Livejournal Bans Ad-Blocking Software 434
Anonymous Emo writes "The community/blogging site LiveJournal recently introduced ads on some pages for free users. More interestingly, they also added a new restriction to their TOS (XVI 17 b.) banning users from using or providing ad-blocking software. The new TOS also permits them to immediately terminate the account of anyone they catch doing this."
just for journal owners (Score:5, Informative)
You sure? (Score:3, Informative)
The relevant clause:
17. Employ tactics and/or technologies to prevent the full and complete delivery or display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Making journal style changes, customizations, or overrides that effectively block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on a Sponsored+ account's Content or other pages within the Service.
2. Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages.
Re:just for journal owners (Score:5, Informative)
You have to read the entire contract (Score:5, Informative)
Somebody needs to learn how to read (Score:5, Informative)
Geeze
Problem with hosts... (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing new (Score:4, Informative)
An important point (Score:4, Informative)
No one's forcing you to view the ads. You're agreeing to see them to get more features on your (free!) account. You can also pay $20 for an entire year and get even more features and no ads.
Only a matter of time... (Score:2, Informative)
Adblock can download, but not display! (Score:5, Informative)
Most Misleading Summary of the Year (Score:4, Informative)
Second, the TOS change means that members cannot sign up for a Sponsored+ account and then attempt to jack with the layout so that the ads don't appear.
Wow.
Great spin, lousy accuracy. (Score:1, Informative)
Nothing confusing about it. (Score:3, Informative)
To back up this line of though, I browesed the ToS.
I. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
"LiveJournal, blah blah provides the following service to you, subject to these Terms of Service ("TOS") blah blah blah. Failure to comply with these TOS may result in account revocation."
So, when you put that together with their wording about blocking ads, it obviously applies only to those who have an account (and consequently accepted the TOS).
There's always been ways to get around auto-inserted ad code. The guy who runs http://www.cexx.org/ [cexx.org] has a selection of simple tricks that you can use to defeat some of the more obvious ad-insertion techniques. Just scroll down to "Free" Webpage Providers.
Mebbe he should update his site to include CSS and other sneaky ways to defeat the current set of 'free' sites.
Re:You have to read the entire contract (Score:4, Informative)
XII. ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS
You understand and agree that some or all of the Service may include advertisements and that these advertisements are necessary for LiveJournal to provide the Service. You also understand and agree that you will not obscure any advertisements from general view via HTML/CSS or any other means.
To me, the bit saying 'from general view' sounds like the key - it doesn't mean I can't use Adblock or whatever to stop me from seeing the ad, but does mean I can't use anything to stop everyone else from seeing it. (Insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.)
(On another point, if I use Adblock to block ads from a site, how easy is it for them to tell that I've done so, and to narrow it down to a specific ad blocked from a specific site on a specific visit?)
Re:Problem with hosts... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anticipated... (Score:5, Informative)
Um no, you are an idiot (Score:1, Informative)
So yes, ad blocking is stealing. Or then again, you are just a cheap fucking bastard who is having problems with denial.
Re:Somebody needs to learn how to read (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure...
What about b? By the letter, it seems to deny at least some people the use of ad-blocking software. Or maybe it just says that users can't "use the service to employ" ad-blocking. What's that mean? You can't link to it? Talk about it?
The first one (a) seems reasonable to me. B should at least be made more clear.
LJ-nifty (Score:4, Informative)
Most important about that uniqueness was the contempt Brad Fitzpatrick [livejournal.com] (founder) had/has for advertising. See his post here [livejournal.com]. So Livejournal adding ads, even if they are opt-in (the free / no-ads option is still available; the ads just get you the features that were previously for Paid accounts only) - is a big deal for LiveJournal.
Now, finally my point - the B. part of that ackward ToS means this for LJ users: "Don't post scripts to LJ-nifty [livejournal.com]," a community on LiveJournal where quasi-crafty scripts are frequently posted. That's what they're talking about without talking about it. Lawyers just don't know how to get to the point.
