Livejournal Bans Ad-Blocking Software

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."

Bandwidth is Not Free!

[shyampandit]

Well livejournal does need to pay for their bandwidth and running costs right?

With ad blockers getting more and more prevalent and sometimes getting installed by default with some firewall software, it might get problematic for websites depending on ad revenue.

Although I guess peopl installing ad blockers on their own, probably would just ignore the ads anyway.

Confusing Wording but is it Serious?

[logicnazi]

So here is the text of the rule:

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.

It is clear one thing this rule is aimed at is people changing their journal to block the ads on livejournal. This is perfectly reasonable and even slashdot doesn't let you foil their ads by posting cleverly formated comments on a story (not technically possible here I presume).

What is less clear is if this is intended to apply to people VIEWING livejournal content. After all you aren't even really acting as a livejournal user when you do this you are just reading someone's blog.

I think we just need to wait and see if this actually amounts to any changes or is just overbroad legal wording to cover their ass in unforseen circumstances. Remember there are all sorts of crazy conditions in some EULAs/TOS that don't necessarily amount to anything.

Good FUDding, Slashdot.

[BinaryOpty]

Good job, Slashdot, with your bullshit disinformative article blurb. Let's go over this like intelligent human beings and show why it's a non-issue:

Livejournal just recently added opt-in ads for users that would let them have pretty much all of the benefits of a paid user for the cost of having ads on their journals. After you opt-in to ads you can opt-out at any time and return to your ad-free cost-free journal. Free users viewing another free user's page, their own friends page, or a paid user's page will see no ads but they will see ads when viewing the journal page of someone who's opted for ads. Paid users will see no ads at all. Even so, all I've seen of these ads so far are Google ads. This is article is total FUD and should be tagged as such.

Re:Well, when you think about it...

[Baseball_Fan]

In the end, though, would you really give a shit if your LiveJournal suddenly went offline?

No.

I don't use livejournal or myspace or any website like that. I don't understand the allure of putting embarrasing photo's on the web, and telling the world about the time I puked in the backseat of my friends car. I figure that employers and anyone can search and find that info.

LJ is a cheap alternative to people who don't want to spend $5 to buy their own domain name and put up a website. Lets face it, that would be 100 times better than livejournal. There would be no restrictions on what you could do. If you wanted to share with the world a mp3 of a song you like, you could do that on your own website. You wouldn't get 100's of people viewing your website searching for something funny or a naked chick, but then would you want everyone to? Maybe you just want a place where friends can have access?

Livejournal is also filled with pages of "If you see this as the first post.... you know what to do". They are kind of annoying. There is nothing interesting on LJ.

I guess what we need is lots of replies with links to interesting livejournal accounts. Lets see the best of livejournal. Is there anything good there?

Re:Well, when you think about it...

[st0rmshad0w]

Bandwidth costs money, money comes from users or ads.

Or idiot VC's who give millions to people with essentially ZERO business plan.

If you don't pay, you get the ads, if you don't get the ads, you're basically stealing their bandwidth.

Bullshit. I've paid my ISP for my access. It isn't your bandwidth, and I can't steal what you're handing out for free anyway. Am I stealing "your bandwidth" if I use Lynx? Mentality like this drives me nuts. I loathe ads, they get blocked. I'll never understand how anyone would expect to earn money by using something that myself and most people I know routinely ignore or block. In any format.

Pot, meet kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when slashdot first introduced their annoying large square ads in the body of a story (this was around 2002), you could embed javascript in your own customized box to the right. This was used by some as a backdoor to prevent the annoying slashdot ads from loading. Next thing you know, slashdot prevents javascript from going into your own customized box citing security concerns.

One or the other

[bl00d6789]

People who block ads need to be prepared for subscription fees. Any content provider that relies on advertising for revenue will have to resort to subscriptions if viewers block or skip over their ads. 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.

Re:Well, when you think about it...

[Fett101]

Sure you could do that in a few lines of PHP, but Did you think about the fact that not everyone is in the IT field. How many LJ users do you think know how to use PHP? Not a heck of a lot I'm sure. Next thing you'll be complaining that people can't build their own cars or bake a cake from scratch.

Re:One or the other

[radja]

I disagree. there is no agreement between me and the content provider that I watch ads. the agreement is between the content provider and the ad provider. if I choose to block ads that is my choice, just like on TV. I have the right to consume less at the same price.

Re:You have to read the entire contract

[suv4x4]

You have to read the entire contract. It appears from the first several paragraphs that these limitations apply only to journal *owners* and not to readers:

But then it doesn't make sense, does it. The penalty is possible account termination. So what, if I install ad-block and jump from journal to journal I'm effectively doing a mass journal massacre.

