Firefox Ad Block users are THIEVES!

[Lamron]

If you're using the Firefox browser, try going to this site:

www.jacklewis.net

If you are using IE Tab to view the forums (recommended), you'll need to cut/paste the link to make it open in a regular Firefox window.



LOL! He contends that you are STEALING from his website if you read it without seeing the ads. And he can't understand why Ad Block won't give him (and every other website) the ability to make their extention completely worthless by disabling it for their site (and all others).



(non-Firefox users can see what we're talking about by going directly to the redirect page here: whyfirefoxisblocked.com/index1.php)

[RedRock]

What utter rubbish, says this happy firefox user. Besides, if you don't click on an ad on a website, the site doesn't get a penny, anyway, so having ads also load on a page doesn't get him anything except the chance someone will click on an ad, and it slows down users who don't care about ads anyway.

Sort of like the bad names credit card companies call people who pay off their balances every month!

[Lamron]

I guess I'm stealing from the TV networks too. I DVR almost everything I watch so I can fast forward through comercials. That generaly cuts an hour to about 40 min.

[Death's Shadow]

the networks were tossing a fit about tivo and dvr a while back but have not heard anymore about it for a while.. I also dvr most everything so I don't have to watch the commercials.

[RedRock]

RE: DVR and TIVO and VCR's that allow "commercial skip"--the site you get when you try that jacklewis.net site says this on it:

Judge Posner, elucidating the holdings of WGN v. United Video (1982) among others, reasoned in Aimster that:

“[Commercial-skipping] amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner’s income from his original program, since “free” television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers.”

Like free television broadcast content supported financially by advertising, much of the content on the Internet today is distributed free to end-users for an indirect exchange of advertisement revenue. When a user loads an ad-driven copyrighted website, he produces a copy of the work due to the inherent architecture of the Internet. If this user is using Adblock to screen out annoying advertisements, he is creating an unauthorized derivative work analogous to skipping television commercials. By the letter of copyright law, this practice would most likely be seen as an infringing use.

[Death's Shadow]

were do these wackos come up with this stuff..

I guess I feel that I pay for my TV viewing ( direct tv bill paid every month) there for I have the right not to view their stupid commercials that do little except insult my intelligence.

Same goes for my Internet use. I pay a bill to view what I want to view every month, not what people want to force me too see.

Im much more likely not to buy a product if im forced to view an add. That is why I don't understand the motivation behind pop up adds. If you annoy the crap out of a user all you do is piss them off, not gain a customer.

ohhh well I will get off my soap box for now.

[a Silly Person]

Red, I was reading that part about what the judge said about how television programing is financed. It seems to me that "free programing to the end-user" should be allowed to be paid for by either advertising revenues, or Viewers who wish to pay up front for zero advertising. Public radio is mostly funded by donating-members, at least that is what they have led me to believe.

I still don't understand the part where we pay for Cable TV and still get all the commercials.

[RedRock]

Silly, we pay for the delivery system of cable tv, not the programs themselves (or otherwise, hbo, showtime, etc. would all be included with the basic services). I am willing to pay for cable tv because of the clear signal and multiple channels effortlessly available, compared to airwave channels, even though it's the same program being broadcast over the airwaves.

I don't agree with that judge--we pay indirectly, not directly, for "free" tv shows through the prices we pay for goods and services of companies which advertise on tv--it's those companies that actually pay for the "free" tv shows--and directly through our time by watching the commercials and considering the products and services being advertised; who is the judge to say we must do both, or one more than the other, or even either one?

I have a vcr with commercial skip--it is able to record a show and during playback, it will automatically fast forward (and I mean really fast forward) every commercial. Nice, huh? Well, no, I actually enjoy some of the commercials, so I like to be able to choose when to fast forward or watch, so I actually have disabled the commercial skip function on the vcr.

[a Silly Person]

Yeah...(sigh) I know how that works.

I just wish that I didn't have to sit though what seems to be a 50% ratio of commercials vs. programs.

It seems to be getting worse as the years go by too.
Then again it could just be that my patience is getting shorter and not necessarily the programming...

[Gen.Savahoe]

what's a TV, Vcr, TiVo and a dvr.....them some new fangled devices fet the radio?

[RedRock]

sillyperson said:

Yeah...(sigh) I know how that works.

I just wish that I didn't have to sit though what seems to be a 50% ratio of commercials vs. programs.

It seems to be getting worse as the years go by too.
Then again it could just be that my patience is getting shorter and not necessarily the programming...

This is from wikipedia, and it mirrors my experience on non-syndicated tv (5 commercial breaks of 2 to 4 mins each per hour) but is perhaps too easy on the cable-only networks and syndicated shows (my experience with the latter: 8 minute program blocks followed by 4 mins advertising, total 40 mins program and 20 mins commercials per hour; examples, USA network, TNT network, even SciFi channel on old shows and movies). I hate it when a classic old tv show gets the theme music, ending 30 secs or 1 minute "ha-ha denouement segment" (esp. with Star Trek!), or even credits deleted on replays to make room for (even more) commercials. Ever see "The Rockford Files"? Started with a roughly 30 sec phone call to Rockford's answering machine, with usually a humorous or quirky call that often dealt with the plot line, followed by the (much loved) theme music and credits, but in syndicated reruns, that segment is almost always cut to allow for more commercial time). This is why I almost never watch a tv show in real time, even new ones; I tape and watch later (NCSI, Dr. Who) or I buy or check out (library) DVD's (and realize then that my "hour shows" will last only 44 to 48 mins, old or new shows, but are mercifully continuous):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_commercial

Advertisements take airtime away from programs. In the 1960s a typical hour-long American show would run for 51 minutes excluding advertisements. Today, a similar program would only be 42 minutes long; a typical 30-minute block of time includes 22 minutes of programming with 6 minutes of national advertising and 2 minutes of local (although some half-hour blocks may have as much as 29 minutes of advertisements).

In other words, over the course of 10 hours, American viewers will see approximately 3 hours of advertisements, twice what they would have seen in the sixties. Furthermore, if that sixties show is rerun today it may be cut by 9 minutes to make room for the extra advertisements. (Some modern showings of Star Trek, for example)

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the average length of a television advertisement was one minute. As the years passed, the average length shrank to 30 seconds (and often 10 seconds, depending on the television station's purchase of ad time). However, today a majority of advertisements run in 15-second increments (often known as "hooks").