Re:You have to read the entire contract (Score:3, Informative)
If you are blocking (not hiding) ads and they serve the ads themselves it should be feasible for them to notice that you did n ot in fact download all the content of the page. If they have a separate ad provider with their own servers it's more likely they will only note the aggregate effect of fewer viewed ads than pages visited over time.
Of course, if you set Adblock to hide rather than block, they don't know you didn't see it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:One-sided contracts are against contract law. (Score:2, Informative)
Congratulations, you just discovered "adhesion contracts"
Something that has been considered by both the courts and the legislature in depth for a very long time and has been (fairly often) been ruled against big companies in many situations and cases.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhesion_contract [wikipedia.org]
Re:jumping ship (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You sure? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well, when you think about it... (Score:3, Informative)
They're adding a new level. They used to have a free and rather limited account, and a paid account with fewer restrictions. They're now adding a "sponsored" account. You get more of the "paid" features, but instead of paying, you agree to have ads placed on your site.
This whole change in TOS is about you not signing up for the sponsored account and then turning around and trying to use code in your site to block the ads or keep site visitors from seeing them.
The "free" account is still without ads.
From their site:
For Free account holders: You don't have to display ads on your journal or Friends page or view ads in the LiveJournal site pages. We're committed to keeping the Free account level available to you, and it's your choice if you'd like to opt in to the Sponsored+ level or purchase a Paid account.
Re:Well, when you think about it... (Score:4, Informative)
And they have to pay for theirs -- bandwidth is needed for servers as well as clients. When you pay money to an ISP it only covers your end of the connection, none of the money goes to people running the other end :-P
It isn't your bandwidth
So how are they sending you data?
and I can't steal what you're handing out for free anyway.
Much like things on a shop shelf are "free"; sure you can take them and walk out of the shop, but the business model relies on customers paying, be it cash or ad views.
Good scare, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Good scare, but I don't think this is really all that bad.
I think GeoCities has had this sort of bit on their ToS for quite a while. Basically, "We're serving ads on your web page. There's nothing you can do about it, and if we find out you've been trying to nuke the ads, we ban you."
They're not going to ban AdBlock users. They're going to ban people who use the ad-supported Sponsored+ things on their own journals, and try to sneak around the ad-displaying code.
If they'd really try to ban AdBlock users, they'd have to open a completely idiotic, uncontrollable, and not to mention bloody and oh-God-does-this-ever-make-us-look-bad can of worms. I mean, ban everyone who browses with elinks, or just turn the JavaScript off. That would be a lot of banhammering and a lot of displeased users and not to even mention lost potential customers.
Re:Problem with hosts... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anticipated... (Score:3, Informative)
*See Wikipedia for an explanation of the competing versions of "Adblock Plus [wikipedia.org]"
Re:The REAL issue (Score:5, Informative)
Its parent post is better, but equates this TOS change with "What if they suddenly insert a term that forces all their users to pay $100 a day or leave without even a change of retaining their data."
Crazy!
This is SO far off base from the reality of Livejournal.
If they want to start charging you for the service, I imagine they would at minimum have to provide you with a reasonable amount of time to become aware of the change and accept/consent. More likely, they'd have to get a positive indication of your acceptance in order to begin billing you.
Livejournal has offered both free and paid accounts for years.
Livejournal has a long history of giving advanced notice about planned changes, and inviting discussion, and keeping things compatible
On top of all that, the addition of ads is on an entirely new class of account. Yes, that's the truth. Rather than force ads onto everyone who has traditionally had ad-free accounts, they're leaving all those free accounts as they were, and adding a new class of account with a level of service above the free acct but below the paid acct, which is "paid" by the ads.
That is the real truth here, which is easily verified by reading the news over on Livejournal.
They're not suddenly forcing people to pay. They're not even changing the free accounts. And they DID talk about this for some time, in public, and invited discussion.