So, beware, cause I'm installing it right now and coming.

raising revenue from ads is wrong headed

[Anonymous Coward]

the rise in use of tools like ad-blocker software indicates that the customer is unhappy with the use of advertising, or there is something wrong with the way advertising is being done that is turning the customers off. one of the principle tenets of all highly successful business people is "give customers what they want. in spades." the challenge now for businesses and those seeking to fund non-profit services on the web, is to find new alternatives to advertising that don't alienate their customers.

Re:Anticipated...

[moro_666]

you don't have to download and terminate the add :)

well at least kindof ...

you make the GET /banner/foo.gif query, but you just don't read the socket after that, you close it. this way there's no way for the server to tell if your connection just broke or you blocked the ad.

livejournal people, please try to understand that this will never ever work.

if they make a more complicated system on flash banners and javascript for checking if the user really got it, you can display the banner offscreen somewhere, so it won't be annoying you in the top of the page.

worthless effort from the ad people. perhaps they should make banners worth to look at instead.

Re:Anticipated...

[Splab]

Some think it's funny, but you know what? The main reason why I use adblocking software is the adservers are f***ing slow! The whole site hangs while the browser waits for the servers to get around to responding to the request.

If they want to make sure we watch the adds then dump them in the image dir ON THEIR OWN SERVERS! that way everything gets same speed and I wouldn't care, my brain filters out all the ads anyways.

Re:One-sided contracts are against contract law.

[honkycat]

Do most people pay for these services? I assume not. In that case, IMO, you don't have much of a leg to stand on. The TOS make it very clear that they may change in the future. If you aren't willing to accept the risk that you may have to move your content, then pay someone to host it with better terms.

These "contracts" are closer to being one-sided the other way -- the provider is letting you use their servers for free and only asking that you abide by their rules. What consideration are you providing them that would create a binding contract?

If you're paying for the service, it's a different game, but as I understand it, these are TOS for a free service.

Re:The REAL issue

[CleverBoy]

Quote: "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."

Exactly. There's a very STRANGE reaction I see, where people expect to get something for nothing, and get mad after circumventing the expected exchange, if the other side attempts to exercise options that effect their survival. Whether it comes to ads on a page or DRM, the option is always to stop using the service, and thereby send your final message. "This transaction is no longer worthwhile for me." Some people sound like they are feeding off of something parasitically, and became enraged when the host is dragged away, or becomes unsuitable.

I cannot abide by a world in which we possess so low a concept of our own dignity or so twisted a concept of fair trade. I'd almost rather people who complain would simply lose the ability to use such services immediately, than to see people constantly look for ways to have their cake, eat it too, and complain if this bargain is ever upset.

Re:The REAL issue

[Zak3056]

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.

Sure, I agree it's fair to say they don't have any contractual obligations. But at what point does this become extortion? "Start paying us for our previously free service, or you'll never see your data again" seems to fit the bill in this regard, I think.

Real world analogy: First National Bank of FOO offers me a free safe deposit box to store my stuff. Four years into our relationship, they decide I need to start paying for their service... and tell me that I have to pay their fee even if I only want to remove my items so I can take my business elsewhere.

Not that I think LJ would do this, mind you, I'm just addressing the point that was raised.

Re:Anticipated...

[sqlrob]

Boy that works really well against those that use IP.
Or the ones that keep changing the hosts.
Or against microsoft sites (on Windows).
Or against things that only vary by path (akamai hosted for example)

Re:No one has mentioned the most onorous bit

[LiquidCoooled]

Technically we should be able to display the first frame of a flash animation.
I did some work on the flashblock extension a while ago (bug fixes really, but took a good long look inside the code) and it does actually still flash the initial frame of the animation for a brief period.
Most of the time this first frame is blank so people don't notice, but sometimes its noticable.
Now, if there was a way to capture that image we would be able to hold it slightly dimmed with the flashblocker in place.
hmmmmm....

Re:Unfair on users who didn't subscribe

[crossmr]

They provide the content. No one is forcing you to look at it, if that person chooses to put ads in their content that is their choice and you can choose to stop reading their journal.

Re:The REAL issue

[npsimons]

You are using a service;

What service? The one I pay for to connect to the Internet?

you abide by the terms of the service provider.

Yes, I do; and last I checked, my ISP's terms of service don't require me to display every last piece of shit that's shoved at me.

Yes, said companies are allowed to change their Terms of Service in such a way.

Yes, they can. They can even print "you are a poopy head for using this service". Doesn't make it any more true, especially since I didn't agree to those terms.

It's their sandbox.

That's all well and good, until you realize it's not true.

