DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > General Publishing Topics

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-04-2007, 06:24 AM   #5
ktinkel
Founding Sysop
 
ktinkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In Connecticut, on the Housatonic River near its mouth at Long Island Sound.
Posts: 11,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamback View Post
But right from the start of graphical browsers users have had the choice whether to show images or not. And there are text browsers - a browser isn't required to show images. And for a long time graphical browsers have supported user stylesheets. There are aural browsers. Browsers allow to store a local copy as text only, without any embedded content.
True enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamback
The idea that a page with its embedded ads forms a copyrighted design that must not be changed and must be rendered exactly as intended just doesn't fly - it's always been up to the user what to retrieve and what to show, and how; copyright actually allows you do do with your own copy what you like as long it's for personal use. That's true for newspapers and books and magazines (where the double-page ads are the most expensive - yet they are the easiest to skip!), etc., and it's equally true for web pages. And surely users have a right to decide where to download material from to look at, and not to visit (let their browser visit) certain sites - and that includes sites that do nothing but serve ads.
I do not think this is a copyright issue in any form; that would be a red herring. The small sites are arguing that the ads are a fiscal necessity and that visitors must accept them on that basis. No copyright about it; just good old capitalism at work. But as you say, just as we have no requirement not to go to the bathroom when the ads come on on TV, not to skip those obnoxious two-page ads (the stiff ones that disrupt easy reading or, worse yet, the ones that stink!), we are not compelled to look at ads on the web.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamback
So why the heck should AdBlock do anything special to make itself recognizable? None of the other methods of user control do.
Good point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamback
So if those "small webmasters" start blocking by behavior, what will you get?
In my case, a missing visitor. It would be a rare web site that would prompt me to fire up a special browser just to visit.

The accessibility issue is interesting. So far I see little impulse here to push for it on the web (or in buildings, for that matter), but we have an administration with a weak attachment to social values. This may change in the future.

   
__________________
[SIZE=2][COLOR=LemonChiffon]::[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ktinkel is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Safari vs secure sites ElyseC General Publishing Topics 47 01-24-2007 03:36 PM
Web Developer Web Sites dthomsen8 Business Matters 14 09-08-2006 03:35 PM
mp3 Sites PeterArnel The Corner Pub 27 05-12-2006 12:20 PM
URL Blocking dthomsen8 Web Site Building & Maintenance 3 09-29-2005 07:18 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.