad to be added to the white list they have to be submitted and evaluated. Each add is evaluated by hand so big companies has to pay to submit their ads.

IF and only if the submitted ad is deemed non-intrusive (strikt and we'll defined guidelines can be found on their website) then it will be added to the white list.

A lot of people seem to think that it's some blackmailing scheme where as long as ad providers pay they can have their ads slip by the filter. That is not the case at all. You pay to have your ad evaluated and if it passes the well defined criteria your ad will be shown. It is also free to have your ad evaluated if you are a smaller company.

And in the end, the users have 100% control over the white list, and Adblock Plus are 100% transparent with which ads are in the white list.

Personally I think it is a good system.

yes but there are other ads on youtube.. If it was the only one I wouldn't.

So what you are saying is "I think it is okay for me to remove some ads because they got more ads anyway"? Seems a bit hypocritical. When you press the skip video ad button the content creators don't get money from that ad. The end result is the same as just blocking it to begin with.

[ADM-Ntek]

Most of the ad around the internet are malware or virus anyways. 

 

i can second that a friend of mine ran his browser without ad-block for about a year he ran malewarebytes a couple weeks ago over 1700 detection's. 

[Thony]

Do 5 sec long video ads and i wont have a fucking problem with any of them.

But when i have to sit and watch over 30sec ad then im getting pissed !

I dont mind ads on websites that are placed on sides of the page. I hate ones that take over your screen and force u to interact !

[nhatduy1611]

i can second that a friend of mine ran his browser without ad-block for about a year he ran malewarebytes a couple weeks ago over 1700 detection's. 

Did he click on all of them ?

[Orblivion]

I don't like ads.. But why should it be legal to block them.. people pay to put them there.. You can't block ads on TV, Radio, Billboards, why should the net be different?

Your (generally people on net, not you per say) using someones service that is provided for free as they can earn revenue through ads.. By blocking them your cutting off their revenue and may make the service nonviable.

 

I for one would prefer ads to no service from some places.. Though there should be a limit and tighter controls on ads IMO.

 

There is no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to block ads, but by the same token any website should be within their rights to deny access to people who use such services.

[79 Potatoes]

why would it be illegal?

[LAwLz]

Did he click on all of them ?

Most of those detections were probably tracking cookies. They are downloaded without you having to click on the ad and the only way to stop it is disable third party cookies (but then other sites might stop working properly) or block them.

Blocking tracking cookies is in my opinion just as morally wrong as blocking the ad to begin with.

[Pugs501]

why would it be illegal?

because they prevent Websites from getting Ad Revenue

[79 Potatoes]

because they prevent Websites from getting Ad Revenue

So...

[Sidiox]

I use ads only because of the stupidly long YouTube ads and autoplaying music ads on other websites.

I don't mind Linus's sponserspots. They are simply not annoying ads for stuff that I don't care about. I don't want to see another 30 second ad about how Lipton IceTea is gonna make my day amazing, I'd rather listen to Linus talk about Phantom Glass for 50 seconds. 

In that way more intrusive ads are better, but I'd rather just have the content creator be able to decide what ads they feature (the tech channels get the tech ads and the gaming channels get the gaming ads). If that would be the case I'd probably even disable adblock on youtube. 

[Sakkura]

because they prevent Websites from getting Ad Revenue

 

That's not what they argued in this case:

 

 

Zeit Online and Handelsbatt, two web publishers in Germany, sought to make the use of Adblock Plus - one of the most popular browser-based ad-blocking packages around - illegal in the country, arguing that Adblock Plus parent company Eyeo had no right to modify web pages it did not own.

[Sakkura]

I'd rather listen to Linus talk about Phantom Glass for 50 seconds. 

 

Best darn screen protectors out there...

 

Best darn screen protectors out there...

 

Best darn screen protectors out there...

 

Best darn screen protectors out there...

 

Best darn screen protectors out there...

 

:mellow:

[Sauron]

It doesn't really say why the judge favored Adblock. Why isn't it illegal?. I would like to know...

 

Because it is not your legal duty to watch an advertisement. It's as if you could be fined for not looking at advertisements while you're walking down a street. It's legal to put the ad there, that doesn't give you the right to force people to notice it.

[Doobeedoo]

Cool.

[Sidiox]

That's not what they argued in this case:

That argument....

So in that way any kind of injection of html and scripts is illegal? Something like the browser addon that fixes the night theme edits the webpage so it would be illegal, no? 

[Dzzope]

So what you are saying is "I think it is okay for me to remove some ads because they got more ads anyway"? Seems a bit hypocritical. When you press the skip video ad button the content creators don't get money from that ad. The end result is the same as just blocking it to begin with.

No, what I'm saying is they give the option to skip, so I skip as they have more ads that pop up during the video anyway.. If they didn't I'd just let them run.

[dalekphalm]

That argument....

So in that way any kind of injection of html and scripts is illegal? Something like the browser addon that fixes the night theme edits the webpage so it would be illegal, no? 

No.

 

They are one and the same. The Night theme Font Fixer add-on does not change the website. It alters your client side experience, and you voluntarily installed it. Much the same as Adblock does.

 

I suppose it could be argued that it would be illegal - but only if LMG specifically stated such things were against their rules.