It's not a "sandbox" by any definition, and it's definitely not "theirs". Last I checked, I paid for this computer, I paid for this monitor, and my hardware is running this browser and other software that I have legally acquired. What I choose to do with my property is my right, as long as it does not directly harm another against their will.

Even putting all that aside, are you going to insist that someone be forced to view their ads? That's tantamount to thought control. That sounds pretty fascist to me.

One last thing: I never went into an agreement with these people; I never signed any contract. If any agreement has been entered, it was entered by the content producers when they decided to put their content online without asking for money first. The agreement is, and always has been "if you put something up online without restricting it technologically, then you have no right to complain when someone accesses it however they please."

There is no limit in how far they can go. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service.

Yeah, maybe LiveJournal should have thought of it that way before they agreed to the implicit terms of the Internet: if they didn't want people viewing their content for free, they shouldn't have put the content online, or should have restricted technologically in a way that guarantees them compensation.

And if someone inserted such a 100 dollar a day term into their ToS, and such a ToS was accepted, then you deserve to be ripped off.

Except that I never accepted it, and LiveJournal doesn't have any technological restrictions to prevent me from viewing their content and blocking ads.

Such a misleading summary....

[wuie]

The summary is so misleading that it makes me want to cringe.

Livejournal used to have two different account types: free and subscription, both with no ads. Free journals are limiting in what they can offer, such as no place to store pictures, only 6 avatars, etc. Subscriptions give storage space for pictures, 12 avatars, all that fun stuff. If you just want to have a basic place to put your thoughts of the day, then the free account is all you really need. Subscriptions are for the bells and whistles.

This new third account type with advertising strikes a medium between the two. It allows users to have the bells and whistles of the subscription member, but for the price of free + advertisements on the journal. For some people, this is their blogging wish come true!

It has *nothing* to do with switching all free accounts to advertisement accounts. People with free accounts can still have their bare-bones journals sans advertisements. This is just merely making sure that if people opt to have advertisements on their sites in exchange for the goodies, that the advertisements *stay put*. It's the exchange that they make for not paying the subscription.

Real Meaning

[Hegh]

Did anyone actually read it as it is written? Here, I'll put the header of the section together with the subsection:

You agree to NOT use the Service to employ tactics and/or technologies to prevent the full and complete delivery or display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages, including 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.

So basically what it says is that you cannot use the LJ service to use or deploy ad-blocking software, but it says nothing about using ad-blocking software which you got someplace else which is not related to LJ.

Re:Problem with hosts...

[walt-sjc]

wa-la

I think you mean: voilà, but yes. There you go.

So?

[underpope]

I actually have no problem with this. For one thing, the /. headline is, as is often the case, misleading; LJ is actually introducing a new account level, "sponsored", which gives you some more features in exchange for allowing advertising on your LJ. You don't have to view the ads; if you have a free account and don't want ads, nothing will change for you. It's only if you want those extra features that you get ads on your LJ. So, if you enter into an agreement to allow LJ to deliver advertising to you in exchange for more features, then what's wrong with asking that you follow through on your end of the agreement by not blocking the ads? How is it a violation of my rights to ask that I fulfill my end of an agreement? How is it not a violation of their rights if I take their services and refuse to do anything in exchange for them? (And yes, I do have AdBlock installed, though primarily because much of the advertising on the web consists of flashy graphics and sounds that interfere with my ability to browse the web, and degrade my computer's performance. There's only so much I'm willing to do for the free stuff.)

Re:The REAL issue

[Derkec]

Your post is silly, I hope you see that.

The service in question is not the one you pay your ISP for. You pay for someone to move bits from one side of the internet to another. The service Live Journal provides is one that records what people enter into blogs and then serves that up.

If I say that to view my website you must hop on one foot, you either do so or violate our agreement. If I had a way to detect this violation, there's no reason I couldn't cut you off from my website.

You argue that you paid for your computer and can do anything you want to it. That's fine and true. But that doesn't mean you don't violate your argeement with someone when you block their ads. If the deal is that to view their website, you have to view the ads too, you should either view the ads or not go to the website.

Which brings me to the 'thought control'/'forcing to view ads' nonsense. It's bullshit. Noone forces you to go to that website. Noone holds you down, tapes your eyes open and scrolls it in front of browser. To call someone fascist because they say, "if you're not going to help us earn revenue, don't waste our bandwith' is absurd.

Now, you argue that they shouldn't try to stop you because it's technologically difficult. That's fine, and that's a business decision. But that doesn't mean that they are the ones who are in the wrong. If they say, see these ads or don't come to the site and you block the ads, you are being dishonest and are in the wrong. I don't hold that against you, but when you attack them over it, I do.