My point is, the Livejournal folks are pretty good people, trying to do their best. You wouldn't know if from all this ranting here, but it's pretty easy to see if you go check out the site and read what they're doing.
However, unless they'd made an explicit commitment to allow you access to get your files off their servers, I don't see any reason why they couldn't just cut off your access entirely until you agree to pay for the service. Unless you're paying for the service already, it's unlikely they have any contractual obligations toward you.
What if, what if, what if, and so on.
Livejournal has a very long history of great service. They have a great reputation, and it's a well deserved one.
Back here in the real world, what matters is not so much what theoretically would or wouldn't matter in a court. Livejournal is one of many free/inexpensive services, which are almost universally used by individuals for personal communication. This just isn't the sort of thing that goes to court over a dispute. Any "mission critical" blog is going to be hosted using its own domain name.
In reality, what matters is Livejournal's reputation, and that reputation depends mostly on how they treat their users, both free and paid. All this ranting is just nit picking about the TOS. What truly matters is what they actually DO. And I highly doubt it will be evil, given their very long history.
There's just one last bit of profound-lack-of-perspective to comment on,
Of course, IANAL... but I always assume any free service I use on the web (or anywhere else) is a fleeting thing that may vanish without notice. It generally seems fair to me, given that I'm getting something for nothing.
Certainly a business would want to use its own domain name.
But for individuals looking for a free service, Lifejournal has been operating for 7 years, and they have a successful business model based on maintaining free and paid accounts.
Yeah, in theory they could vanish tomorrow. But that's about an unlikely as slashdot, yahoo, google, and every other MAJOR successful website offering free services suddenly doing dark.
Re:One or the other (Score:3, Informative)
Why?
This falacy is called "false dichotomy". Either view ads, or pay subscription. The falacy is the exclusion of other options, such as more sophisticated ad blocking software that tricks the site into believing the ad is shown. Or the site moving to a different revenue model. Or advertising adapting (eg, product placements). Or lowering the cost of producing and delivering the content.
Any content provider that relies on advertising for revenue will have to resort to subscriptions if viewers block or skip over their ads.
I would beg to differ.
Witness the repeated failure of micropayments. I tend to agree with O'Reilly, that anymore more than "free", no matter how little, requires spending decision making effort. It's just too high a barrier for many types of content.
I believe there will always be a vast "market" for free content. Perhaps ads will continue to finance content production? Perhaps not. But the market will remain (unless O'Reilly turns out to be dead wrong and someone does figure out the utopia of micropayments), and content producers will adapt. Perhaps not the existing ones, but someone will. There's simply so much demand, and I'm confident there are smart people out there who will find ways to meet that demand, and make a profit in the process.
In my opinion, if you choose to block ads, that is your choice. It's your hardware and you should be able to decide what your computer downloads and displays. But once you've made the choice to block ads, don't complain when you have to fork up a couple bucks a month for everything you once got for free.
Why not complain? Certainly, most people will "complain" by simply not paying, and going elsewhere to find what they want.
And I'm confident there will be an "elsewhere", at least for anything mainstream. I don't claim to know if ads will continue to play a role in the future, or if other models will dominate, and certainly not what those models may be.
But already, a free/premium model is emerging, which has worked on slashdot and for years for Livejournal (and now, a free(no ads)/ad-supported/paid model is being tried). They've already been quite successful, and if this new approach works... it could mean the way of the future might be a combination of free WITHOUT ads, enhanced service with ads, and premium service with payment. That sounds quite different from dichotomy of "free with ads or pay up for no ads", doesn't it?
But whatever happens, I believe the disappearance of free content is very, very unlikely, regardless of the viability of ads. There's simply too big a "market" and too many smart and creative people.
Re:Way to go! (Score:3, Informative)
ToS Will Be Changed, Says LiveJournal (Score:3, Informative)
At least according to Brad FitzPatrick [livejournal.com]. Basically, the lawyers went a bit bonkers, and the people who were supposed to review it didn't.
For those who don't want to click through:
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)