[othertomperson]

Pretty much what you'd expect Germany to do. The whole point of adverts is data-mining and tracking, it's not as simple as "here's a product" any more.

 

This forum is pretty much the only exception I have in ABP.

[deusvult]

Adblock is a ratty ass bunch themselves. uBlock all the way. 

[Sidiox]

No.

 

They are one and the same. The Night theme Font Fixer add-on does not change the website. It alters your client side experience, and you voluntarily installed it. Much the same as Adblock does.

 

I suppose it could be argued that it would be illegal - but only if LMG specifically stated such things were against their rules.

Yeah, exactly. That is why I thought that argument was stupid in the first place. I'd way different if you were actually doing stuff to the website hosted on their server, but altering the page that yuo recieve on your pc doesn't seem like a very wrong thing, so their argument was a bit stupid imo. 

[othertomperson]

So what you are saying is "I think it is okay for me to remove some ads because they got more ads anyway"? Seems a bit hypocritical. When you press the skip video ad button the content creators don't get money from that ad. The end result is the same as just blocking it to begin with.

 

Wait is this how it works? They force you to sit through some amount of the ad before you can skip it so you've essentially seen everything you need to see anyway and then still don't give content creators the revenue of the ad you actually watched? Wow fuck YouTube.

[LAwLz]

Wait is this how it works? They force you to sit through some amount of the ad before you can skip it so you've essentially seen everything you need to see anyway and then still don't give content creators the revenue of the ad you actually watched? Wow fuck YouTube.

I'm not a partner so I don't know for sure, but I've heard quite a few people say that if you skip the ad it doesn't count. I don't know if that's true though.

 

 

 

These skippable ads are called TrueView ads. They are now (and have been for awhile) the only kind of ad available to advertisers setting up new video ad campaigns. (When you see ads that aren't skippable, these are campaigns that were set up before TrueView ads were the only available format, and have been running since then.)

 

If a viewer skips a YouTube ad in the first 30 seconds, neither the channel you're watching nor YouTube make any money because the advertiser doesn't pay for that as an ad view. The 5 second window is designed to give the viewer enough time to engage with the ad if they want to, but short enough that they don't mind it too much if it's not an ad they want to engage (without that 5 second window, many viewers would just position over the skip button as the page is loading and click before they even knew what the ad was about...possibly even before the ad loaded.)

 

and another reddit user saying the same thing.

 

You actually only pay once someone watches past the five second mark, which isolates those that actually show interest.

If you paid for every five second play, rather than plays longer than five seconds, you'd pay significantly more and for viewers that are on average less interested.

Also the simplest answer: there is a minimum video length for this ad format, though I don't know what it is.

 

 

This is the correct answer. Advertisers pay on a "per view" basis. To be considered a full "view" you have to watch past 30 seconds(source: I'm a certified Google partner for AdWords).

 

 

Just to ad a point on to this- The billing point for TrueView ads is 30 seconds OR the duration of the ad if it is shorter than 30 seconds.

So for a 15 second ad the advertiser will only pay if the person watches the entire 15 seconds. (source: I'm a YouTube certified partner for a TV company)

 

 

So yes, it seems like people who skip ads are just as "bad" and "not supporting the content creators" as the people who use AdBlock.

[othertomperson]

I'm not a partner so I don't know for sure, but I've heard quite a few people say that if you skip the ad it doesn't count. I don't know if that's true though.

 

 

 

and another reddit user saying the same thing.

 

 

So yes, it seems like people who skip ads are just as "bad" and "not supporting the content creators" as the people who use AdBlock.

 

The doublethink in their reasoning though. Giving a window before you can skip it because they don't want you to skip it before they see the ad, but that not counting as a view is ridiculous. It's super shady how little this is publicised, too. How many people avoid ad blocks and do this thinking that they are helping their favourite YouTubers? Must be loads.

[dalekphalm]

Wait is this how it works? They force you to sit through some amount of the ad before you can skip it so you've essentially seen everything you need to see anyway and then still don't give content creators the revenue of the ad you actually watched? Wow fuck YouTube.

As @LAwLz just pointed out, they only get the ad revenue if you watch a minimum of 30 seconds of the ad, or the entire length of the ad (whichever is shorter).

 

It's bullshit, forcing you to watch a portion of an ad and then still not crediting the channel unless you watch an optional amount more, but it's to show that you were "engaged" by the ad.

[dalekphalm]

The doublethink in their reasoning though. Giving a window before you can skip it because they don't want you to skip it before they see the ad, but that not counting as a view is ridiculous. It's super shady how little this is publicised, too. How many people avoid ad blocks and do this thinking that they are helping their favourite YouTubers? Must be loads.

Oh no doubt. I'm sure there are tons of folks who whitelist youtube, and click "skip" ASAP, thinking they are helping the channel, when in fact, they might as well just use Adblock in those cases.

 

I first heard about this several years ago, when TotalBiscuit was talking about various ad types, but there was lots of contradicting information back then, and no one could agree what the actual case was (And it was very frowned upon for Partners to discuss how the ad system worked).

 

I still sometimes click skip right away without waiting because it's habit, and I don't consciously think about it. I try my best to wait 30+ seconds though.